Robot hand holding cash Getty Images/Paper Boat Creative
The world experienced a seismic shift in November 2022 when San Francisco-based OpenAI’s ChatGPT, a generative AI chatbot, was introduced to the public. Much like the arrival of the internet in the mid-1990s, artificial intelligence is impressive for its time but merely a glimpse of what’s to come.
AI has already transformed every walk of life. But it also makes many of us wonder: Will artificial intelligence be the great equalizer or just another tool for the rich to get richer?
Artificial intelligence is making our lives easier, but it has also started replacing some jobs. This has left many worried that this technology could make them redundant in the workforce and exacerbate wealth inequality.
A survey by IPSOS showed that 50% of Americans believe the increased use of AI will result in greater income inequality and a more polarized society. Around 64% believe that governments should take action to prevent AI from taking people’s jobs, and 46% of the younger generation believes it’s likely or at least somewhat likely that they’ll lose their jobs to AI within the next five years.
But according to Taylor Jo Isenberg, executive director of the Economic Security Project, the way AI impacts economic inequality will largely depend on the decisions made in the next decade. “We’re at a critical juncture. The choices we make in the next decade will determine whether we deliver on a vision of broad-based prosperity or further entrench economic and political power into the hands of a few,” she explained.
If left unchecked, corporations driven by profit incentives may develop AI in ways that concentrate wealth and power at the top. However, Isenberg believes that if governments can deploy smart policies such as interoperability and nondiscrimination, they can foster innovation in the AI space while preventing monopolization. The government’s intervention could also help solve societal problems that might not have a big payday attached to them, such as health care and medicine.
“If we imbue government with the expertise to proactively regulate, build public infrastructure to ensure access and affordability, and double down on fair and healthy competition across the industry, I think we’ll be off to a pretty good start,” Isenberg said. “However, I think it’s going to take political muscle and true leadership to put us on that trajectory, given the tremendous interest in staying the current course of letting a few players dominate the industry.”
Carlos Gershenson-Garcia, a SUNY Empire Innovation professor at the Department of Systems Science and Industrial Engineering at Binghamton University, agrees. “Taxing successful AI companies and investing those resources in broader fields like health care and education would be wise,” he said. “The problem is that these companies fund and lobby politicians, giving them huge leverage over the government.”
AI has the potential to widen the wealth gap not only within our country but also globally.
In a recent analysis, the International Monetary Fund staff examined the potential impact of AI on global labor using an AI Preparedness Index. After assessing the readiness of 125 countries based on areas such as digital infrastructure, human capital and labor-market policies, they found that wealthier economies tend to be better equipped for AI adoption than low-income countries, with Singapore, the U.S. and Denmark leading the way.
In other words, because wealthy countries have the infrastructure and skilled workforces to harness the benefits of AI, they may see a greater boost in productivity and economic growth. Meanwhile, less developed countries that lack the necessary technology and training programs will risk falling further behind. Over time, as AI technology accelerates in wealthy countries, it might only exacerbate the inequality that already exists among nations.
Big tech companies leading the AI revolution, like Amazon, Google, Microsoft and OpenAI, are amassing a tremendous amount of wealth. And because these firms dominate cloud computing, data access and AI research, it makes it difficult for smaller businesses and individuals to compete. Similarly, wealthier nations with the infrastructure and capital to invest in artificial intelligence will reap the benefits, while lower-income countries will be left in the dust.
There are winners and losers in the labor market as well. With some jobs gradually being automated, lower-income and less-educated workers will be disproportionately affected by it since they often don’t have the financial resources to upskill themselves. On the other hand, the future seems pretty promising for workers with expertise in AI, machine learning and data science, but not everyone has access to the education and training needed to break into these fields.
That said, Gershenon-Garcia thinks the fear of AI taking over all jobs may be slightly overblown.
“It might seem that AI is taking our jobs, but a closer look at the statistics should reveal that the change is not that different from previous technologies that had a similar effect,” he said. “We can learn from what worked and what didn’t in those previous cases and implement programs to minimize an adverse effect on the workforce.”
Johnny Gabriele, head analyst of blockchain economics and AI integration at The Lifted Initiative, sees AI as part of a broader shift in technological evolution. He believes AI will follow the historical trend of widening wealth inequality unless financial structures change fundamentally.
“Looking back at history, large technological leaps have only widened wealth inequality. In my opinion, the only technology that has the power to do the opposite is cryptocurrency.” Gabriele said. “At the end of the day, this tech revolution will reward those who can master it and punish those who ignore it. If things get bad enough, there are already talks about universal basic income, but the jury is still out on whether this will lead to utopia or dystopia.”
He believes that as long as our financial structures maintain their centralization, the rich will get richer, and the poor will get poorer. “At the end of the day, it’s centralization, not technology, that affects wealth and equality,” he explained.
