Can Capitalism Survive AI?
What is artificial intelligence? Simply put, AI is the process of programming a machine to make decisions independently, enabling it to perform tasks that require human intelligence.
AI can manage an array of useful functions that we use daily, such as Face ID to unlock our phones or content recommendations, such as influencing our music choices. Still, no one can negate the fact that, more than once, AI has been misused or malfunctioned in ways that range from insulting to plain creepy.
These faults include AI having racial biases and concerning prejudices, such as Google Photos mislabeling black people as gorillas or Facebook’s AI putting the "primates" label on a video featuring black men. Then, there’s a website that uses AI to nudify women’s bodies (and only women’s), no matter if she’s fully clothed. The woman’s body in the image can be turned naked in a matter of seconds.
However, these examples barely scratch the surface of the actual exponential capabilities of AI and what it can and will be able to do in the future. Therefore, there should be a debate about how AI will change our society and the world, particularly how our current economic model and structures will fare under increasing AI expansion and takeover.
The issues we are currently facing under capitalism
Capitalism does not amass as much praise as it once did.
There was always some hostile rhetoric against capitalism. After World War II, the critique came from communist countries such as the USSR, which was nothing but expected since the Soviet Union staunchly opposed everything the world of capitalism represented — the west. In addition, the Cold War further aggravated the already tense situation.
But when the USSR crumbled, and everyone hailed the glory of the west and capitalism, the world was ready for capitalism to thrive and spread higher living standards to as many parts of the world as possible.
Fast forward to today, capitalism is getting a lot of backlash, to the point where partaking in a hostile stance against capitalism has become trendy. Nowadays, plenty of anti-capitalist discourse occurs in the west, of all places. The growing anti-capitalistic viewpoint is particularly salient when looking at specific age groups and political party affiliations. For example, statistics show that Democrats, now more than ever, favour anti-capitalist ideas. At the same time, the younger generations, such as Gen Z and Millennials, tend to be left-leaning, have core liberal values and typically support anti-capitalist views.
This trend can be witnessed in pop culture. For example, the director of Squid Game, a TV series garnering praise from critics and media outlets as well as the highest rankings in 2021, confirmed that the show was meant to critique capitalism. Overall, the show’s success, coupled well with the trend of hating capitalism, which has amassed significant attention with trending hashtags such as #eattherich, all have added to the cauldron of the tense anti-capitalist discourse online.
For some time now, especially with the ongoing global pandemic and its impact, the anti-capitalistic trend has not faltered.
The pandemic was a catalyst that flushed out into the open all the negative systematic structures that no longer served most of society, even in the western countries, renowned for being the leaders and providing the best opportunities and highest living standards.
Many agree that serious faults have become conspicuous since the beginning of this pandemic. Most of society is deprived, and the most vulnerable members are crippled by debt, illness or both. One of the most glaring facts is that the wealthiest people profited from the pandemic. For example, between January 2020 and April 2021, US billionaire wealth grew by $1.2 trillion. As of September 2021, the number of Americans living below the poverty line has increased by a whole percentage point, to 11.4% from the year before. Even the average household income declined by 2.9% when adjusted for inflation.
From losing jobs, falling ill and accumulating hospital bills while death plagued the world. Many people lost their jobs due to bankruptcies and lockdowns. In contrast, others had no choice but to carry on working throughout the pandemic in highly unsafe conditions with Covid outbreaks, particularly at meatpacking and food processing plants, as well as farms and ranches.
One cannot help but wonder, what are the prospects with the current systems in place? We know that the takeover of AI is inevitable, and the question is not “if” but rather “when”? Automation has already wiped out many service jobs. Now, some companies are leaping for opportunities to open completely automated grocery stores, with Tesco being just the latest to open one in the UK.
We know that, eventually, AI will take over completely. It has already accelerated the takeover of industries such as manual labour and service jobs after the pandemic began. Even jobs in creative fields aren’t immune to AI.
