In just a few short years, AI has become a mainstream part of everyday life and work. Furthermore, with many people expecting AI and robots to become more productive and versatile, perhaps human labour will be rendered obsolete. This may be a good thing, making the Earth a peaceful and prosperous place, a utopia for all and a solid home base for humanity to explore the secrets of the universe. However, as we will see, there are clear risks that the rise of AI could be catastrophic. Although it is perhaps the most consequential issue in our time, the issue is a familiar one with two sides to the argument: capitalism vs socialism. I argue that neither extreme is preferable, and a moderate approach, which strikes a balance between the two, is preferred.
One option is to essentially maintain the status quo. In particular, to let entrepreneurs and companies develop AI products with minimal government intervention and provide a basic social safety net for unemployed people. The issue with this is that as AI and robotics become more advanced and accessible, business owners may prefer to employ AI agents and robots to perform all the operations of the business rather than hiring humans. Will new jobs become available for humans? It’s not clear. If not, then there may be mass unemployment. That means that more people will be on unemployment benefits, and there will be fewer people paying taxes. It also means that those who own the AI and robotics companies may become extremely wealthy in comparison to average people, even more so than today. If this happens, they may leverage their wealth to buy political power in order to minimise their taxes, reduce regulations and quell competition. This extreme inequality is a dystopian scenario, and potentially an existential risk to humanity’s future survival.
On the other hand, societies could redouble social programs, perhaps with a universal basic income or by socialising AI and robotics industries. Similarly, the AI and robotics industries could be heavily regulated. If AI and robotics do make human labour obsolete, this option would provide a greater social safety net to minimise inequality and risk of runaway innovation that could pose existential risks. However, the outcomes of this course of action remain unclear. In particular, it could lead to dire economic consequences such as economic depression or hyperinflation. Furthermore, experience tells us that communist societies lead to oppression and loss of personal liberties, or even dictatorships, such as in China or North Korea. Also, consider that Western countries, if they socialise and heavily regulate their AI industries, may be surpassed by rival countries such as China, leading to strategic disadvantage and long-term security vulnerabilities.
Taken to the extreme, neither outcome is desirable. It seems that on the one hand, capitalist competition is necessary in order to maintain Western civilisation’s competitiveness relative to rival societies such as China. However, experience shows that rampant capitalism leads to extreme inequality and, let’s be honest, political corruption. Furthermore, since AI-powered robots threaten to supersede humans as the dominant force on Earth, which risks human extinction, some regulation is required; for example, to stop companies from developing AI that develops other AI systems. However, a communist approach risks a dystopia of a different kind, one that seeks to tightly control the individual, perhaps by a political elite. In this scenario, AI would likely be used to oppress people, as it is in China. Clearly, it seems that some regulation is required to prevent monopolisation or catastrophe, but not so much that the fittest companies are strangled in red tape. Based on the principle of “greatest good for the greatest number”, I argue that a universal basic income is required, perhaps proactively, while we are in a window of freedom of speech and political integrity.
AI and robotics promise to alleviate the need for humans to work, which may be considered beneficial for those who are able to adapt. However, there are enormous risks involved, such as the risk of AI threatening human existence. There is also the risk of extreme inequality and becoming even more of a global technocracy. However, due to the multipolarism of the world and the principle that the winners of history are the ones who write it, Western societies must stay competitive in order to safeguard their security and prosperity. In conclusion, there is a clear tension between free-market capitalism and complete socialisation. The best course of action, in a word, is balance. Balance between countries such as the USA and China. Balance between political parties. And also a balance between companies such as X.ai and Openai. In any case, we are living in a very interesting, consequential and opportune time in human history.