Artificial Intelligence: A blessing or a curse? What socio-economic challenges will humanity face in the next decades?

Artificial intelligence (AI) is commonly defined as a technology enabling machines to imitate various complex human skills (Sheikh et al). AI has existed for a long time, but it was only due to ChatGPT’s breakthrough in 2022 that AI became rapidly used and attracted enormous investments. Nowadays, AI has been integrated into society’s daily life, from virtual assistance to data analysis, providing faster, more efficient ways of doing tasks.

AI offers the potential to reconstruct societal life, providing novel ways to approach projects. It has transformed research and development in fields like medicine and engineering. AI has been used in the early stages of drug discovery, helping search for suitable disease targets, new molecule designs and even managing clinical trials (Hudson). Insilico medicine was able to use AI to identify a novel drug candidate for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) in 18 months, significantly faster than traditional drug discovery timelines (“AI Drug Discovery, Insilico”). At the same time, AI has helped optimise engineering design procedures, allowing safer, quicker and more accurate work (“AI Applications, Monolith”).

The capabilities of AI technologies in healthcare have also been proven, ranging from providing mobile-based diagnostics to streamlining healthcare operations. With the World Health Organisation estimating there will be a projected shortfall of 10 million health workers globally by 2030 (Liu et al), AI will be necessary to fill this void and ensure that people have access to the medical care they need.

AI is expected to contribute more than $15 trillion to the global economy by 2030 (Koch), and with this comes higher standards of living for the population overall. The automation and process optimisation of the stock chain allows AI to significantly reduce production expenses. According to McKinsey, early adopters of AI-enabled supply chain management in automotives improved logistic costs by 15% and service levels by 65% compared to competitors (Clifford). This makes necessities more affordable and accessible to the general population, alleviating financial pressure on low-income households and bridging the socioeconomic divide.

Moreover, AI’s computing power and inhuman intelligence allow for ‘democratising innovation’ through merging ideas (Eapen et al.), catalysing enterprise. Users are able to develop solutions catering to their unique aspirations rather than relying on companies, with AI offering insight and assisting the development of projects. This contributes to a culture of empowerment and self-expression. AI enables people to realise their different pursuits at unprecedented speed, enables a ‘renaissance in creativity’, quoting Recurson CEO Gibson (McKendrick), and advances both the arts and science. 

However, it is important not to neglect the challenges AI poses in light of its benefits: AI is a double-edged sword that has the potential to be both be a curse and a blessing to humanity.

AI disrupts current economic relations, displacing management and workers at the workplace through statistical patterns, algorithms and automation (Juego). Goldman Sachs predicts 300 million jobs will be lost or degraded by AI (Kelly). This mass unemployment could overshadow the positive productivity effects of AI if jobs are automated without corresponding new opportunities arising for displaced workers (Acemoglu et al. 3). AI is trained to perform repetitive tasks, leaving human workers to do the more complex or creative tasks. This causes a shift in labour demand, favouring highly skilled individuals while depressing wages at the low end of the skill distribution, exacerbating socioeconomic divides. A study by Eloundou et al found evidence to suggest that higher-income workers were more likely to experience increases in productivity due to AI (Eloundou et al), with productivity gains peaking for those making $90,000 per year (Manning).

In addition, the benefits AI brings may intensify the pre-existing oligarchy. AI provides new information and analytical tools that help decision-makers achieve optimal outcomes, but economic agents inevitably place their own interests above other stakeholders. This means decision-makers will use AI to pursue private benefits at the loss of other stakeholders. In particular, corporate giants, with huge consumer databases and available resources, can better effectively utilise AI for reduced labour costs, accurate product analysis and accelerated research and development. Though this seems like a benefit of AI, it stifles small enterprises with less resources and data, creating an anti-competitive advantage that contributes to potential monopolies (Capraro et al.). By using AI’s data analysis, there may also be a rise of ‘surveillance capitalism’, with companies violating users’ data privacy to better exploit consumers in favour of profits (Capraro et al.).

Unclear regulations surrounding AI’s violation of consent also occur in the process of training AI models, which involves using copyrighted material and disregarding the rights of original creators. Currently, there are more than a dozen AI copyright lawsuits pending across the United States, in which copyright owners are pursuing various theories of infringement against different AI platforms (McIntosh et al.). This failure to protect the intellectual property of people may discourage the production of new work, eroding human creativity (Day).

Furthermore, the rapid concentration of creative power in the AI industry, as AI replaces humans as content creators, raises the threat of technological colonialism. Centralising AI development in a few firms risks shifting the technological landscape for the primary benefit of dominant entities, specifically white and Asian men from the West, India and China, sidelining the needs of the wider world (Dobrin). The integration of AI systems into everyday life may thus cost the values embedded in these systems by their developers to influence societal norms (Dobrin). This could homogenise cultural outputs, marginalise diverse voices and exacerbate the global power imbalance.

