Solving AI-Driven Inequality Through the Predistribution of Wealth

Discussion

By Saffron Huang and Sam Manning:

1.

"We believe that we need to prioritize creating and implementing economic policy proposals for transformative AI (TAI) that predistribute rather than redistribute. The world requires more decentralized and broadly-distributed abilities to contribute to AI value generation along the way. We favor enabling equality of opportunity ex-ante over enforcing equality of outcomes ex-post.

The rationale for prioritizing predistribution and equality of opportunity is part economic, part sociopolitical. For one, if AI progress is to be truly transformational, leading to unprecedented material abundance, then it could be one of our best opportunities to correct – rather than exacerbate – existing economic inequalities in the world. A world where AI’s incredible economic potential is directed toward the benefit of those with the greatest need could level the playing field between the rich and the poor, enabling a broader swath of the world to participate in the economy alongside AI systems that make new production possibilities and human aspirations a reality.

Furthermore, fostering inclusive growth can encourage more robust democratic systems relative to a world with highly concentrated economic influence. Economic growth that triggers a Windfall Clause would likely be driven by significant labor automation, which could increase inequality, particularly between workers and owners of capital. This rising inequality could undermine democracy through several mechanisms. Highly unequal societies tend to see increased elite influence over politics, as the wealthy leverage economic power to shape agendas and policies in their favor. At the same time, if AI drives massive productivity gains through labor automation, elites may find that they no longer need to depend on a large workforce to generate profits. This could make them less inclined to politically compromise with the working class. If AI advancement continues to accelerate, and we don’t set up institutions to proactively nudge progress in a more inclusive direction, we could kick off a vicious cycle in which AI-fueled inequality steadily erodes both the economic and political power of average citizens.

On the other hand, inclusive growth could significantly bolster democracy. Broad-based prosperity reduces economic disparities, leading to a more balanced distribution of political power. This environment discourages elite dominance, as there is less concentrated wealth to manipulate the political landscape. Furthermore, when people feel economically secure, they may be more likely to vote and participate in civic activities. By ensuring that all citizens have a stake in the economy as AI becomes a larger part of it, we can create a virtuous cycle where economic and political inclusion mutually reinforce each other, leading to a more just and democratic society. At a global level, as calls for international governance of AI get louder, it will be critical to ensure that communities around the world have access to use and benefit from AI so that they can play a role in shaping its future."

(https://cip.org/blog/predistribution-over-redistribution-beyond-the-windfall-clause)

2.

"Consider two scenarios for an AI-driven future. In the first, those positioned to leverage automation at scale become extremely wealthy, while those around the world without the necessary skills, capital or infrastructure access are unable to participate meaningfully in production. Costs plummet, but so do wages; most struggle to reap the benefits of the material abundance that advanced AI helps create. People live off UBI in order to meet their needs, hoping the payments aren’t reduced.

In the second scenario, productive capital is distributed well before advanced AI arrives: People worldwide have access to fundamental digital infrastructure (e.g., internet, stable electricity and affordable devices), AI tools and the skills to use them effectively. Some people start AI-powered businesses, working a few hours a week, but mostly delegating tasks to AI agents. More people globally have the opportunity to participate in an AI-powered economy, wielding this technology not just to contribute economically, but also to achieve their own goals outside of work. The first scenario makes people dependents; the second makes them participants.

The first approach is redistributive; the second is predistributive. Predistribution is the idea of preventing inequality in the first place by enabling equal access to income-generating resources. Enabling equality of opportunity, ex-ante, over enforcing equality of outcomes, ex-post, creates deeper structural change than after-the-fact corrections ever could.

UBI implemented early enough could itself be predistributive — if it enabled people to access relevant technology and invest in their capabilities before AI-driven disruption. But it’s unfortunately plausible that the political will to implement such a large-scale redistribution scheme won’t be built until, say, labor markets collapse. Implementing UBI under conditions of extreme inequality would mean that those who need it have minimal bargaining power to ensure its adequacy or stability."

(https://www.noemamag.com/heres-how-to-share-ais-future-wealth/?)