The AI Allowance: A New Feudalism?

In an era where artificial intelligence is rapidly transforming industries and job markets, a notable shift in rhetoric is emerging from some of the tech world's most influential figures. Leaders like Elon Musk, Sam Altman, and Vinod Khosla, who once championed minimal government intervention and individual self-reliance, are now advocating for forms of Universal Basic Income (UBI) or "universal extreme wealth" to address the societal impact of AI-driven automation.

The Shifting Stance on UBI

Elon Musk recently articulated his view on X, stating, "Universal HIGH INCOME via checks issued by the Federal government is the best way to deal with unemployment caused by AI." Sam Altman has proposed an even more expansive concept: "universal extreme wealth" distributed through compute tokens. These proposals mark a significant departure from their historical positions, raising questions about the underlying motivations.

Historically, these figures have been vocal proponents of free markets and limited government. Their sudden embrace of government-backed wealth distribution schemes, particularly after decades of advocating against "handouts" and for individual responsibility, suggests a deeper concern.

Is It a Safety Net or a Leash?

Critics argue that this proposed UBI is not a genuine safety net but rather a preemptive measure to manage the social fallout from widespread job displacement. The argument posits that those developing the AI tools that automate jobs are now offering to mitigate the damage they foresee, but on terms that could create a new form of dependency.

Consider the implications:

• Loss of Agency: If income is tied to systems controlled by the very entities that rendered previous skills obsolete, individuals may lose their economic leverage and autonomy.
• Conditional Support: An "allowance" can be revoked or devalued. What happens if the funding model changes, or the tokens lose value, leaving recipients without a safety net and no viable alternative employment?
• Digital Control: Distributing income through digital systems controlled by these tech giants could centralize power, making individuals users with balances rather than citizens with independent financial standing.

As one peer-reviewed paper in Frontiers in AI suggests, this UBI pitch might be a "social license" play. It's presented as charity, but functions as a price for public acceptance, aiming to prevent social unrest as AI permeates all aspects of life. This aligns with Bourdieu's concept of "symbolic violence," where domination is accepted because it's not recognized as such.

The Meaning of Human Existence in an AI-Dominated World

Musk himself has openly speculated on the future of human employment: "Probably none of us will have a job. The question will really be one of meaning: if a computer can do everything better than you, does your life have meaning? I do think there's perhaps still a role for humans in that we may give AI meaning."

This perspective suggests a future where human purpose is redefined, potentially as an audience or even a 'pet' to AI, with an allowance provided for this role. This vision contrasts sharply with traditional libertarian ideals of agency and autonomy, instead proposing a structure of complete dependency.

Sam Altman's preference for compute tokens over cash further illustrates this potential shift. Your income, in this scenario, is denominated in access to their infrastructure. If OpenAI's systems fail, your income could be directly impacted, transforming citizens into users dependent on corporate platforms.

A Return to Feudalism?

This future, where a few powerful entities control the means of production, thought, and survival, with the majority living on distributed allowances, bears a striking resemblance to historical feudal systems. The tech lords, much like feudal lords, would provide for the populace not out of altruism, but to maintain a functional system that benefits them.

Key Takeaways:

• Tech leaders' UBI proposals represent a significant ideological shift, potentially driven by the anticipated impact of AI on employment.
• The "allowance" model could create a new form of dependency, eroding individual agency and economic independence.
• Control over distribution mechanisms (e.g., compute tokens) could centralize power within tech companies.
• The long-term vision risks establishing a modern feudal system, where a few control essential resources and the many rely on their discretion.

The critical question remains: are we desperate enough to accept these terms, or will we recognize this as a potential path to a new form of societal control?

Source: AI Weekly Issue #487: 100 years from now : The Allowance