American capitalism vs Nordic capitalism
While people’s discontent with current systems ensues and the rising anti-capitalist trends are apparent, we need to focus on and analyse possible solutions to the current issues. Further, we should evaluate whether dismantling capitalism is really the answer, especially when the often-cited problems and solutions, such as free higher education and free healthcare, are the standard in other countries that operate under capitalism.
When discussing potential outcomes regarding AI and capitalism, it is essential to note the different variations of capitalism that exist throughout the western world.
It should be noted that capitalism is not an inherently evil, corrupt system. On the contrary, capitalism has an enormous potential to bring growth, wealth and prosperity.
Capitalism has aided in improving living standards and the development of new and better products. And American capitalism has observed profitable growth for decades. Yet, as Kotler (2020) notes, despite high growth, American capitalism resulted in incredibly unequal income and wealth distribution.
However, it all depends on how it is implemented, as it comes in many forms, from American capitalism to Nordic capitalism to Japanese capitalism (Kotler, 2020).
For example, Nordic nations are known for their high living standards, good health, and low levels of income inequality coupled with influential trade unions and a public sector that employs 30% of the labour force; the Nordic economic model is a welfare state built on collective bargaining and free-market capitalism (Kotler, 2020). Kotler (2020) further explains that Nordic capitalism differentiates from American because Nordic nations implement Stakeholder Capitalism, which means that the purpose of a business is to serve the interests of all its stakeholders, like customers, employees, suppliers, shareholders and local communities, to build long-term value. Unlike the American system, which focuses on short-term maximum profit gains to reward shareholders at the expense of other stakeholders.
Kotler (2020) notes that American capitalism practises Shareholder Capitalism, which focuses on increasing profits and compensating shareholders who own the business and bear risk.
Kotler (2020) further explains that American capitalism is based on the laissez-faire ideas propagated by Milton Friedman; for example, the focus of businesses should be on maximising short-term profits that belong to the shareholders while completely disregarding any social issues and injustices. However, this type of capitalism results in more income and wealth inequality.
It has to be acknowledged that there is a possibility that the reason American capitalism cannot provide improved wealth distribution compared to Nordic nations is that the super-rich seized control of capitalism, not because capitalism is inherently at fault (Kotler,2020).
The good news is that there is a shift in mindset and attitude amongst business leaders who have noticed the brewing discontent in society, observing that actions are needed. Therefore, some CEOs are favouring a movement towards Stakeholder Capitalism.
If the current economic system were not to change
While society is already familiar with enormous shifts in the work-life balance, as experienced during the industrial revolution, the disruptions that occurred then only lasted briefly, compared to the potential upheaval that the upcoming AI revolution could cause.
The past industrial revolutions caused the replacement of mechanical human skills with automation, such as tools and machinery. Yet, the upcoming revolution is set to replace our cognitive abilities, especially our ability to predict and make decisions, which has never happened before (Marr, 2018).
On the one hand, we should celebrate that humanity has reached this level of ingenuity and innovation, creating marvellous machines that could entirely replace physical labour and potentially free us humans to take up more leisurely activities and enjoy life.
On the other hand, this raises potential issues that could be colossal for most people. We do not need to dig deep to understand how, in the future, if under current economic structures, this opportunity to free humanity from unnecessary tasks that require us to dedicate most of our lifetimes could turn into a dystopian nightmare.
Understandably, the typical response in protest from workers in industries under threat from automation is resistance and the vocalised need for laws to be implemented to protect their jobs (Chase, 2020). Furthermore, Chase (2020) argues that this approach would be detrimental as industries operate in a competitive market. If certain governments focused on protecting jobs, these countries would become less competitive internationally, as protecting jobs could undermine competition and destroy innovation (Chase, 2020).
Tools such as universal basic income, employee redeployment to different positions in the same company, or retraining for another industry could provide a more adequate and safe transition. Nonetheless, it is evident that government aid would play a key role in maintaining and helping citizens displaced by automation, protecting workers from disparaging circumstances, and providing monetary support or retraining for another industry.
