Is the abundance brought by AI a trap? Economists: Wealth distribution is the biggest challenge.

Written by: Ben Spies-Butcher

Compiled: Heart of the Metaverse

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a hallmark technology of our era, but how it will ultimately shape our future remains a highly controversial issue.

For technological optimists, they see AI as a tool to improve life, believing it heralds a future of material abundance.

However, this result is far from certain. Even if the technical potential of AI is realized and those previously difficult problems are solved, how will this "abundance" be utilized?

In the food economy of Australia, we can already see this contradiction on a smaller scale. According to Australian government data, the country wastes approximately 7.6 million tons of food each year, with a per capita waste of about 312 kilograms.

At the same time, 1 in 8 Australians faces food shortages, primarily because they do not have enough money to purchase the food they need.

What does this indicate? It indicates that we are inadequate in our ability to fairly distribute the abundant fruits promised by the artificial intelligence revolution.

AI may break the existing economic model

As economist Lionel Robbins articulated when laying the foundation of modern market economics: economics studies the relationship between "ends (what we want)" and "scarce means of various uses (what we have)."

The operational logic of the market is considered to be "allocating scarce resources to infinite demand." Scarcity affects prices, which is the cost people are willing to pay for goods and services; while the expenditure demand for necessities of life forces (most) people to earn money through work, while producing more goods and services.

The promise of AI to "bring prosperity, solve complex medical, engineering, and social issues" is in irreconcilable contradiction with this market logic.

This is directly related to the concern that "technology will lead to millions of workers losing their jobs." If people lose paid employment, how will they earn money? How will the market operate?

Meet our needs and desires

However, it is not only technology that leads to unemployment. A relatively unique characteristic of a market economy is that even when resources seem abundant, it can still result in a situation where large-scale demand remains unmet through unemployment or low wages.

As economist John Maynard Keynes revealed: economic recessions and depressions may be products of the market system itself, even when raw materials, factories, and labor are in a state of idleness, many people still fall into poverty.

In Australia, the recent economic downturn was not caused by market failure, but rather stemmed from the public health crisis brought about by the pandemic. However, this crisis still presents economic challenges for the "technology-driven prosperity," revealing a potential solution.

At that time, the government increased subsidy amounts, canceled work tests, and relaxed economic condition investigations, which significantly alleviated poverty and food shortages even though economic production capacity declined.

Many countries around the world have also implemented similar policies, with over 200 countries introducing cash payment measures. This practice during the pandemic has further propelled the call to "combine technological advancement with universal basic income."

The Australian Basic Income Laboratory is focusing on this as a research priority, and the laboratory was jointly established by Macquarie University, the University of Sydney, and the Australian National University.

If everyone could receive a guaranteed income sufficient to cover basic necessities, the market economy might successfully complete its transformation, and the dividends brought by technology could also be shared more broadly.

Is it a benefit or an entitlement?

When discussing universal basic income, we must clarify its definition, as certain versions of universal basic income schemes may still lead to significant wealth inequality.

My colleague Elise Klein from the Australian Basic Income Lab and Stanford University professor James Ferguson argue that Universal Basic Income should not be designed as "welfare," but rather as an "entitlement share."

They believe that the wealth created through technological progress and social cooperation is the result of collective human labor and should be regarded as a basic human right to be equally enjoyed by all, just as we view a country's natural resources as collective property of the citizens.

The debate about universal basic income predates the current issues raised by AI. In the early 20th century, a similar wave of concern emerged in the UK: industrialization and automation drove economic growth, yet did not eliminate poverty and instead posed a threat to employment.

Earlier, the Luddites attempted to destroy the new machines used to lower wages. Market competition may stimulate the drive for innovation, but it also shows great inequality in distributing the risks and rewards of technological change.

Basic services for all

In addition to resisting AI, another solution is to change the socioeconomic system of "distributing AI dividends." British writer Aaron Bastani has proposed a radical vision of "fully automated luxury communism."

He welcomes technological progress, believing it should be able to improve living standards while providing people with more leisure time. This vision is a radical version of the "moderate goals" articulated in the recently favored book "Abundance" by the Labour government.

Bastani's preferred solution is not universal basic income, but universal basic services.

Instead of giving people money to buy what they need, why not provide essential goods directly - such as free healthcare, care, transportation, education, energy, etc.?

Of course, this means changing the way AI and other technologies are applied—in essence, socializing their use to ensure that technology meets collective needs.

Utopia is not inevitable.

The proposal for universal basic income or universal basic services indicates that, even from an optimistic perspective, AI itself is unlikely to bring about a utopia.

On the contrary, as Peter Frase elaborates: the interplay of technological advancement and ecological collapse may give rise to radically different futures, with these differences not only reflected in our collective productive capacities but also in how we politically determine "who gets what" and "under what conditions."

Tech companies run by billionaires wield tremendous power, which may herald a form of "tech feudalism" as described by former Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis, where control over technology and online platforms gives rise to a new authoritarianism.

Waiting for the arrival of the technological "rebirth" will cause us to miss the true possibilities of the present. We already have enough food to feed everyone and we already know how to eliminate poverty. These do not require AI to inform us.