If AI Takes Our Jobs, Money as We Know It Ends. What's Next?

The Promise and Peril of Artificial Intelligence

Artificial intelligence (AI) is often seen as the defining technology of our time. However, its impact on the future remains a topic of intense debate. While some envision a world of unprecedented abundance and problem-solving capabilities, others warn of potential pitfalls that could arise from its widespread adoption.

A World of Abundance or Inequality?

For techno-optimists, AI represents a future where material abundance becomes the norm. This vision includes solving complex medical, engineering, and social challenges that have long plagued humanity. However, this utopian outlook is not guaranteed. Even if AI fulfills its technical promise, the question remains: how will this abundance be distributed?

This tension is already visible in Australia's food economy. According to government data, Australians waste approximately 7.6 million tons of food annually—about 312 kilograms per person. At the same time, one in eight Australians faces food insecurity, primarily due to financial constraints. These figures raise critical questions about our ability to fairly distribute the benefits of an AI-driven future.

AI and the Economic Model

Economics, as defined by economist Lionel Robbins, deals with the relationship between human wants and scarce resources. Markets function by rationing these resources based on their value and availability. Scarcity influences prices, which in turn affect how people earn and spend money.

The promise of AI to bring abundance and solve complex problems conflicts with this traditional economic model. It also raises concerns about job displacement. If AI renders many jobs obsolete, how will people earn money, and how will markets continue to function?

Meeting Wants and Needs

Unemployment isn't solely caused by technology. Market economies can create mass want through unemployment or low wages, even when there is apparent plenty. John Maynard Keynes highlighted how recessions and depressions can result from the market system itself, leaving many in poverty despite available resources.

During the pandemic, Australia experienced an economic downturn that revealed potential solutions to the challenges posed by technological abundance. Changes to government benefits, such as increasing payments and reducing administrative barriers, significantly reduced poverty and food insecurity. Similar policies were implemented globally, with cash payments introduced in over 200 countries.

These experiences have reinforced calls for a "universal basic income" (UBI), a concept being explored by the Australian Basic Income Lab, a collaboration between several universities.

Welfare or a Rightful Share?

When discussing UBI, it's important to clarify what is meant. Some versions may still leave significant wealth inequalities. Instead, researchers like Elise Klein and James Ferguson advocate for a UBI that is not welfare but a "rightful share." They argue that the wealth generated through technological advances and social cooperation should be shared equally as a basic human right.

This idea is not new. Interest in UBI surged during early 20th-century Britain, when industrialization and automation increased growth without eliminating poverty. Earlier, the Luddites resisted machines that threatened jobs, highlighting the uneven distribution of risks and rewards from technological change.

Universal Basic Services

Rather than resisting AI, another approach is to transform the social and economic systems that distribute its gains. UK author Aaron Bastani proposes "fully automated luxury communism," a radical vision where technological advances allow more leisure and rising living standards. He favors universal basic services over UBI, suggesting that necessities like health, education, and transport should be provided directly rather than through monetary support.

This would require rethinking how AI and other technologies are used, ensuring they meet collective needs rather than private interests.

No Guarantee of Utopia

Proposals for UBI or basic services highlight that AI alone is unlikely to lead to utopia. As Peter Frase notes, the combination of technological advance and ecological collapse could create very different futures. The power of tech companies controlled by billionaires may lead to a form of "technofeudalism," where control of technology replaces markets and democracy.

The path forward requires more than waiting for a technological "nirvana." We already have enough food for everyone and know how to end poverty. AI is not the solution—it is the tools we choose to use that will shape our future.