There are different views on the impact of artificial intelligence on society. One possible impact is that artificial intelligence has prov...
There are different views on the impact of artificial intelligence on society. One possible impact is that artificial intelligence has provided humanity with a useful but potentially dangerous tool, similar to nuclear energy, which could completely solve humanity's energy needs but, if used irresponsibly, could also destroy humankind. There is also a view that the use of artificial intelligence—potentially affecting all areas of human life in ways that are currently unforeseeable—will completely transform society.
Our future in the age of artificial intelligence is unclear, but many changes are reasonably foreseeable. We could, and we should prepare ourselves for those changes that are predictable. However, human nature tends to be more of a problem solver than a problem avoider. Even when we can recognize the problem in time and we have a reasonable understanding of its essence, we can't prevent problems, as it is clearly evident in the case of climate change. Nevertheless, despite all of the difficulties we have faced so far, we have already come a long way in understanding the world and transforming our environment to our believed benefit, while continuously developing and, so far, avoiding complete extinction.
The emergence of artificial intelligence also presents us with new opportunities for development and, at the same time, new challenges, which we are undoubtedly addressing rather as problem-solving after they arise instead of predicting and preventing them. Nevertheless, it is worth recognizing and being better aware of the difficulties ahead, even if it is difficult for us to avoid them.
One such challenge that will determine the existence of human society is the impact of the integration of artificial intelligence into society on the nature of wealth. Wealth and its distribution are fundamental determinants of social structure. The concentration of wealth is a natural process that has typically characterized practically every social structure to date.
The concentration of wealth is naturally occurring in society, as existing wealth functions as positive feedback, accumulating naturally where it is already there. This characteristic of wealth, in addition to resulting from its self-generating nature, is also related to natural human behavior, such as greed or envy.
The concentration of wealth is a natural process, necessarily due to the nature of wealth. This behavior is useful for certain social functions, but not generally beneficial to the functioning of society. More wealth, as more concentrated energy, provides greater potential for society to create new and apply present capabilities, but if society as a whole does not benefit from the advantages of wealth concentration, and if wealth concentration reduces the potential for action of the less wealthy members of society, then the concentration of wealth is disadvantageous for society in general.
This characteristic of wealth is clearly visible in the differences between certain economic zones, such as the United States and the European Union. In America, wealth is more concentrated; there are the largest companies in the world, and most of the wealthy people are also there, and consequently, it is one of the economies with the greatest potential and competitiveness. In the European Union, which has comparably the same amount of wealth, wealth is less concentrated and therefore its economy has lower potential and competitiveness. At the same time, however, the concentration and distribution of wealth also have impacts on society, which in America, for example, the wealth concentration effect appearing in the beginning of stagnation or even decline in average life expectancy, while in Europe, the effect of a more even distribution of wealth is appearing, at least in part, in the higher common social satisfaction of the citizens of the more developed countries.
The natural increase in wealth concentration is a typical feature of growing social potential and the resulting development, but once a certain limit is reached, it reduces the overall social potency and may even threaten the survival of society, as historical examples demonstrate.
The conscious social management of wealth distribution is a fundamental factor in the functioning of society, which is becoming even more important with the advent of artificial intelligence.
Wealth typically manifests from three major sources: labor, ownership, and money.
Labor is an active source of wealth, the most commonly available means of generating wealth. Typically, for members of society initially, and for the majority of the population in less developed societies, work is the primary source of wealth. As a society develops, due to the continuous accumulation of wealth, labor typically ceases to be the primary source of wealth for members of society, or its importance diminishes as a source of wealth, and ownership becomes an increasingly important source of wealth.
Ownership is wealth manifested in well-defined, person-related assets, which, under normal conditions of social development, accumulate continuously in society as possession for its members.
The role of money as a possessed store of value deserves to be examined separately from other types of wealth, because money is not a naturally existing asset, but an artificial concept created and used by society. The value of money is a property attributed to certain things, and therefore, its value is less direct, and in fact, without economic ties, it is completely subjective, as can be seen in the case of cryptocurrencies. The value of money can be artificially manipulated, and as wealth, it is volatile and can therefore be considered only as a temporary, pseudo-asset.
In the emergence of artificial intelligence, the source of wealth, as a fundamental determinant of social structure, is undergoing a typical transformation. Since artificial intelligence is capable of taking over a significant portion of human labor, the proportion of personal wealth derived from human labor in society typically declines. At the same time, since artificial intelligence, as a tool, creates value for its owners and users, the proportion of wealth derived from ownership typically increases, and the concentration of wealth, related to its natural behavior, consequently accelerates.
There have been human societies in similar situations in the past, where the proportion of wealth derived from the personal labor of members of society shifted significantly toward wealth in the form of ownership. This period was the age of slavery, when slaves were not considered members of society but were essentially regarded as intelligent tools. For example, in the Roman Empire, slaves produced value, and more slaves potentially resulted in more wealth and even more slaves, during which time the value of personal labor as asset decreased in society, the work of a significant portion of society typically became redundant, the wealth of society became concentrated, inequality increased until, as a result of development—largely due to the increase in the number of neglected and redundant members of community—society collapsed.
