If AI Replaces Human Work, Who Controls the World’s Resources?

As artificial intelligence continues advancing at a rapid pace, public discussion often focuses on whether machines will replace human jobs. Yet a deeper and more consequential question receives far less attention: if human labour becomes unnecessary, how will people sustain their livelihoods?

The issue goes beyond employment. It raises fundamental concerns about economic distribution, political power, and who ultimately controls access to society’s resources in an AI-dominated world.

The Missing Debate About Economic Survival

Throughout modern history, technological breakthroughs have repeatedly sparked fears of mass unemployment. Since the Industrial Revolution, however, most working-age people have continued to find work, even as industries transformed.

Still, the possibility that artificial intelligence could fundamentally reduce the need for human labour demands serious consideration. If that scenario becomes reality, societies must determine how wealth generated by machines will be shared.

For example, Sam Altman of OpenAI has suggested that AI could dramatically improve global prosperity, arguing that technological progress may make the future far wealthier than the present. But critics caution that such optimism assumes wealth will be broadly distributed, an outcome that is far from guaranteed.

Even if AI produces unprecedented economic growth, deciding how those gains are allocated will remain a deeply political challenge.

Redistributing Wealth in a Machine-Driven Economy

Addressing a post-labour economy involves two major questions. The first concerns practical economic design: how can governments redistribute wealth effectively if machines perform most productive work and human labour no longer generates income?

In many advanced economies today, taxes on wages and employment provide the primary source of government revenue. If labour income disappears, policymakers must identify alternative ways to fund public services and social support systems.

The second and, arguably, more important question concerns power. Who will decide what to tax, how wealth should be distributed, and what share of resources ordinary citizens receive if they no longer contribute labour?

A future where machines generate most economic output could concentrate immense influence among a small number of technology leaders who control the systems producing global wealth. This raises difficult questions about democratic governance, accountability, and representation.

Who Shapes Priorities in an AI-Dominated World?

If artificial intelligence produces most goods and services, society must decide how to allocate resources such as energy, capital, and raw materials. Should investments prioritize expanding advanced AI systems, or should they instead focus on healthcare, education, and social welfare?

At an AI policy summit in New Delhi, António Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations, emphasized the need for safeguards that preserve human oversight and accountability. He warned that decisions about AI’s future should not be controlled by a handful of powerful actors or nations.

While technology developers frequently discuss the technical challenge of alignment ensuring AI systems behave according to their operators’ intentions critics argue that the more urgent issue is aligning AI development with the broader public interest. Existing democratic institutions may struggle to regulate technologies controlled by highly concentrated private power.

What Happens to Democracy Without Labor?

Historically, economic participation has shaped political representation. The rise of industrial workers in urban economies helped drive democratic reforms, as governments adapted to represent groups essential to economic production.

If ordinary citizens’ labor becomes economically irrelevant, their political influence could weaken. The relationship between economic contribution and democratic power, long a foundation of modern governance, may face unprecedented strain.

Rethinking Taxation in the AI Era

Economists have begun exploring how public finance might function in a world where artificial intelligence dominates production. Researchers Anton Korinek and Lee Lockwood of the University of Virginia have proposed that governments may initially rely more heavily on consumption taxes as wage income declines.

Over time, however, a system dominated by advanced AI could require greater taxation of capital, the assets and technologies generating economic output, rather than labour. Since much of the wealth produced by AI may be reinvested rather than spent, governments might also need to tax fixed resources such as land, data, spectrum, or monopoly profits.

Another approach, explored by Korinek and economist Joseph Stiglitz, suggests using taxes during the transition period to encourage technologies that enhance human productivity instead of replacing workers outright.

While these proposals appear technically feasible, their implementation depends on whether owners of advanced technologies are willing to share economic gains, a significant political challenge.

The Political Reality of Redistribution

Achieving meaningful redistribution would likely require substantially higher taxation of capital and corporate profits. In the United States, for example, total tax revenue remains below the average of other advanced economies, and taxes on capital represent a relatively small share of national income.

Efforts to strengthen global tax rules have already faced resistance. An international agreement finalised in 2021 sought to prevent major technology companies from shifting profits to low-tax jurisdictions. Although the initiative received support from some policymakers, political changes later undermined participation, highlighting the difficulty of coordinating global regulation.

Public Ownership of AI Wealth

Given the scale of AI’s potential economic impact, some experts have proposed more unconventional solutions. One idea involves governments collecting taxes in the form of shares in AI companies, gradually building public ownership of the technologies driving economic growth.

A more ambitious proposal suggests governments could directly acquire equity in AI ventures and distribute ownership among citizens, ensuring the public benefits from technological progress. Such approaches could automatically adjust to AI’s success, generating modest returns if development slows or substantial wealth if the technology transforms the global economy.

However, these proposals face major practical and political barriers, especially if governments delay action until technology firms accumulate overwhelming economic influence.

The Growing Power of Technology Elites

Efforts to regulate large technology companies have already encountered strong resistance. Policymakers seeking to limit market concentration or strengthen oversight have often struggled against well-funded industry opposition.

Meanwhile, some technology leaders have explored alternative governance models, including privately governed communities or so-called “network states” in various regions around the world. These initiatives reflect broader tensions between technological power and democratic accountability.

An Uncertain Future for Work and Survival

If artificial intelligence evolves to the level many technology leaders anticipate, societies may face unprecedented challenges in ensuring economic security and social stability. Without deliberate planning and strong institutions, access to resources could become concentrated among those who control advanced technologies.

The central question remains unresolved: in a world where machines perform most work, who ensures that everyone else can survive?

The answer may ultimately determine whether artificial intelligence becomes a tool for shared prosperity or a source of deep economic and political inequality.