If a planned economy entirely overhauled the current system of capitalism
Xiang (2018) theorises that when AI dominates most sectors, capitalism could be replaced by the planned economic system. Using China’s socialist market economy as an example, Xiang (2018) notes conditions that prevent a group of elites from acting in self-interest, instead focusing on enabling the entire nation to utilise the benefits of production. If coupled with the correct regulations, in theory, this could promise freedom by releasing most of the workforce from the gruesome reigns of labour (Xiang, 2018).
Xiang (2018) argues that as AI expands and reaches everyday life, the idea of AI nationalisation will be driven by the inevitable mass unemployment, which, to combat, will require providing welfare and universal income. Xiang (2018) further proposes that the current kind of laissez-faire capitalism can bring nothing but AI oligarchs whose intellectual property governs the means of production.
Xiang (2018) further adds that AI has the promise of fulfilling the communist dream of eradicating wage labour, as it could deliver the means of providing and sustaining the majority of people by releasing them from labour. That is if AI was intended for the benefit of society instead of capitalists in the private sector (Xiang, 2018).
While the above arguments seem plausible, those who oppose this line of thinking might counter-argue that AI might not even be a reality if not for the fierce competition that capitalism breeds, resulting in innovation and creativity.
Furthermore, Chase (2020) argues that it is alarming that some of the worst regimes gained control wherever communism has been implemented, as communism allows total control to the governing elite.
Chase (2020) further suggests that the incredible power of markets cannot be dismissed, as businesses and people are all driven to deliver services and goods that are truly valued and do so efficiently.
In addition, if automated luxury capitalism takes hold in the future, fortunes and moderate amounts of wealth could potentially be amassed by producing art, handcrafted goods, and other forms of trademarked products, as human-made items would command a premium price in an AI-dominated market (Chase, 2020).
However, one could argue that this is not viable for the general population and would only be accessible to a select few.
While many theorise that capitalism will not stand the challenge of this brute innovative change, we must consider all available options and solutions when preparing for the age of AI to minimise potential downfalls. For example, maybe there is the possibility that society would overhaul certain aspects of the current economic system without overthrowing the entire system.
A feeling of distrust: who will AI benefit more?
The pandemic created the perfect conditions for new technological advancements to be introduced. However, we should not overlook the fact of who benefits the most from these enormous changes in society. While these technological advancements should aid everyone, the benefits are disproportionate.
Interestingly, these technological advancements were constantly pandered by tech companies before the pandemic (Klein, 2020). However, before the pandemic began, these technological developments were propped up by using the fear of China becoming the world leader in AI, a country known for its widespread surveillance and weak regulations, which ultimately would aid it in surpassing the US in the AI tech race (Klein, 2020). Yet it is known that China relies heavily on mass surveillance, particularly to subdue minority groups, for which it has been heavily criticised. The extreme development and integration of AI into people’s lives and the constant monitoring show how dystopian life has become there. For example, the offices of Canon Information Technology in China use "smile recognition" to allow employees entrance only if they are in a positive mood.
But maybe we are not as far off as we would like to be from what is now the current reality for people in China. So perhaps we should ask ourselves if we really want to strive for this.
When the pandemic changed our lives by creating an exacerbated need for technology that helps limit physical human contact, that is where the tech companies came in to save the day; suddenly, the reasons to jump on the advanced tech development were no longer those of competition with China (Klein, 2020).
One of the main propagators of the new technological storm is Eric Schmidt. With the help of Governor Cuomo, Schmidt, who previously worked at Alphabet (Google) and still owns over $5.3 billion in shares of the company, including sizable investments in other tech companies, has led the way for Silicon Valley to Washington — forming a seamless connection between the tech giants and the government (Klein, 2020).
Ultimately, when considering the public’s pessimistic outlook towards AI and the drastic changes it can create in the world, one of the critical core factors missing that would undoubtedly encourage the public’s approval is trust. Trust that this massive technology, which bears vast responsibility, will not be mismanaged or misused. But when looking at the current track record of these tech giants, for example, Facebook’s awareness of its harm to teenagers, there is little faith left in these companies not to take advantage, and it becomes clear that everything leads back to profits. Countless scandals, such as the leak of the Panama Papers in 2016, or the most recent Pandora papers, further perpetuate distrust and concern. Showing that, yet again, the elite and super-rich have more control and influence than we care to realise, and all their resources are used to manipulate the system to benefit themselves.
