AI could make goods and services cheaper than ever, raising hopes for a new age of abundance where scarcity plays a smaller role in human life.
Adobe Stock
Three years on from the launch of ChatGPT, the AI debate has moved far beyond chatbots, productivity tools and workplace automation. Some of the most influential voices in technology now argue that AI could eventually create something much bigger, an age of abundance.
The idea is simple, and hugely seductive. If AI systems and robots can produce goods and services at an extraordinary scale and ever-lower cost, then scarcity starts to lose its grip on society. Food, healthcare, education, digital services and perhaps even housing could become dramatically cheaper and more widely available.
It is an optimistic vision. It is also one that has moved from fringe speculation into mainstream economic discussion, helped by figures such as Elon Musk and Sam Altman. But before we accept the idea that AI will usher in a new era of plenty, we need to ask some harder questions.
Abundance for whom? Controlled by whom? Distributed how? Governed by which rules? And, perhaps most importantly, would the people who stand to profit most from AI really choose to build a world where scarcity disappears?
Those questions matter because the age of abundance could become one of the most positive outcomes of the AI revolution. It could also become a new form of concentration, where the owners of the most powerful systems gain even more control over the economy, infrastructure and everyday life.
So before we decide whether this future is possible, desirable or likely, here are five questions we need to answer first.
The basic idea is that AI and robots would make production so efficient that there would be enough of almost everything to go around.
But what does that actually look like? There’s a pretty wide gulf between everything we need and everything we want. So who decides what we get? The AIs?
The actual visionaries predicting the end of scarcity are vague on all of this.
We also have to ask whether “abundance” applies to everything equally. Some categories of goods and services, like digital services, may become far cheaper. While others, like food or housing, may be less affected. This means some people might disproportionately benefit more from the abundance than others.
Ultimately, before we decide to trust AI and robots to run our economies and industries on our behalf, we may need to know a bit more about what the actual, tangible benefits will be.
During periods of abundance in the past, such as following the first industrial revolution, the fruits first and most generously went to the producers of the abundance. Often this meant factory owners.
Today we have open-source AI algorithms and distributed compute power, meaning, in theory, there’s more equitable access to the opportunity created by this (fourth) industrial revolution.
But it’s still very much the case that giant technology companies have a monopoly over AI. We already know that powerful state actors use relationships and influence with big tech to push for favorable political outcomes and create business opportunities for themselves. If smaller companies want to compete and claim their own ownership of the means of abundance, will there be a level playing field?
Today, people get paid to work at a rate that’s theoretically pegged to the value they create. In an age of abundance, AI and robots work for us and create all the value. So, how do we decide how the abundance is distributed?
There are three ways this one could go. If it’s market-led, then new types of jobs are created, and those that do things AI can’t do will rise to the top. So AI creates a base level of value, and humans who want to create further value can give it a go. The market determines whether they’re successful or not.
It could also be centrally managed, with interventions such as a universal basic income or public ownership of abundance-generating businesses. This would require widespread legal and political change, and whether or not there is public appetite for it is up for debate.
The third possibility is perhaps the most dangerous one, but one that it’s easy to see us sleepwalking into. Here, we take no real steps to address the coming shift and end up in a situation where the owners of AI systems hold almost all of the cards.
One nightmare scenario is tech companies and governments working hand-in-hand to offer us everything we want on a plate. In return, they take unprecedented control over our data, our tools and infrastructure, and our lives.
If AI is going to be hugely central to world progress and the driving force behind a new abundant economy, who makes the rules on how it can be used?
If it’s governments, then overreach can potentially stifle innovation, and technology that’s supposed to improve our lives can be subverted for political purposes.
If it's corporations, then the rules could be shaped to enable continued excessive profiteering while minimizing their obligation to create positive societal outcomes.
Then there’s the geopolitical angle. With national security and unlimited wealth and power at stake, can we trust any state to put global outcomes ahead of self-interest? Will international treaties be effective when governments with technological advantages see the opportunity to increase their own abundance at the expense of others?
The issue of how AI is governed and who controls its use is central to understanding the types of society it could bring about.
Finally, this might be the most significant question of all. Why would those standing to benefit the most from AI, which is those with power, want to change anything at all?
Tech billionaires might enjoy basking in the glow of their own altruism, and they definitely like being seen to be making the world a better place. But when push comes to shove, are board members and shareholders going to vote to allow their technology to be used to give us everything we want, for free?
They might not need us to work for them anymore, thanks to robot workforces, but they still need us to buy things from them. Where’s the incentive to do that, or possibly even do anything at all, in an age of abundance?
Ending scarcity would require upsetting the status quo in a way that those with power haven’t historically been keen to do. Will the current masters of the universe be any different?
此内容由惯性聚合(RSS阅读器)自动聚合整理，仅供阅读参考。 原文来自 — 版权归原作者所有。