AI and the Disruption of Politics
a very short and unrefined discourse
art by Caspar David Friedrich
In realism, it is understood that one of the main destabilizers of an elite class is its failure to integrate new technology. Usually this means they can’t acquire it, won’t use it, can’t use it, or can’t use it as well as a rival. Said “rival” should be emphasized here, because disparities in technology is what prompts them to undermine or attack. But AI (artificial intelligence) might make this problem more direct and more internal, since it would seemingly free up the need for humans to constantly work . . .
The problem is a little known rule: populations that have excess free time will engage more deeply with politics. We miss that the decisive factor is actually free time, because it usually appears to us as unemployment, a major precursor to modern revolutions. The correlation is more obvious in Weber, who says the children of rich parents are best positioned to pursue politics. This is because they do not need to work and have fewer constraints on their time (their parents, by contrast, work 50+ hours, have boardroom obligations and the like). Throw this principle in reverse. The common folk are not politically active, nor politically effective, because they cannot devote enough time to it.
The elites are going to become rapidly aware that if AI becomes too advanced, it will be non-competitive to not use it. Automation will become a frantic race. But, if the citizen body is left to leisure, two things will happen that they do not like. First, UBI (Universal Basic Income) will become a must—otherwise, violence is promised. Second, given the nature of Millennials and Gen Z, much of that free time will be devoted to social activism. Herein lies the true risk, because if given enough free time . . . we will very likely see the emergence of new parties, new ideologies, new demands, new coordinated movements, the like.
The most obvious counter is that the elites will just try to forcibly balance AI with human labor. Indeed, this is likely, but it only delays the inevitable. The desire to get richer, and to get richer faster than others—will always win out. This is especially doomed if the US shows restraint while a rival (China, Iran) plows ahead.
Doomsaying in regards to AI is popular, and I myself resent its encroachment into creative and joyfully human domains. But there is a serious chance that AI will at least create the conditions . . . that enable massive political change. Whether the population will be ready and able, is a different question entirely. But it does indicate that we ought to start thinking of how we can use AI to our advantage (beyond “automating my side hustle” or hoping it just goes away). We need not be helpless in this process, it is possible to turn it to our advantage.