Panacea
Sam Altman, Elon Musk, and others have advocated the creation of a "universal basic income" (UBI) as the most appropriate way to respond to widespread unemployment, which they claim will occur with the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI). In a world where computers and robots do everything better and faster than humans, companies will have no incentive to hire people.
They claim that the exponential economic growth generated by AI will enable a wealthy world, and that wealth will be shared among all via UBI (taxing companies based on their use of Artificial Intelligence). They present the UBI as a miraculous instrument that will provide everyone with economic comfort and allow everyone to devote themselves to family, personal interests, and leisure activities.
The UBI allows them to simultaneously present themselves as philanthropists, concerned with social stability, and avoid discussion and criticism of this future that they present to us as inevitable and to whose construction more and more resources are channeled, without the regulator's restraint.
Aware of the state of technological development, but also pressured by the expectations of investors who have channeled millions into this odyssey, they tell us again that this future is imminent. And it probably will be, especially for young people just out of college—after all, Google no longer hires junior programmers.
But what does a world where an elite of Big Tech owners dominates the means of production and humans are expendable (in a shift not even Marx imagined) mean? The social contract of democratic societies is largely based on the taxation of labor. The state functions because workers pay taxes. But what if state revenues come not from labor, but from wealth generated by machines? What incentives will governments have to educate the population and ensure its health?
The risk is that the incentive will be to redistribute only enough to maintain social peace, creating a gap between the technological elite and everyone else. This isn't an extreme scenario if we consider petrostates. In the United Arab Emirates, a social security system financed exclusively by oil revenues—there is no income tax—guarantees a minimum standard of living for all emirate citizens. However, the UAE, like the overwhelming majority of so-called petrostates (with the exception of Norway), doesn't have citizens with rights and duties, but rather subjects, subject to the whims of the ruling elite.
The future that Sam Altman and Elon Musk present to us looks like a technological version of a theocracy, where the elite are not religious but rather "technological"—a "technocracy." The source of power changes, but the outcome remains the same.
And as if the risk of the end of democracy and the perpetuation of social inequality weren't enough, we must question the psychological and social impact of a world without work.
The immediate future does not promise to massively replace physically demanding or dangerous work, but rather intellectual work, which we consider the privileged means of developing our skills and virtues, and as such, indispensable to human flourishing in society. Work is not only a means of obtaining financial resources, but it also provides a sense of purpose, allows for the establishment of human relationships, and provides opportunities for personal development.
It is therefore important that the impact of technology on society is not limited to the discussion of a panacea—the UBI—and that society and politicians promote the discussion of participatory solutions, for example, through citizens' assemblies, where this topic can be discussed and guidelines for effective regulation of the introduction of AI can emerge. Only by not ignoring or devaluing these developments can we ensure the dignity of work and a fairer distribution of the income generated by this revolution.
