Kim Yong-beom, head of South Korea’s Presidential Policy Office, proposed the concept of a potential “national dividend” tied to AI-driven “superprofits” in a Facebook post, contending that profits from new technologies should not remain monopolized by a select few corporations.
Reports in South Korean media cite Kim as suggesting that the nation might be heading toward “a structure resembling a technology monopoly economy” spurred by “structural scarcity and sustained excess profits”, and he emphasized that “part of those fruits” ought to be “returned to all citizens”.
Kim argued that this approach is justified, as AI systems heavily depend on public infrastructure and state-backed ecosystems, such as electricity networks, educational frameworks, public datasets, and policy support.
He likened this idea to Norway’s oil fund, which directs revenue from the nation’s oil and gas resources into a state-run investment fund designed to benefit the wider community over time.
It’s important to note that no government worldwide has yet introduced a specific system to directly share AI-generated profits with citizens as a national dividend.
Nevertheless, this proposal signals a broader shift in the global discourse surrounding AI.
Governments, economists, and tech firms are increasingly wrestling with how to address the swift rise of AI systems controlled by a limited number of companies that dominate computational infrastructure, foundational models, and data ecosystems.
A recent New York Times opinion piece suggested that a wider political pushback against artificial intelligence may already be starting to form.
This movement is described as a form of “AI populism,” fueled by concerns that AI could exacerbate inequality, hasten job displacement, and further centralize economic and political power.
The piece argued that AI is shifting from merely being viewed as a productivity enhancement to a powerful force that could redefine employment, capital ownership, and the power dynamics between labor and tech companies.
Furthermore, the analysis cautioned that public discontent may grow if the financial benefits of AI continue to primarily favor corporations and investors, while workers encounter wage pressures, diminished bargaining power, or job loss.
This apprehension is shared by some of the very individuals developing the technology.
Axios previously reported that Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei warned that AI could lead to major disruptions in the labor market. In his remarks, Amodei predicted AI might result in “the possible mass elimination of jobs across technology, finance, law, consulting, and other white-collar sectors, particularly for entry-level positions,” and cautioned it could “eliminate half of all entry-level white-collar jobs” within a few years if implementation accelerates.
Amodei also criticized industry tendencies to “sugar-coat” the scale of disruption, stressing that companies and policymakers need to be more candid about the economic ramifications of rapid AI adoption.
In 2021, Sam Altman claimed that productivity gains driven by artificial intelligence could ultimately create enough wealth to “pay every adult” in the U.S. $13,500 annually.
In a blog post, Altman warned that “even more power will shift from labor to capital” as AI systems automate greater segments of the economy, adding that “if public policy doesn’t adapt correspondingly, the majority of people will end up worse off than they are.”
He indicated that societies might eventually require methods to distribute AI-generated wealth more equitably as “the balance between labor and capital” evolves, while framing the transition as potentially transformative if handled properly.
“The changes coming are unstoppable,” Altman wrote. “If we embrace them and prepare for them, we can leverage them to create a much fairer, happier, and more prosperous society. The future can be astronomically great.”
The International Monetary Fund has also cautioned that artificial intelligence could aggravate inequality. In a January blog post, Kristalina Georgieva noted that AI could impact nearly 40% of jobs worldwide, presenting both productivity prospects and increased risks of labor displacement and income disparity, especially in advanced economies.
What started as a competitive race to dominate artificial intelligence is gradually evolving into a broader discussion regarding whether the wealth generated by AI should remain concentrated in a few companies or be more widely distributed to the public, a notion some tech leaders, including Altman, have begun contemplating years ago.