Those who vehemently defend AI and its further integration often list reasons such as safety and convenience. But we can observe that it has the potential to continue growing further, reaching a point (or that it already has) where the lines between safety, convenience, ethics and profits become extremely blurred.
Ensuring the safe and ethical integration of AI requires many complicated actions. From attempting to regulate and govern with correct laws to adequate punishment for misuse, even when a giant corporation with seemingly never-ending funds is at fault. However, Marr (2018) suggests that two primary conditions are needed initially: the need for the correct framework to be instigated by fully informed government officials and regulators who understand all the difficulties ahead; and the need for admission by the tech industry that the proper implementation of technological transformation trumps over the emphasis on profits. However, neither is likely to occur soon, as the primary aim of big tech is to yield earnings (Marr, 2018).
It cannot be stressed enough that a complete understanding of the tech industry is needed for those tasked to govern and control the tech giants. From what we witnessed so far, government officials lack comprehension of the services and products these tech companies offer, leading to situations where officials struggle to formulate poignant questions. Some of them do not possess the level of knowledge needed to understand it. Then again, it seems that those in charge of these tech giants do not want to make the information more comprehensible to lawmakers by evading questions and providing misleading answers. This calls for a change in governing these tech industries, as tech companies should, like in any sector, have primary, proper regulations and not be allowed to fly under the radar.
And just like ethical dilemmas and considerations are required for gene-editing technology, perhaps the development of AI technology should implement ethical concerns, extreme due diligence and caution.
While there are many theories about what the future of AI holds for humankind, they are based only on observations of current events. As a result, we cannot know for sure what the future holds and how life, as we know it now, might change exponentially in ways that are merely unimaginable for most of our society.
Initially, it would seem wrong to fear AI, as it is an invention promising a new age and massive change, and that would mean we fear innovation, science, and all that has propelled our society so far. Especially if we look back throughout history, we can observe the times when some were fearful of change and new inventions. Still, humanity prospered on, utterly indifferent to those few, leaving all fears in the past.
Then again, no matter how brilliant, an invention can be alarming, and rightly so, if even the people who invent and research it have serious concerns.
We also need to recognise that the potentially life-changing tools can also end up in the wrong hands of those bent on absorbing extreme power, which can ultimately alter our future in ways that would bring human existence to the verge of collapse.
However, as we advance, we must recognise that we might not need to dismantle current economic systems in the democratic world. Nevertheless, to avoid complete chaos in the future, it seems inevitable to manage without government interference, such as UBI, welfare, redeployment, retraining, and regulations for the businesses deploying the AI tech.
Reference list:
BBC (2019). Reasons for the Cold War — Revision 3 — Higher History — BBC Bitesize. [online] BBC Bitesize. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/z8qnsbk/revision/3 [Accessed 22 Jan. 2022].
Buckley, C. and Mozur, P. (2019). How China Uses High-Tech Surveillance to Subdue Minorities. The New York Times. [online] 22 May. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/22/world/asia/china-surveillance-xinjiang.html [Accessed 22 Jan. 2022].
Caldwell, R. and Brooks, R. (2021). The dark side of artificial intelligence. [online] newscentermaine.com. Available at: https://www.newscentermaine.com/article/news/local/207/the-dark-side-of-artificial-intelligence/97-34ce40cb-148e-4359-9baa-fb420429ec4e [Accessed 22 Jan. 2022].
Chace, C. (2020). Artificial Intelligence, & Fully Automated Luxury Capitalism. [online] Forbes. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/cognitiveworld/2020/06/15/artificial-intelligence--fully-automated-luxury-capitalism/?sh=30bd24f04a31 [Accessed 22 Jan. 2022].
D’Souza, D. (2020). What is Stakeholder Capitalism? [online] Investopedia. Available at: https://www.investopedia.com/stakeholder-capitalism-4774323 [Accessed 22 Jan. 2022].
