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

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 the associated cause of longtermism may do (Jecker et al., 2024)-AI may pose significant economic and social risks if job losses are not offset. The narrative presented by these AI leaders suggests that UBI is a necessary adaptation to the inevitable rise of AI-a tool to ensure that everyone benefits from technological progress. Yet, this narrative serves to legitimize and reinforce the power dynamics that already exist in the AI industry. By advocating for UBI, these tycoons AI elites position themselves as benevolent visionaries who are concerned about the well-being of humanity. However, as Sadowski (2016) argues, promoting UBI can be a strategic way for AI elites to deflect criticism, maintaining control over narratives about AI's future while avoiding challenges to their profit motives. This framing distracts from the fact that the same individuals who are pushing for UBI are also those who stand to gain the most from the proliferation of AI technologies (Spencer, 2024). Bourdieu's concept of symbolic violence offers valuable insight into the deeper implications of UBI in the context of AI; however, it is important first to examine UBI from its utilitarian foundation.It is here that Bourdieu's concept of symbolic violence becomes crucial for understanding the true implications of UBI in the age of AI.This narrative aligns with a utilitarian view for assessing the benefits and risks of AI in society. AI tycoons elites apply a utilitarian calculation , evaluating the moral justification of replacing humans with AIs by weighing the potential to maximize societal well-being against the associated harms. From this eudemonic standpoint-focused on balancing well-being and harm, or even more simply pleasures and pains-they envision a future where AI's dominance across human-dominated fields leads to a society characterized by widespread leisure and, for some, heightened performance. In their view, this transformation is morally defensible if measures (such as UBI) are implemented to mitigate the negative effects and ensure distribution of certain benefits for allas they cast the replacing humans with AIs from a eudemonic standpoint (i.e., weighing up pleasures and pains). This allows them to arrive at a vision of the world where, despite AI's pervasive advances in fields dominated by humans, considering that this will result in a society of leisure (and, for a minority, of performance), then the calculation is worth the candle if subsidies (in the form of UBI) can be distributed to all. UBI is thus used to justify the possibility, and to demonstrate, that AI can provide for humanity's basic needs, while at the same time justifying that some can be ultra-wealthy and possess these technological tools of humanity's (apparent) sustenance (Islam, 2024). While it has not been directly invoked up to now, this is a curious application of John Rawls' principle of difference, which in his "Theory of Justice" states that social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society, consistent with the just savings principle and the principle of fair equality of opportunity (Rawls, 1971). Arguably, providing UBI to all does not solve everything; it creates more equality amongst the less well-off, without acting to address inequalities and wealth gaps. Yes, this would be a first for humanity-an economic safe net from which all could benefit (which appears to be of a fixedbenefit nature, with no indication of adjustment to economic trends)-but this cannot justify the kind of leanness in which it seems to place the non-owners of AI (i.e., virtually the entire world population) compared to the AI tycoonselites. It is hard to make a convincing utilitarian claim that this is for the benefit of the less well-off. Furthermore, as Sen (2009) argues, a focus on utility maximization may neglect the distribution of capabilities and freedoms, which are essential for genuine social justice; something very plausible if like Musk (2024) is thinking that if "[computers and robots can be doing] everything better than [humans], does [human] life have meaning?" With AI potentially representing a X-risk (Jecker et al., 2024) or at the very least risking to lead to a "a shift in power towards actors with the capital and authority to deploy powerful AI systems, such as elites, corporations, and governments" (Dafoe, 2018), it is very unclear that AI will actually maximize utility and be for everyone's benefits.Unfortunately for AI-justified UBI proponents, a study funded by Altman has found that UBI is not a comprehensive solution to the economic challenges posed by AI-driven job loss (Ropek, 2024). The research, conducted by OpenResearch (2024) between 2020 and 2023, provided $1,000 a month to 1,000 low-income individuals, with a control group receiving $50 monthly. While UBI helped participants cover essential expenses like housing and groceries, it did not lead to significant improvements in employment quality, education, or overall health. The study concluded that while UBI can alleviate some immediate financial stress, it falls short of addressing deeper systemic issues such as healthcare access, job stability, and upward mobility. Thus, UBI alone is unlikely to mitigate the broader economic impacts of AI on the workforce. So, unfortunately, proponents' utilitarian calculation does not seem to be working as well as they would like. As a result, the impetus for supporting UBI seems more ideological and self-serving than beneficial.Here, Pierre Bourdieu's concept of "violence symbolique" can help