Summary of Key Points
This article criticizes the technological utopian narrative that claims "artificial intelligence will bring about a great abundance of material wealth, and humanity will bid farewell to labor to enter an era of happiness and prosperity," pointing out that it ignores the practical issues of human needs, social fairness, and power dynamics. The author draws an analogy with the concept of a "rentier state" (such as the wealthy Gulf oil countries that are rich but powerless) and argues that a future society with AI-UBI (universal basic income) could become the "ultimate rentier state"—where a few elites control technology and wealth, using welfare to ensure public obedience rather than truly achieving fair sharing. The article emphasizes that technological progress alone does not guarantee a better future; institutional frameworks are crucial in ensuring that technology benefits everyone.
I. The Alluring Technological Utopia: Appealing on the Surface, but a Deceptive Trap
The future visions depicted by Silicon Valley pioneers (such as Mars colonization, digital immortality, and human-computer integration) sound enticing, but the author views them as "utopian traps." The reason is that these narratives focus only on the productivity gains brought by technology while avoiding the real issues of human nature, social structure, and power distribution. For example, the Golden Age of ancient Greece or Keynes' prediction of a 15-hour workweek did not consider questions like "who will distribute the wealth" and "what people need to be happy." Today's technological utopias are merely old fantasies wrapped in an AI guise—elites use grand narratives about the "future" as excuses for their aggressive expansion of technology.
II. The Utopian Advocates: Creating Illusions While Exacerbating Inequality
Ironically, the technologists who enthusiastically promote utopias are often the same ones who drive the "K-shaped polarization" (where a few become extremely wealthy while most fall behind). The wealth generated by AI largely flows to those who control computing power, data, and algorithms. Technological elites own "data refineries" and algorithmic copyrights, and every improvement in efficiency leads to exponential growth in capital returns, while the bargaining power of ordinary workers weakens. Truck drivers and factory workers are being marginalized by AI, and their only consolation may be a future UBI (universal basic income). These elites may truly believe they are "saving humanity," but they show no empathy for the suffering of the common people; unemployed drivers are merely seen as noise in the backdrop of historical evolution.
III. Three Fatal Flaws in Technological Utopias
The author identifies three fundamental flaws in technological utopias:
1. Wealth creation does not equal wealth sharing: They claim that AI will create a surplus of wealth, but they do not address who will receive it. Without a fair distribution mechanism, abundance will only reinforce social stratification—just as the benefits of AI have largely benefited elites rather than the general population.
2. Not working does not equate to freedom and happiness: They think that avoiding work means being happy, but people need a sense of achievement and value from contributing to society. Long periods of idleness can be more destructive than overworking (for example, prolonged laziness can lead to emptiness).
3. Ignoring the monopoly on control: They claim that technology is neutral, but those who control technology and wealth distribution can use it for their own purposes (such as pursuing Mars colonization rather than solving people's problems). The benefits you receive may come at the cost of giving up certain rights, such as surveillance or political participation.
IV. The Lesson from Rentier States: An AI-UBI Society Could Be the "Ultimate Version"
To illustrate the practical outcome of utopias, the author cites the example of rentier states (like Gulf oil countries):
- Externalized sources of revenue: Gulf countries earn money by selling oil, a gift from nature, which has nothing to do with the daily labor of their citizens. In an AI era, the "rent" comes from automation, which replaces human labor and is similarly unrelated to ordinary people's work.
- No taxation means no representation: Gulf governments do not rely on taxes to sustain themselves (they depend on oil revenue), so they do not need to be accountable to their citizens. In an AI-UBI society, the government distributes wealth created by AI without relying on taxes, further weakening citizens' political influence.
- Using welfare to buy obedience: Gulf countries use generous benefits to suppress public demands; in an AI-UBI society, distributing money to everyone essentially buys stability—once you receive the money, you are less likely to demand rights to employment or development.
V. Conclusion: Don't Believe in Technological Determinism; Institutional Frameworks Are Key
The article concludes by emphasizing that the issue is not against technological progress itself, but against the belief that technology will automatically create a utopia. Technology is neutral; it is the institutional arrangements that matter—how to distribute AI benefits fairly, how to ensure that ordinary people feel valued, and how to prevent power monopolies. Instead of indulging in utopian fantasies, we should focus on how to use technology to benefit everyone through proper institutional design.
The core message of this article is to be cautious of the promise of "technology saving the world" and to recognize the underlying issues of power and wealth distribution. Without a fair system, even the most advanced technology will only enrich a few and leave the majority more powerless.