Because of the similarities, similar social situations may arise as a result of the spread of artificial intelligence. Artificial intelligence significantly takes over the role of human labor, including its role in wealth creation, while at the same time, a significant part of society may become redundant in terms of value creation through labor, which, in addition to the concentration of wealth, can also lead to the decline or even collapse of society.
A typical historical counterexample cited to downplay the significance of the threat of social collapse associated with the redundant necessity of the labor of the members of society is the transformation of agricultural society into industrial society, in connection with the disappearance of agricultural human labor. Not so long ago, the vast majority of society was primarily engaged in agriculture-related activities, but this changed completely within a few decades during the industrial revolution. A tiny fraction of society now produces significantly more agricultural products, and society has not collapsed as a result of the disappearance of agricultural work.
The typical explanation for the persistence of social stability is that during the transition, new types of jobs that did not exist before were created, which absorbed the labor force that had become redundant as a result of the transition. Jobs that did not previously exist were indeed created during the transition, but in order to correctly understand the reasons for the stability of the transition, it is necessary to accurately interpret the causal relationships of the transition. When agricultural society came to an end, the emerging industrial revolution did not essentially absorb the labor force that had become redundant in agriculture, but rather, industrial development, which obviously required labor, made it possible for agriculture to transform itself with less labor required.
Obviously, industrial transformation has created a significant number of completely new types of jobs that did not exist before, new types of production methods have emerged, and countless new types of products have been created that did not exist before and were not needed earlier. For example, agricultural society did not need electricity, while industrialization is significantly more efficient with the use of electrical power, which has now become a basic necessity. Electricity has also created countless new jobs. However, the increase in industry-related jobs did not solely absorb the agricultural workforce that had become redundant, much more it enabled society to expand compared to the agricultural-based society of the past as a result of development.
The transition from an agricultural society to an industrial society, together with the transformation of jobs, was practically interdependent, each bringing about the other, which consequently led to a rather tension-free transformation of the nature of work, avoiding the risk of social collapse.
A fundamental question is whether a similar process can be recognized in the transformation of jobs in connection with the spread of artificial intelligence? The essence of the question is whether the transformation associated with the spread of artificial intelligence has a condition that simultaneously absorbs the workforce that becomes redundant as a result of the transformation. In fact, no such fundamental process can be observed.
It is obvious that new job types are, and will also emerge as a result of the artificial intelligence revolution, however, if this does not function extensively as a condition of transformation, and especially if it does not correspond at least to the same extent to the reduction and demand of the transition of workforce, then processes, more akin to the age of slavery will take place, with the consequent risk of social collapse, than the process that took place during the agricultural-industrial transition, which brought comfortable stability during the change.
Recognizing the danger rationally, rather than simply believing in a harmonious transformation, allows us to prepare for risks, potentially avoiding social decline and subsequent collapse.
The age of artificial intelligence, the nature of the developing social structure, and the likelihood of social collapse are critically determined by the nature of wealth distribution and the degree of wealth concentration that occurs. It is foreseeable that, as a result of the spread of artificial intelligence, the role of labor in relation to wealth declines, while the role of ownership increases, and naturally, in a self-perpetuating manner, an unprecedented concentration of wealth can develop, with all its social dangers, including the collapse of society, if society is unable to consciously recognize and rationally address this problem.
The primary task and responsibility for addressing this problem primarily belongs to the state, which determines the rules governing the functioning of society. It is neither reasonable nor practical to expect owners of growing wealth to exercise self-restraint, just as it is not practical to wait for the growing social stratum with declining wealth to become increasingly dissatisfied and pose a threat to society as wealth becomes more and more concentrated.
The state must take purposeful and active measures to limit the excessive concentration of wealth. However, the current problem is that state actors—due to their personal involvement—do not actually regulate the excessive concentration of wealth in practice, because their personal interests are contrary to this, but rather much more to represent it. It is difficult to find social leadership where the politicians did not have above-average wealth when taking on a leadership role, so it is not surprising that the state typically does not enact rules that would make the distribution of wealth more equal. This is also evident in the fact that the wealth of key state actors typically increases, often in hidden ways, during their time in office.
In order for the state to fulfill its function of regulating wealth reasonably and necessarily, a new model of social governance would also need to be developed.
The current model of social leadership, by representing wealth, is much more interested in controlling society to sustain wealth concentration than in distributing wealth more evenly. In order to control members of society, creating, increasing, and maintaining the vulnerability of citizens is a more recognizable leadership goal, which is at least partially achieved by reducing the proportion of ownership by the majority of society.