deceive that AI elites' benevolent narrative. Symbolic violence, as this refers to a form of domination that is subtle and often imperceptible, yet profoundly effective in maintaining social hierarchies (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992). Symbolic violence operates through the imposition of meanings that are accepted as legitimate, even by those who are subordinated by them (Bourdieu, 1993). This form of violence is not physical, but it is deeply embedded in the social structures and cultural norms that shape our understanding of the world. With society's increased digitalization, Couldry and Mejias (2020) denote how data practices can constitute a new form of colonialism, reinforcing existing power structures through symbolic means. It is throughSuch symbolic violence that allows dominant groups can perpetuate their power without overt coercion, by making their worldview appear natural and inevitable.In the context of UBI and AI, symbolic violence manifests in the way that the narrative of AI, as a universal good, is constructed and disseminated. The AI tycoons' elites' promotion of UBI suggests that the best way to address the disruptions caused by AI is to provide people with a guaranteed basic income, thereby ensuring that everyone benefits from technological progress. However, this narrative obscures the deeper structural inequalities that are being reinforced by the same technologies that UBI is supposed to mitigate. Symbolic violence, Bourdieu and Wacquant (1992, p. 172) notes, "accomplishes itself through an act of cognition and of misrecognition that lies beyond-or beneath-the controls of consciousness and will." In the case of AI-justified UBI, public's acceptance of this proposal as a universal good would be a form of misrecognition that a symbolic violence is being perpetrated and instead considering that AI and UBI is are something normal and rather logical natural within the existing social order. This Such acceptance would be a legitimization of the power of the AI elite by presenting them UBI as the solution to the very problems their technologies create, thus reinforcing the existing social order.UBI, as promoted by AI tycoonselites, can be seen as a tool of symbolic violence in several ways. First, it reinforces the division between those who own and control AI technologies and those who are merely consumers of its benefits. The owners of AI-who are also the primary advocates of UBI-are positioned as the benevolent providers of a safety net for the masses. Meanwhile, the recipients of UBI are cast as passive beneficiaries of a system that they have little control over. This dynamic perpetuates the power of the AI elite, while simultaneously legitimizing their dominance by presenting them as the solution to the very problems that their technologies create.Moreover, UBI as a form of symbolic violence operates by masking the true nature of the inequalities that it purportedly seeks to address. By providing a basic income, the narrative suggests that the economic and social disruptions caused by AI can be managed and mitigated. However, this narrative ignores the fact that UBI does nothing to address the underlying power imbalances that give rise to these disruptions in the first place. Critics argue that UBI, without accompanying structural reforms, may fail to address underlying inequalities (Parijs & Vanderborght, 2017), just like the OpenResearch study hinted. As Jarow (2024) puts it, "hitching the case for basic income to fears of rapid AI progress makes it far more vulnerable than it needs to be." By linking UBI to AI, its advocates risk creating a policy that merely manages the symptoms of economic inequality without addressing the root causes. This approach perpetuates a superficial solution that maintains the status quo, allowing the AI elite to continue accumulating wealth and power while the majority remains dependent on the systems that marginalize them.The symbolic violence inherent in the promotion of UBI by AI tycoons elites is particularly perverse because it creates the illusion of inclusivity and fairness; (in an interesting way, values that are quite central to AI ethics (Victor et al., 2024)). The narrative of UBI as a universal good suggests that everyone stands to gain from the increased presence of AI in our societies. However, this narrative obscures the fact that the benefits of AI are not distributed equally, and that UBI, as currently envisioned, may actually entrench existing inequalities rather than alleviate them. By framing UBI as a necessary response to AI-induced unemployment, the AI tycoons elites are effectively shifting the focus away from the need for more equitable distribution of power and resources. The symbolic violence here lies in the way that UBI is presented as a panacea for the problems caused by AI, when in reality, it serves to reinforce the existing social order. Those who control AI technologies continue to benefit disproportionately, while those who are displaced dispossessed by these technologies are offered only a minimal safety net in return.Moreover, this symbolic violence has epistemic implications (Bourdieu, 1993), as it shapes our understanding of what is possible and desirable in a world increasingly dominated by AI. Musk (2016), almost a decade ago, said that "There's a pretty good chance we end up with a universal basic income, or something like that, due to automation. I'm not sure what else one would do. I think that is what would happen. People will have time to do other things, more complex things, more interesting things. Certainly more leisure time." The promotion of UBI by AI