Delavega, E. (2021). COVID-19: This is how many Americans now live below the poverty line. [online] World Economic Forum. Available at: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/09/poverty-america-united-states-covid-coronavirus-pandemic/ [Accessed 22 Jan. 2022].
Dillon, M. (2021). The Director Of “Squid Game” Says It’s About Capitalism, But It’s Really More Like Communism. [online] www.eviemagazine.com. Available at: https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/director-squid-game-says-about-capitalism-actually-about-communism [Accessed 22 Jan. 2022].
Douglas, L. (2020). Mapping Covid-19 outbreaks in the food system. [online] Food and Environment Reporting Network. Available at: https://thefern.org/2020/04/mapping-covid-19-in-meat-and-food-processing-plants/ [Accessed 22 Jan. 2022].
Facebook apology as AI labels black men “primates.” (2021). BBC News. [online] 6 Sep. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-58462511 [Accessed 22 Jan. 2022].
Frankfurt, T. (2021). Council Post: Why All Companies Must Explore The Role Of Ethics In Technology. [online] Forbes. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2021/12/13/why-all-companies-must-explore-the-role-of-ethics-in-technology/?sh=2613b585cc91 [Accessed 22 Jan. 2022].
Gayle, D. (2021). Facebook aware of Instagram’s harmful effect on teenage girls, leak reveals. [online] The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/sep/14/facebook-aware-instagram-harmful-effect-teenage-girls-leak-reveals [Accessed 22 Jan. 2022].
Guynn, J. (2015). Google Photos labeled black people “gorillas.” [online] USA TODAY. Available at: https://eu.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/07/01/google-apologizes-after-photos-identify-black-people-as-gorillas/29567465/ [Accessed 22 Jan. 2022].
Harding, L. (2017). What are the Panama Papers? A guide to history’s biggest data leak. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/03/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-panama-papers [Accessed 22 Jan. 2022].
Hipes, P. (2021). “Squid Game” Dominates U.S. Streaming Rankings Again, Hits Rare 3 Billion Minutes Milestone. [online] Deadline. Available at: https://deadline.com/2021/10/squid-game-streaming-ratings-minutes-viewed-milestone-nielsen-1234864249/ [Accessed 22 Jan. 2022].
James, H. (2019). The New Anti-Capitalism | by Harold James. [online] Project Syndicate. Available at: https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/new-anti-capitalism-china-rise-technology-by-harold-james-2019-11 [Accessed 22 Jan. 2022].
Jones, O. (2021). Eat the rich! Why millennials and generation Z have turned their backs on capitalism. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/sep/20/eat-the-rich-why-millennials-and-generation-z-have-turned-their-backs-on-capitalism [Accessed 22 Jan. 2022].
Klein, N. (2020). Under Cover of Mass Death, Andrew Cuomo Calls in the Billionaires to Build a High-Tech Dystopia. The Intercept. [online] 8 May. Available at: https://theintercept.com/2020/05/08/andrew-cuomo-eric-schmidt-coronavirus-tech-shock-doctrine/ [Accessed 22 Jan. 2022].
Kotler, P. (2020). Is America Ready for Nordic Capitalism? [online] https://sarasotainstitute.global. Available at: https://sarasotainstitute.global/is-america-ready-for-nordic-capitalism/ [Accessed 22 Jan. 2022].
Marr, B. (2018). How Artificial Intelligence Could Kill Capitalism. [online] Forbes. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2018/07/02/how-artificial-intelligence-could-kill-capitalism/?sh=4cb57d424222 [Accessed 22 Jan. 2022].
Newport, F. (2018). Democrats More Positive About Socialism Than Capitalism. [online] Gallup.com. Available at: https://news.gallup.com/poll/240725/democrats-positive-socialism-capitalism.aspx [Accessed 22 Jan. 2022].
Ovide, S. (2020). Congress Doesn’t Get Big Tech. By Design. The New York Times. [online] 29 Jul. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/29/technology/congress-big-tech.html [Accessed 22 Jan. 2022].
