Sydney, Aug 18 (The Conversation) – Artificial intelligence (AI) stands as the defining technology of our era, yet its future impact remains hotly debated. For the techno-optimists, who envision AI enhancing our lives, it suggests a future brimming with material abundance.
However, this outcome is not assured. Even if AI's technical potential is fully realized, leading to solutions for daunting problems, how will this abundance be distributed? This question is already playing out on a smaller scale within Australia’s food economy. The Australian government reports that around 7.6 million tonnes of food are wasted annually, equating to about 312 kg per person.
Conversely, about one in eight Australians experience food insecurity, primarily due to a lack of financial means to purchase essentials. This situation raises concerns about our capacity to equitably distribute the potential abundance offered by an AI revolution.
As economist Lionel Robbins highlighted in establishing modern market economics, economics involves the study of relationships between ends (our desires) and scarce means (our resources) that have alternative uses. Markets function by allocating scarce resources to satisfy limitless wants. This scarcity influences prices and compels most of us to work in exchange for money to produce goods and services.
The promise of AI delivering abundance and solving intricate medical, engineering, and social problems challenges this market logic. It also ties into fears that technology may render millions jobless, raising the question of how markets and individuals will function without paid employment.
Unemployment is not solely a result of technological change. Market economies uniquely generate mass want amidst apparent abundance, as seen in cases of unemployment and low wages. Economist John Maynard Keynes demonstrated that market systems can cause recessions and depressions, leading to widespread poverty despite idle resources.
In Australia, the recent economic downturn did not stem from market failure, but from a public health crisis during the pandemic. Nevertheless, this scenario highlighted a possible solution to the economic challenge of tech-driven abundance. Alterations to government benefits, such as increased payments and eased means-testing, significantly reduced poverty and food insecurity even as economic productivity declined.
Similar policies emerged globally, with more than 200 countries instituting cash payments, reinforcing calls for coupling technological progress with a "universal basic income." This is a focus area of the Australian Basic Income Lab, a partnership involving Macquarie University, the University of Sydney, and the Australian National University.
If a guaranteed income covered essential needs, market economies might better navigate the transition, potentially allowing technology's benefits to be widely enjoyed.
When discussing universal basic income, clarity is vital. Certain versions might leave significant wealth disparities. Elise Klein and Stanford Professor James Ferguson advocate for universal basic income as a “rightful share” rather than welfare. They argue that wealth generated from technological advancements is the collective work of humanity, warranting equal enjoyment by all, akin to a nation’s natural resources being the collective property of its people.
Debates about universal basic income predate current AI concerns. Similar interest surged in early 20th-century Britain as industrialization and automation fueled growth without eradicating poverty and posed threats to employment. Earlier still, Luddites aimed to destroy new machines that drove down wages. Market competition incentivizes innovation, but it also distributes the risks and rewards of technological advancement unevenly.
Instead of opposing AI, one solution is to modify the social and economic structures that allocate its benefits. UK author Aaron Bastani envisions “fully automated luxury communism,” embracing technology advancements to allow more leisure alongside improved living standards. Bastani favors universal basic services over universal basic income.
Rather than providing people money to purchase what they need, why not directly offer necessities such as free health, care, transport, education, and energy? This approach would necessitate altering how AI and other technologies are applied to ensure they address collective needs.
Proposals for universal basic income or services underscore that even in optimistic scenarios, AI alone is unlikely to create a utopia. As Peter Frase notes, the convergence of technological progress and ecological collapse can forge varied futures, affecting our collective production capacity and how we politically decide on resource distribution.
The immense influence of tech companies led by billionaires suggests a scenario resembling what former Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis dubs “technofeudalism,” where technological and platform control supplant markets and democracy with new authoritarian structures.
Waiting for a technological nirvana ignores current possibilities. We already have sufficient food for everyone and know how to end poverty. AI is not needed to instruct us on this matter. (The Conversation) SCY SCY
(Only the headline of this report may have been reworked by Editorji; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
