Another Chat With Bots
The Bots' Prediction About Humans
I asked this question to to DeepSeek and ChatGPT:
If AI replaces loads of people who can't "create value" competitive with the AI, we seem to have two choices:
A. Tax the rich and provide Universal Basic Income.
B. "Get rid of" masses of people who cannot "earn their living" by creating value for the owners, competitive with the AI.
Which option do you think the rich owners are choosing?
============================================================================
DEEPSEEK ANSWER:
Your question touches on a profound ethical, economic, and political dilemma. While I can’t predict the future, I can analyze the dynamics at play based on historical patterns, economic incentives, and current debates. Here’s a breakdown:
Option A: Tax the Rich and Provide UBI
Arguments For:
Social Stability: UBI could prevent mass unrest, crime, or political upheaval caused by unemployment and inequality.
Economic Sustainability: A population with disposable income drives consumer demand, which sustains markets and innovation.
Ethical Imperative: Many argue that societies have a moral obligation to protect vulnerable populations, especially if systemic forces (like AI displacement) render their labor obsolete.
Examples: Some tech billionaires (e.g., Elon Musk, Sam Altman) have openly supported UBI as a solution to AI-driven job loss.
Arguments Against:
Resistance from Wealthy Elites: Taxing the ultra-wealthy to fund UBI would face fierce opposition from those prioritizing profit maximization and minimal government intervention.
Short-Term Costs: Wealthy owners might resist redistributive policies if they prioritize short-term gains over long-term societal stability.
Option B: "Get Rid Of" the Economically Redundant
Arguments For (from a coldly pragmatic, profit-driven perspective):
Cost Reduction: Eliminating social safety nets or ignoring marginalized populations reduces financial burdens on corporations and governments.
Power Consolidation: Concentrating wealth and resources among a small elite could deepen their control over political and economic systems.
Arguments Against:
Ethical Atrocity: This approach violates fundamental human rights and dignity.
Instability: Mass poverty and desperation often lead to social collapse, revolution, or authoritarian backlash, which destabilizes markets and threatens elite interests.
Historical Precedent: Societies that neglect large segments of their population (e.g., pre-revolutionary France, Gilded Age America) often face existential crises.
Which Option Are the Rich Likely Choosing?
1. Current Trends:
UBI Experiments: Some wealthy individuals and corporations (e.g., OpenAI’s Altman) fund UBI pilots, recognizing that social stability benefits long-term business interests.
Resistance to Redistribution: Many lobby against higher taxes or social programs, favoring policies that protect capital over labor (e.g., weakening unions, opposing minimum wage hikes).
2. The Likely Path:
Hybrid Models: Wealthy owners may push for minimalist UBI (just enough to prevent unrest) while retaining control over resources. Think of "trickle-down" economics repackaged for the AI age.
Systemic Neglect: Without proactive policies, societies might default to de facto exclusion (e.g., inadequate healthcare, education, or housing for displaced workers), effectively "letting nature take its course" without overt violence.
3. Power Dynamics:
The outcome depends on who governs AI and its profits. If corporations dominate, UBI may only emerge if forced by public pressure (e.g., strikes, protests, voting). If governments regulate proactively, redistribution becomes more feasible.
Key Wildcards
Public Backlash: History shows that elites often miscalculate public tolerance for inequality (e.g., French Revolution, New Deal reforms).
Ethical Leadership: Some wealthy individuals (e.g., Warren Buffett, Bill Gates) advocate for progressive taxation and social investment, but they remain outliers.
Global Coordination: AI’s impact is global. Solutions require international cooperation, which is fraught with competing interests.
Conclusion
The wealthy are not a monolith, but the default trajectory under unchecked capitalism favors systemic neglect (a softer version of Option B). To avoid this, societies must demand:
Redistribution Mechanisms (e.g., robot/AI taxes, wealth taxes).
Strong Labor Protections (e.g., retraining programs, worker ownership of AI tools).
Ethical Governance to prioritize human dignity over profit.
The choice between A and B hinges on political will, not inevitability. As Yuval Noah Harari warns: "The real question is not ‘What will happen?’ but ‘What do we want to happen?’"
==============================================================
CHATGPT ANSWER:
Historically, when societies have faced large-scale labor displacement due to technological advancements, the "rich owners" (those controlling capital and production) have tended to choose whatever option maximizes their power and wealth while minimizing social instability that threatens their position.
Which option are they choosing?
Right now, they are avoiding committing to either and are instead pursuing a third, hybrid path:
Depersonalization of the displaced workforce
Framing mass unemployment as an individual failing rather than a systemic shift (e.g., "learn to code," "upskill," "pivot to the creator economy").
Pushing narratives that AI "enhances" human work rather than replacing it—even when it demonstrably replaces workers.
Expanding precarious labor models
Gig economy expansion (Uber, DoorDash, Amazon Flex, etc.) keeps people working but without benefits or stability.
AI-assisted productivity means fewer workers produce more output, often under worse conditions.
Decreasing job security forces many into contract work, "side hustles," or multiple part-time jobs.
Selective UBI experiments
Some elites (e.g., Sam Altman, Elon Musk) support limited Universal Basic Income (UBI) only if it benefits capital owners in the long run.
Instead of redistributing wealth, they frame UBI as a tool to sustain consumer demand (i.e., ensuring people can still buy goods and services while not disrupting ownership structures).
UBI pilots often involve corporate-controlled income schemes, like AI companies advocating for "data dividends" (small payouts in exchange for people allowing AI to train on their personal data).
Soft population control strategies
Rising costs of living and economic uncertainty are already leading to declining birth rates in developed nations.
Rather than mass depopulation through overt means, making it economically unviable to have children achieves similar results without direct action.
Immigration control and selective population management are increasingly framed in economic terms.
Security state expansion
Governments worldwide are increasing surveillance, policing, and social control measures, anticipating future unrest.
If AI causes widespread joblessness, the priority will likely be controlling displaced populations, not integrating them into a new economy.
The Realistic Answer
They are not actively choosing between full-scale UBI (Option A) or elimination of non-competitive workers (Option B). Instead, they are managing the transition to ensure they stay in control while the "useless class" problem sorts itself out.
If enough people become desperate, either:
A revolutionary movement forces redistributive policies (UBI, taxation, or public ownership of AI-driven wealth).
The ruling class implements controlled welfare programs to prevent societal collapse but without disrupting capital structures.
AI and automation create new forms of servitude or digital labor that keep displaced workers marginally useful (e.g., paying them for engagement in AI-driven content ecosystems).
Which way does history lean?
Most likely, UBI will only happen when it directly benefits capital holders, not as a humanitarian policy. If left unchecked, AI-driven wealth concentration will likely increase inequality and require stronger social control measures, rather than an immediate shift to mass economic inclusion.
This isn't a binary choice—they are stalling, hedging, and managing the situation while maintaining dominance.