AI, universal basic income, and power: symbolic violence in the tech elite's narrative

摘要

In recent years, the concept of universal basic income (UBI) has gained significant attention, not from grassroots community organizations traditionally associated with social welfare advocacy (Jarow, 2023), but from some of the most powerful figures in the technology sector-AI tycoons elites (Shead, 2021). Prominent advocates like Elon Musk and Sam Altman argue that UBI is necessary to address the economic disruptions caused by artificial intelligence (AI) and automation (Crumley, 2024). They present UBI as a way to ensure that the benefits of AI are distributed across society, not just concentrated in the hands of a few. However, this seemingly benevolent narrative camouflages a deeper agenda: to seek out a social license to gain public acceptance for the omnipresence of AI in society, and the will to control under the guise of universal benefit.While economic, social, and normative analyses have been put forward in articles in Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence (Ernst, 2022;Huo et al., 2024;Merola, 2022), two key dimensions that remain underexplored in the UBI discussion are 1) the utilitarian calculation behind the AI-justified UBI narrative;, and 2) the associated concept of symbolic violence, as articulated by sociologist Pierre Bourdieu. I argue that UBI, while ostensibly a tool for social good, can may end up justifying even greater disparities in wealth and may entrench symbolic violence by reinforcing divisions between AI owners, those skilled or capacitated in using AI, and those who are merely recipients of its "benefits." This symbolic violence is particularly perverse as it perpetuates a narrative of AI as universally beneficial, when in reality, it risks exacerbating socio-economic inequalities and creating profound epistemic and symbolic injustices.The advocacy for UBI by AI tycoons elites is a relatively new phenomenon. Figures like Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla, SpaceX, and X, and Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, have positioned themselves as champions of UBI. Musk (2024) recently indicated about the rise of AI that "In a benign scenario, probably none of us will have a job. There would be universal high income. There would be no shortage of goods and services. The question will really be one of meaning: if a computer can do, and the robots can do, everything better than you, does your life have meaning? I do think there's perhaps still a role for humans in that we may give AI meaning." For his part, Altman (2016) indicated that "[he's] fairly confident that at some point in the future, as technology continues to eliminate traditional jobs and massive new wealth gets created, we're going to see some version of this at a national scale." AI Tycoons elites argue that as AI and automation increasingly replace human labor, UBI will be essential to prevent widespread economic dislocation and social unrest. This argument may be compelling, especially in a world where technological advancements threaten to render large segments of the workforce obsolete (Islam, 2024). However, the promotion of UBI by these tech magnates is not simply a philanthropic gesture; it is deeply intertwined with their interests in the expansion and dominance of AI technologies. Crane et al (2019) argue that corporate strategies often align with maintaining and enhancing power structures that benefit corporate elites. The advocacy for UBI by AI leaders can be seen as a strategic move to preemptively address potential backlash against AI-induced risk and negative externalities, such as job losses or job polarization (i.e., reducing middle wages, shifting demand towards low and high wages, see Goos and Savona (2024)), thereby securing a favorable business environment for continued AI development and deployment.Without going so far as to say that AI may be an existential risk (or X-Risk, a risk to the very viability of humanity)-as other movements such as the members of the effective altruism movement and