AI’s Promised Abundance Sparks Debate on Fair Distribution

Sydney, Aug 19 (The Conversation): Artificial intelligence (AI) is arguably the defining technology of our time, yet its future impact remains a subject of debate. While techno-optimists foresee a future of material abundance driven by AI, what this means for society is unclear.

Despite the potential of AI to solve complex problems and create abundance, there remains the pressing issue of how this will be utilized. For instance, in Australia, around 7.6 million tonnes of food are wasted annually, despite one in eight citizens experiencing food insecurity due to financial constraints.

This raises questions about whether resources brought about by AI will be distributed fairly. The integration of AI could disrupt our economic model. As articulated by Lionel Robbins, modern market economics focuses on allocating scarce resources to meet unlimited demands. But with AI promising abundance, the relationship between scarcity and economic functionality is challenged, which could be exacerbated by concerns of job displacement.

Massive unemployment due to technology is not the sole driver of joblessness in market economies; systemic issues also play a role. John Maynard Keynes demonstrated that recessions may result from the market system itself, causing poverty despite existing resources.

The recent economic downturn in Australia, driven by the pandemic rather than market failure, highlighted a potential solution to the new economic challenge. During this period, changes to government benefits significantly reduced poverty and food insecurity, despite reduced economic productivity.

This experience has fueled global discussions around implementing a "universal basic income." Researchers in Australia, including those from the Australian Basic Income Lab, are exploring this concept as a way of ensuring technology-fueled abundance is shared equitably.

In discussing universal basic income, it's crucial to consider how it could affect wealth inequality. Some advocate for this income as a "rightful share" of wealth, arguing that technological advancements and social cooperation are collective human achievements that should benefit everyone equally, much like a nation’s natural resources.

These debates are longstanding, reminiscent of early 20th-century discussions during industrialization and automation in Britain. The controversies surrounding technological change aren’t new, as evidenced by historical resistance movements like the Luddites.

An alternative to a universal basic income is to rethink the distribution of AI gains through "universal basic services." Rather than giving individuals money, societies could directly provide essentials such as healthcare, education, and energy for free. This would require recalibrating the application of AI technology to prioritize communal benefit.

No one can guarantee that AI will lead to a utopian society. Proposals such as universal basic income and services underscore that AI alone won't achieve this ideal. As Peter Frase outlines, technological advancement paired with ecological challenges can produce varied outcomes, dependent on political decisions regarding resource distribution. The current dominance of tech giants hints at a scenario reminiscent of "technofeudalism," a concept described by Yanis Varoufakis, signaling a shift away from democratic and market-based systems to a more controlled technological dominion.

Relying on a technological utopia overlooks actionable solutions available now; the world already produces enough food, and methods to eradicate poverty are known. We don’t need AI to illuminate these possibilities. (The Conversation) SKS GRS GRS

(Only the headline of this report may have been reworked by Editorji; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)