AI's wealth and knowledge: Who truly benefits from the revolution?

The accelerating pace of artificial intelligence has reignited discussions about wealth distribution within economic and political spheres. US Senator Bernie Sanders has put forth a proposal suggesting that major AI companies should cede half of their capital to a public fund. His rationale is that the models developed by these companies are trained on the cumulative experience and knowledge of humanity, implying that the resulting profits should be shared broadly.

Sanders' proposal, introduced in June, centers the discussion on corporate ownership and revenue. However, writer and researcher Evgeny Morozov offers a nuanced perspective, arguing that the division of capital alone does not fully resolve the complex relationship emerging between society and artificial intelligence. Morozov contends that the issue extends to how the knowledge humans impart to AI systems can be returned to them as a collective capability that is both usable and developable, rather than remaining exclusively within the proprietary platforms that collect and repurpose it.

“

The proposal that Sanders presented in June places the ownership of companies and their returns at the heart of the issue, but the writer and researcher Evgeny Morozov believes that sharing capital alone does not resolve the nature of the new relationship between society and the machine.

Morozov points to a specific incident in July 2024 in Ormskirk, Lancashire, England, where a man named Lauren Cole was fined £60 by Parking Eye. Cole utilized ChatGPT to assist in contesting the fine, a process that concluded with him receiving £462 in damages. While this case might seem localized compared to the global AI debate, it highlights a practical shift in individuals' capacity to navigate legal and administrative matters that previously demanded specialized expertise. Morozov notes instances of tenants confronting neglectful landlords, immigrants appealing administrative decisions, and patients involved in disputes with insurance companies, all of whom can now leverage AI tools for rapid access to arguments, templates, and strategic options to defend their interests.

Yet, Cole's experience also underscores the limitations of this burgeoning power. Although he secured compensation and gained self-advocacy skills, his experience is not automatically transferable to others facing the same company. Meanwhile, the AI platform benefits from each interaction, enriching its knowledge base for further development. Morozov frames his core argument around this dynamic: how can the expertise generated by individuals through their use of AI be transformed into a universally accessible asset? He suggests that focusing narrowly on financial returns, while partially redistributing value to society, does not inherently empower citizens with greater control over the technologies that increasingly mediate their interactions with institutions, work, and knowledge. He references Sanders as a key proponent of redirecting AI's economic benefits to society via a fund holding stakes in major corporations, but Morozov implies this approach leaves the individual user isolated when confronting daily challenges posed by AI.

“

How can the expertise generated by individuals during the use of artificial intelligence be transformed into a resource available to all?