Hostile externalities created by the use of AI are also not to be overlooked, in particular, due to AI’s high energy use. According to a new assessment by Alex de Vries, NVIDIA’s current projection of shipping 1.5 million AI server units annually by 2027 at full power would consume at least 85.4 terawatt-hours of electricity annually — more than what some small countries use (Leffer and Bushwick). This surge in electricity consumption increases carbon emissions, exacerbating climate change amid current global sustainability efforts. In the end, it is low-income communities and developing countries that bear the heaviest burden from this, with consequences like disrupted livelihoods, air pollutants, and extreme weather negatively impacting their lives (Mishra).

Additionally, utilising AI as a tool may be inaccessible to many of the population, specifically those in rural areas or developing countries. Oladipo et al found that AI use in sub-Saharan Africa was hindered by obstacles like access to data, network connectivity, limited infrastructure as well as a lack of talent and expertise in advanced AI. Given that AI has the potential to alleviate pressures in healthcare and bring economic growth worth $1.2 trillion to Africa by 2030 (Oladipo et al.), their lack of capacity for implementing AI could cause their economy to lose out and fall further behind advanced nations.

The wealth gap between the rich and poor nations is further exacerbated as developing countries could lose funding sources due to AI development shifting more investment to advanced economies where automation is already established (Alonso et al.). With AI, it may be economical for some manufacturers to move back production from poorer countries. As per the IMF, the gap in GDP per capita between advanced and developing economies only widens as technology developments and AI-powered machinery become better substitutes for workers (Alonso et al.).

AI does not have a predetermined future, nor are its consequences black and white. It has redefined societal life, and humanity must respond in time. Governmental legislation must be updated in accordance with the existence of AI, with full transparency required in companies using AI to analyse consumer data, oligopoly regulations to ensure comparison in markets, and clearly defined laws on AI models using intellectual property. Creators must be given full rights to protect their work, potentially by having IP laws create something similar to a ‘patent thicket’ (UNGER and BRYNJOLFSSON), preventing models from training on their material without consent. 

Countries should also establish standardised measurements of the environmental impact of AI (“UNEP”), with an international regulation requiring companies to disclose AI’s direct environmental consequences. Apart from policymakers, those with the power to change the AI industry must also do their part. To reduce AI’s environmental footprint, companies should prioritise investment in optimising AI algorithm efficiency and turn data centres greener by using renewable energy and recycling water (“UNEP”). In the long run, this also reduces firm operation costs, providing a win-win situation.

Moreover, given the researched likely concentration of productivity gains among higher-income workers, international organisations like the UN should provide grants for developing countries to build infrastructure supporting AI technology. Governments must prioritise investments in AI literacy and access for the broader population. This includes investing in training programs for workers to develop skills needed to utilise AI systems and AI-powered software tools, but also education on AI’s capabilities and limitations (Manning). This ensures the economic possibilities AI brings are equitably distributed.

To conclude, AI is a powerful tool with the potential to transform every aspect of societal life. While AI could ameliorate the socioeconomic disparity in society as a blessing, current circumstances point to it exacerbating the divide as a curse. Striking a balance in the use of AI is the big challenge humanity faces for the future: it is about ensuring AI is able to enhance efficiency and creativity while minimising harm and maintaining equality. This requires thoughtful governance, international ethical standards and a global commitment to fairness. 

Bibliography

Acemoglu, Daron, et al. “AI an Jobs: Evidence from Online Vacancies.” NBER Working Paper Series, no. 28257, 2020, p. 3. National Bureau of Economic Research. Accessed January 2025.

“AI has an environmental problem. Here's what the world can do about that.” UN Environment Programme, 21 September 2024, https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/ai-has-environmental-problem-heres-what-world-can-do-about. Accessed 6 January 2025.

Alonso, Cristian, et al. “How Artificial Intelligence Could Widen the Gap Between Rich and Poor Nations.” International Monetary Fund (IMF), 2 December 2020, https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2020/12/02/blog-how-artificial-intelligence-could-widen-the-gap-between-rich-and-poor-nations. Accessed 6 January 2025.

Capraro, Valerio, et al. “The impact of generative artificial intelligence on socioeconomic inequalities and policy making.” Edited by Michele Gelfand. 2024. National Library of Medicine, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11165650/#pgae191-B9. Accessed January 2025.

Clifford, Serena. “AI Revolutionizes the Automotive Supply Chain | FullStack Blog.” FullStack Labs, https://www.fullstack.com/labs/resources/blog/how-ai-is-revolutionizing-automotive-supply-chain. Accessed 6 January 2025.