The perhaps unconscious goal, but certainly deliberate means of discouraging ownership for the part of society that possesses mainly labor as its primary asset is recognizable. As long as they are needed, workers are valuable assets for creating wealth, so it is expedient to maintain the control necessary to sustain the workforce, which can be achieved by maintaining the vulnerability of the social stratum concerned to work to sustain life. Motivating consumption, encouraging spending rather than converting earned wages into wealth, aggressively offering loans, keeping unrealistically high credit card interest rates, encouraging renting rather than private ownership, all of these factors, including through the activity generated by spending in the economy, contribute to the concentration of wealth and not only maintain wealth inequality, but also increase it, while at the same time making the social stratum that lives on labor remains controllable through its dependence on work.
As long as the state represents wealth rather than regulates it, this mode of operation and regulation is expedient and necessary, but the growth of inequalities and the accompanying forced social control result in an unstable society. In such a society, it is necessary to limit the growth of wealth derived from work, but at the same time, to maintain stability, it is also be necessary to maintain a tension-low standard of living for those who live from their work, which are contradictory processes, and maintaining it requires constant and direct regulation, which is difficult to sustain by a state that is fundamentally interested in the concentration of wealth, requiring necessary constant social control, even resorting to violence, and for the disadvantaged social strata, due to the realistic accumulation of internal tensions, any situation that can be considered a cause for unrest can lead to riots, which in fact can also lead to rebellion against the functioning of the state, as can be seen in numerous examples that often flare up locally, for example, in the United States.
The widespread application of artificial intelligence catalyzes the natural growth of wealth inequality and the concentration of wealth, which, without appropriate conscious regulation, leads to increased social control, oppression manifested in violence, increased social tensions, and social instability.
Artificial intelligence naturally reduces the role of wealth derived from work, so to maintain a stable society, it is necessary to deliberately increase the wealth of the form of ownership on a broad scale, reduce wealth disparities, limit the concentration of wealth, and assist and motivate broad sections of society to acquire wealth that functions as ownership. Despite the decline in wealth derived from labor, wealth represented by widespread ownership can naturally lead to the formation of a harmonious, responsible community and a stable society.
The current social leadership that determines the rules is not interested in reducing wealth disparities, as discussed earlier. The resulting unstable society can be maintained by force—while those who possess wealth have an interest in maintaining the system due to the advantages that wealth brings—but in the long run, this leads to a declining society. In order for society to thrive, it is necessary to apply a rational model that results in the widespread distribution of wealth but is also capable of maintaining a high potential of society, enabling it to develop towards greater capability and stability.
How can we make the redistribution of wealth created increasingly by artificial intelligence more even, while preserving the potential benefits of concentration of wealth in terms of the potential of the society?
First and foremost, state taxes on income from work must be abolished, as these necessarily reduce the amount of wealth that can be acquired through labor. Income from work must be completely free of social reduction, thereby helping to ensure that as much of the wealth derived from labor as possible can be converted into ownership.
Taxes on consumption should be kept at a proper level, which encourages reasonable conservation without overly restricting consumption, maintains economic activity, and at the same time provides revenue for the state.
However, the state's primary revenue should come from the ownership of members of society, which could mean a linear, for example, percentage-based wealth tax on all property above a commonly agreed-upon personal minimum, ensuring and providing community contribution proportional to the level of personal wealth to maintain public services. This can form a direct link between social effectiveness as expressed in created wealth and the state's potential capability to support social effectiveness through its revenue.
It also seems necessary to provide members of society with a mandatory, universal, conditional basic income that meets the socially accepted minimum standard of living. The mandatory conditions for receiving basic income are full-time study and/or social work.
The state must balance and use its revenues to provide universal healthcare, free lifelong education opportunities (supported by artificial intelligence), and affordable housing for those who need it by providing sufficient rental availability.
Companies should primarily pay wages to their employees in the form of ownership, i.e., shares. This gives employees a direct interest in the company's performance and allows them to directly participate in the acquisition of ownership.
With the increasingly widespread use of artificial intelligence, societies can be successful where the state, through its operations, is able to function in a decisive manner by maintaining a socially acceptable standard of living, encouraging members of society to become proprietors or property owners, and limiting the harmful effects of wealth concentration in society.
At the same time, however, society's potential in functioning must be maintained and, if possible, increased, i.e., concentrated wealth must also be present and available to society. Here, too, the role of a properly functioning state that is not prone to clientism and corruption is fundamental. The state must directly support scientific research and socio-economic development from its properly leveled revenues, through open, competitive tenders, under the supervision of professional organizations and with social oversight. In a well-functioning society capable of exploiting its potential, the state has sufficient financial resources to maintain society's development potential and, with the involvement of professional organizations and under social supervision, to operate it efficiently and without corruption.
The widespread adoption of artificial intelligence poses fundamental challenges for human society. One of the key areas of concern is the risk that growing wealth inequality could lead to the decline or even collapse of society. Since we are primarily problem solvers and less inclined to avoid difficulties, the path to adequate operation may seem challenging, but if there are suitable proposals, the difficult path can be shortened.
No comments