Written by: Ben Spies-Butcher

Translated by: Heart of the Metaverse

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

For technological optimists, AI is seen as a tool for improving lives, heralding a future of material abundance.

However, this outcome is far from guaranteed. Even if the technological potential of AI is realized and it solves previously intractable problems, how will this "abundance" be utilized?

In Australia's food economy, 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 an average waste of about 312 kilograms per person.

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

What does this indicate? It shows that we are inadequate in fairly distributing the abundant outcomes promised by the AI revolution.

AI May Disrupt Existing Economic Models

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

The logic of market operation is considered to be "allocating scarce resources to infinite demands." Scarcity affects prices, i.e., the cost people are willing to pay for goods and services; while the expenditure needed to meet basic necessities forces (most) people to earn money through work, simultaneously producing more goods and services.

The "abundance promised by AI, solving complex medical, engineering, and social problems," presents an irreconcilable contradiction with this market logic.

This directly relates to concerns that "technology will lead to millions of workers losing their jobs." If people lose paid work, how will they earn money? How will the market function?

Meeting Our Needs and Desires

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

As economist John Maynard Keynes revealed: economic recessions and depressions can be products of the market system itself, where even with raw materials, factories, and labor idle, many people still fall into poverty.

In Australia, the most recent economic downturn was not triggered by market failure but stemmed from a public health crisis brought on by the pandemic. Yet this crisis still highlighted the economic challenges faced by "technology-driven abundance," revealing a potential solution.

At that time, the government increased subsidy amounts, eliminated work tests, and relaxed economic status investigations; even as economic production capacity declined, issues of poverty and food shortages were significantly alleviated.

Many countries around the world also implemented similar policies, with over 200 countries introducing cash payment measures. This practice during the pandemic further propelled calls for "combining technological advancement with universal basic income."

The Australian Basic Income Laboratory is focusing on this as a research priority, established jointly 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 transition, and the benefits brought by technology could be more widely shared.

Welfare or Entitlement

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

My colleagues at the Australian Basic Income Laboratory, Elise Klein and Stanford University professor James Ferguson, argue that universal basic income should not be designed as "welfare," but rather as an "entitlement."

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

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

Even earlier, the Luddites attempted to destroy machines that were used to lower wages. Market competition may foster innovation, but it also exhibits significant imbalances in distributing the risks and rewards of technological change.

Universal Basic Services

In addition to resisting AI, another solution is to change the socioeconomic system that "distributes the dividends of AI." British writer Aaron Bastani proposed a radical vision of "Fully Automated Luxury Communism."

He welcomes technological advancement, believing it should enhance living standards while providing people with more leisure time. This vision is a radical version of the "moderate goals" outlined in the recent book "Abundance," favored by the Labor 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 directly provide essential goods—such as free healthcare, care, transportation, education, energy, and more?

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

Utopia Is Not Inevitable

Proposals for universal basic income or universal basic services indicate that, even from an optimistic perspective, AI itself is unlikely to bring about utopia.

On the contrary, as Peter Frase articulated: the convergence of technological advancement and ecological collapse may give rise to entirely different futures, with differences not only in our collective productive capacity but also in how we politically decide "who gets what" and "under what conditions."

Tech companies operated by billionaires wield immense power, which may herald a form of "technological feudalism," as described by former Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis, where control over technology and online platforms breeds new authoritarianism.

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

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。