Day, Kathleen. “What’s yours isn’t mine: AI and intellectual property.” 2024. John Hopkins: Carey Business School, https://carey.jhu.edu/research/whats-yours-isnt-mine-aI-intellectual-property. Accessed January 2025.

Dobrin, Seth. “AI and the Risk of Technological Colonialism - AI and the Risk of Technological Colonialism.” AI Business, 6 February 2024, https://aibusiness.com/responsible-ai/ai-and-the-risk-of-technological-colonialism#close-modal. Accessed 6 January 2025.

Eapen, Tojin, et al. “How Generative AI Can Augment Human Creativity.” Harvard Business Review, https://hbr.org/2023/07/how-generative-ai-can-augment-human-creativity. Accessed 6 January 2025.

Eloundou, Tyna, et al. “GPTs are GPTs: Labor market impact potential of LLMs.” 2024. Science, https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adj0998. Accessed January 2025.

“Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence (AI) | Monolith.” Monolith, 14 November 2023, https://www.monolithai.com/blog/engineering-applications-of-artificial-intelligence. Accessed January 2025.

Hudson, Matthew. “How AI is being used to accelerate clinical trials.” Nature Index, 2024, https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00753-x. Accessed January 2025.

Juego, Bonn. “Regulating AI: workers’ intellect versus Big Tech oligarchs.” The Progressive Post, 15 June 2023, https://feps-europe.eu/regulating-ai-workers-intellect-versus-big-tech-oligarchs/. Accessed January 2025.

Kelly, Jack. “Goldman Sachs Predicts 300 Million Jobs Will Be Lost Or Degraded By Artificial Intelligence.” Forbes, 31 March 2023, https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2023/03/31/goldman-sachs-predicts-300-million-jobs-will-be-lost-or-degraded-by-artificial-intelligence/. Accessed 6 January 2025.

Koch, Robert. “Benefits of AI: How it Contributes to Our Society and Economy.” Clickworker, https://www.clickworker.com/customer-blog/benefits-of-ai/. Accessed 6 January 2025.

Leffer, Lauren, and Sophie Bushwick. “The AI Boom Could Use a Shocking Amount of Electricity.” Scientific American, 13 October 2023, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-ai-boom-could-use-a-shocking-amount-of-electricity/. Accessed 6 January 2025.

Liu, Jenny, et al. “Global Health Workforce Labor Market Projections for 2030.” Human Resources for Health, 2017. BMC, https://human-resources-health.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12960-017-0187-2. Accessed January 2025.

Manning, Sam. “AI’s impact on income inequality in the US.” 2024. Brookings, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/ais-impact-on-income-inequality-in-the-us/. Accessed January 2025.

McIntosh, David, et al. “AI and the Copyright Liability Overhang: A Brief Summary of the Current State of AI-Related Copyright Litigation.” Ropes & Gray, 2 April 2024, https://www.ropesgray.com/en/insights/alerts/2024/04/ai-and-the-copyright-liability-overhang-a-brief-summary-of-the-current-state-of-ai-related. Accessed January 2025.

McKendrick, Joe. “How AI Takes 'Democratized' Innovation To The Next Level.” Forbes, 24 February 2024, https://www.forbes.com/sites/joemckendrick/2024/02/23/how-ai-takes-democratized-innovation-to-the-next-level/. Accessed 6 January 2025.

Mishra, Sushree. “Low-Income Communities Bear the Brunt of Climate Change.” Earth.Org, 9 October 2023, https://earth.org/climate-changes-unequal-burden-why-do-low-income-communities-bear-the-brunt/. Accessed 6 January 2025.

Oladipo, Elijah, et al. “Impact and Challenges of Artificial Intelligence Integration in the African Health Sector: A Review.” 2024, p. 225. TMR Medical Research, https://tmr.scione.com/cms/abstract.php?id=144. Accessed January 2025.

“A Phase 1 Breakthrough in AI Drug Discovery.” IPF - Phase 1, Insilico Medicine, 10 1 2023, https://insilico.com/blog/ipf-phase1. Accessed January 2025.

Sheikh, Haroon, et al. “Artificial Intelligence: Definition and Background.” 2023. SpringerLink, https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-21448-6_2#:~:text=A%20common%20definition%20of%20AI,imitate%20various%20complex%20human%20skills. Accessed January 2025.

UNGER, GABRIEL, and ERIK BRYNJOLFSSON. “The Macroeconomics of Artificial Intelligence.” International Monetary Fund (IMF), December 2023, https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/2023/12/Macroeconomics-of-artificial-intelligence-Brynjolfsson-Unger. Accessed 6 January 2025.