Should citizens get paid from AI profits? South Korean idea revives redistribution debate

As artificial intelligence reshapes industries and concentrates wealth among a handful of technology firms, governments and political thinkers are starting at a key question: Should AI profits be redistributed to citizens?

In a Facebook post, Kim Yong-beom, head of South Korea’s Presidential Policy Office, raised the idea of a potential “national dividend” linked to AI-driven “superprofits”, arguing that gains from emerging technologies should not remain concentrated among a narrow group of companies.

According to South Korean media reports translating the post, Kim said the country could be moving toward “a structure close to a technology monopoly economy” driven by “structural scarcity and sustained excess profits”, adding that “part of those fruits” should be “returned to all citizens”.

Kim suggested such an approach makes sense because AI systems rely heavily on public infrastructure and state-supported ecosystems, including electricity grids, education systems, public data and policy support.

He compared the idea to Norway’s oil fund, which channels profits from the country’s oil and gas wealth into a state-owned investment fund intended to benefit the broader public over time.

To be clear, no government globally has yet unveiled a formal mechanism to directly distribute AI-generated profits to citizens as a national dividend.

Still, the timing reflects a broader shift in the global AI debate.

Governments, economists and technology companies are increasingly grappling with how to respond to the rapid rise of AI systems controlled by a small number of firms dominating compute infrastructure, foundational models and data ecosystems.

A recent New York Times

opinion analysis argued that a broader political backlash around artificial intelligence may already be beginning to emerge.

The piece described this as a form of “AI populism”, driven by fears that AI could deepen inequality, accelerate labour displacement and further concentrate economic and political influence.

It argued that AI is no longer being viewed only as a productivity tool, but as a force that could reshape jobs, ownership of capital and the balance of power between labour and technology companies.

The analysis also warned that public frustration could intensify if AI-driven gains continue flowing mainly to corporations and investors while workers face wage pressure, weaker bargaining power or job disruption.

That concern is echoed by some of the people building the technology itself.

Axios earlier reported that Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei warned AI could trigger significant labour market disruption. In the interview, Amodei said AI could lead to “the possible mass elimination of jobs across technology, finance, law, consulting and other white-collar professions, especially entry-level gigs,” and warned it could “wipe out half of all entry-level white-collar jobs” within a few years if adoption accelerates.

Amodei also criticised what he described as industry tendencies to “sugar-coat” the scale of disruption, arguing that companies and policymakers needed to be more transparent about the economic impact of rapid AI adoption.

In 2021, Sam Altman argued that artificial intelligence-driven productivity gains could eventually generate enough wealth to “pay every adult” in the US $13,500 a year.

In a blog post, Altman warned that “even more power will shift from labor to capital” as AI systems automate larger parts of the economy, adding that “if public policy doesn’t adapt accordingly, most people will end up worse off than they are.”

He said societies may eventually need mechanisms to distribute AI-driven wealth more broadly as “the balance between labor and capital” shifts, while also framing the transition as potentially transformative if managed well.

“The changes coming are unstoppable,” Altman wrote. “If we embrace them and plan for them, we can use them to create a much fairer, happier, and more prosperous society. The future can be almost unimaginably great.”

The International Monetary Fund has also warned that artificial intelligence could deepen inequality. In a January blog post, Kristalina Georgieva said AI could affect nearly 40% of jobs globally, creating both productivity opportunities and heightened risks of labour displacement and income inequality, particularly in advanced economies.

What began as a race to dominate artificial intelligence is increasingly evolving into a broader debate over whether the wealth created by AI should remain concentrated among a handful of companies — or eventually be shared more widely with the public, an idea some technology leaders including Altman had begun discussing years ago.