Peterson-Withorn, C. (2021). How Much Money America’s Billionaires Have Made During The Covid-19 Pandemic. [online] Forbes. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/chasewithorn/2021/04/30/american-billionaires-have-gotten-12-trillion-richer-during-the-pandemic/?sh=185df960f557 [Accessed 22 Jan. 2022].
Rizzo, S. and Kelly, M. (2018). Analysis | Fact-checking Mark Zuckerberg’s testimony on Facebook and data collection. Washington Post. [online] 13 Apr. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/04/13/fact-checking-mark-zuckerbergs-testimony-on-facebook-and-data-collection/ [Accessed 22 Jan. 2022].
Samuel, S. (2019). Artificial intelligence can now make art. Artists, don’t panic. [online] Vox. Available at: https://www.vox.com/2019/5/10/18529009/ai-art-marcus-du-sautoy-math-music-painting-literature [Accessed 22 Jan. 2022].
Semuels, A. (2020). Millions of Americans Have Lost Jobs in the Pandemic — And Robots and AI Are Replacing Them Faster Than Ever. Time. [online] 6 Aug. Available at: https://time.com/5876604/machines-jobs-coronavirus/ [Accessed 22 Jan. 2022].
Shrider, E., Kollar, M., Chen, F. and Semega, J. (2021). Income and Poverty in the United States: 2020 Current Population Reports. [online] Available at: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2021/demo/p60-273.pdf [Accessed 22 Jan. 2022].
Smialek, J., Casselman, B. and Friedman, G. (2020). Workers Face Permanent Job Losses as the Virus Persists. The New York Times. [online] 3 Oct. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/03/business/economy/coronavirus-permanent-job-losses.html [Accessed 22 Jan. 2022].
Sullivan, M. (2018). Perspective | Members of Congress can’t possibly regulate Facebook. They don’t understand it. Washington Post. [online] 10 Apr. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/members-of-congress-cant-possibly-regulate-facebook-they-dont-understand-it/2018/04/10/27fa163e-3cd1-11e8-8d53-eba0ed2371cc_story.html [Accessed 22 Jan. 2022].
Tesco opens its first checkout-free store. (2021). BBC News. [online] 18 Oct. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-58951984 [Accessed 22 Jan. 2022].
The Guardian. (2021). Pandora papers: biggest ever leak of offshore data exposes financial secrets of rich and powerful. [online] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/oct/03/pandora-papers-biggest-ever-leak-of-offshore-data-exposes-financial-secrets-of-rich-and-powerful [Accessed 22 Jan. 2022].
Vincent, J. (2021). Canon put AI cameras in its Chinese offices that only let smiling workers inside. [online] The Verge. Available at: https://www.theverge.com/2021/6/17/22538160/ai-camera-smile-recognition-office-workers-china-canon [Accessed 22 Jan. 2022].
Ward, F. (2021). “Nudifying” AI tools which “undress” women in photos are gaining traction, but what is being done to stop it, and how can we protect our images online? [online] Glamour UK. Available at: https://www.glamourmagazine.co.uk/article/nudification-intimate-image-abuse?utm_campaign=dashhudson&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=instagram&utm_content=www.instagram.com/p/CXLkzrbMNvE/ [Accessed 22 Jan. 2022].
Wolfe, R., Harknett, K.H.D.S. and Schneider, D. (2021). Inequalities At Work And The Toll Of COVID-19. [online] https://www.healthaffairs.org/. Available at: https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hpb20210428.863621/full/ [Accessed 22 Jan. 2022].
www.oecd-ilibrary.org. (n.d.). Labour market developments: The unfolding COVID-19 crisis. [online] Available at: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/5a700c4b-en/1/3/1/index.html?itemId=/content/publication/5a700c4b-en&_csp_=d31326a7706c58707d6aad05ad9dc5ab&itemIGO=oecd&itemContentType=book [Accessed 22 Jan. 2022].
Xiang, F. (2018). Opinion | AI will spell the end of capitalism. Washington Post. [online] 3 May. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/theworldpost/wp/2018/05/03/end-of-capitalism/ [Accessed 22 Jan. 2022].