tycoons elites reinforces the idea that the best we can hope for is an AI-induced universal income, rather than a more radical rethinking of how wealth and power are distributed in society-nor seeing UBI as a way to enhancing people's capabilities (Endo & Choi, 2024). The loss of meaningful work can have profound psychological effects, as Jahoda (1982) highlights the role of employment in providing structure, social contacts, and a sense of (2024) it in that AI is the of income and power to the owners of a new in and existential as Jarow 2024) puts it basic income movement be better with about AI the could focus on what basic income can actually an effective tool that would in a but just a world with less AI-justified narrative as symbolic violence and our making it to envision where technology actually serves the good rather than to place in a of compared to the of those who control as promoted by AI tycoonselites, is not the solution to the disruptions caused by AI that it is often to it can be as a form of symbolic violence that reinforces existing power dynamics and socio-economic as Bourdieu would put it, those in power to seek social (Bourdieu & and this can be through the imposition of narratives and meanings presented as while the power which are the of their (Bourdieu, By presenting UBI as a benevolent response to AI-induced unemployment, the AI elite their own role in creating the very problems that UBI is supposed to In they perpetuate a narrative that benefits them while those who are most by the rise of AI. what is being distributed is a basic economic safety without to providing basic and to AI by that AI may not be here to The idea is a with to better the development and 2024). et (2024) that AI to over the AI, effectively the of these to AI is not a solution to more the benefits of AI or This is especially true making such may not ensure equitable access, particularly when those who can them than what is as benefits falls short of addressing structural or which to AI. equitable access, and in AI, ensuring that of status or not only AI but also in its development and It addressing in power supporting and ensuring Such an approach could and provide tools to systemic these economic appear more on AI's pervasive presence in potentially corporate profit over the potential of AI to a more equitable society for all and in making the AI tools for all. By these the risks existing inequalities rather than about the AI-driven future will be one of or this will lead to a where people will a UBI as a justification for the increased presence of AIs in society and to for the this then will have to for the or to the basic address the societal disruptions posed by AI, structural are that equitable distribution of wealth and power address the societal disruptions posed by AI, This framing of UBI as a panacea for AI-induced challenges a broader by AI elites to deflect and control over narratives about AI's As argues, the embedded in AI policy often short in their to due to challenges like and By on symbolic like UBI, which align with their profit AI elites can for deeper structural that would wealth or while are often or when into and a for over This of not only meaningful progress but also the of AI ethics where are from and and & 2024). AI-driven UBI serves as a key of how symbolic AI elites to from their in creating structural It them to a narrative of while avoiding that would their profit or is particularly in this context because it systemic under normative into AI systems, and fail to for the most vulnerable to with the impacts of these technologies. The promotion of UBI thus reinforces a where the of AI-induced disruptions are those least to address all while AI elites continue to benefit from an status UBI as a remains to the more to key where AI development and control are concentrated AI to its to the This framing is that AI systems are on data from and have effects not only on as a but also on the environment 2021). the benefits of AI within the of the of the and et al., particularly from the of an UBI. Such an focus not only of individuals who to the AI but also a in the utilitarian the justification for AI The of the of like UBI, about the moral of AI's benefits and the structural they offered by UBI not be as to the deeper structural inequalities that increasingly the issues AI into that the broader context of technological et al., move symbolic such as and instead focus on and measures seek to the structural inequalities by AI ensuring that technological progress is by of and rather than being as a tool for power and The of tech elites in and by figures like Elon in and Sam into highlights a to control AI's development and its societal This aligns with over an 2024) in which are to elite their This pervasive across and a to shape society's future in that power over public this UBI risks a superficial for the public while masking deeper systemic As it can as a form of symbolic violence that reinforces structural rather than addressing them. merely as a of UBI has the potential to as a of the underlying and by AI expansion and or the of AI to elites primary is to entrench their they comprehensive strategies that at providing social that individuals and to et al., which to in and workforce to individuals for an AI-driven to from in and ensure that AI is a rather than to socio-economic a be a to the of tech elites on public policy 2022), ensuring that are to well-being rather than elite like UBI not be as for systemic focus on addressing the root of these a society where technological and rather than existing power

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.