Property, power, and freedom in the age of artificial intelligence

Continuing the series of essays on artificial intelligence. In the previous two articles, we emphasized the following: We are facing two possibilities that are the exact opposites of each other.

If the immense economic power created by artificial intelligence and robots is concentrated in the hands of a few companies or a small minority, the door could be opened to a world leading to digital feudalism, and from there to digital fascism.

But the same technological revolution could also open the door to another world where people's basic needs are met and the abundance created by artificial intelligence and robots is shared with the entire society. I called this, perhaps stretching the concept a bit, “utopian communism.”

In the second article, we questioned, “Where does China stand in this utopia?”

However, no matter which path we take, we need to bring the following question to the center of these essays: Will technology be used to liberate humanity, or to control it? Naturally, while discussing this question, we must also address the concept of property.

IF I STOP, MY COMPETITOR WILL NOT

I was recently interested in an article written by Liu Shengyu, one of the key engineers at the Chinese artificial intelligence company DeepSeek. The summary of what he said is this:

The better I write code, the better the artificial intelligence we develop will be. The better the artificial intelligence is, the better it will do the job I do. Eventually, I will no longer be needed. So, should I stop developing artificial intelligence? I cannot stop. Because if I slow down, my competitor will not.

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei is concerned that the speed of artificial intelligence development is outpacing safety mechanisms. He advocates for companies developing artificial intelligence to hit the brakes a little, for independent auditors to step in, for coordination to be established between companies regarding safety, and eventually for international cooperation.

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and xAI founder Elon Musk have also supported Amodei's call for a slowdown. OpenAI has begun to advocate for mandatory and capability-based national security regulations and independent evaluations for advanced artificial intelligence systems. If even the executives of companies developing artificial intelligence are talking about the danger, why aren't the brakes being applied?

US President Donald Trump's approach is different. The American administration does not want heavy regulations to slow down the artificial intelligence sector. Because artificial intelligence is no longer just a technological and economic race. It is also one of the most important areas of the global power struggle between the US and China.

Microsoft founder Bill Gates thinks that if artificial intelligence is managed well, it can provide great benefits, especially for poor countries. On September 15, Gates told Reuters that no government in the world is sufficiently prepared for the transformation that artificial intelligence will create. A few days ago, he made another striking warning on an episode of NBC's Meet the Press. He said that artificial intelligence is “powerful enough to trigger events that could lead to a billion deaths” in the hands of malicious people. He argued that self-regulation by companies is not enough and that mandatory oversight mechanisms for artificial intelligence, in which states are also involved, must be established.

Ultimately, a situation that is difficult to control is emerging. Just like the search for nuclear arms reduction between the US and the USSR in the past... Both sides knew the danger that armament posed to humanity, but neither could disarm alone without being sure of the other.

The engineer cannot stop; because another engineer will continue.

The company cannot stop; because a competing company will continue.

The state cannot stop; because a competing state will continue.

WHO WILL CONTROL THE CONTROLLERS?

Everyone sees the danger, but no one can slow down alone. So then, who will control artificial intelligence?

The state? Is it that easy?

If we appoint independent auditors, who will choose them, who will finance them? Will the auditors who are said to be independent really be able to remain independent?

If the state is going to audit, who will prevent the government from using artificial intelligence to increase its own political power by backing it with state power?

If an international organization is going to audit, who will convince America, China, and other major powers to agree to the same rules? Who will control the controllers?

If control enters the equation, we must also discuss property.

WHOSE IS ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE?

The basic means of production of the Industrial Revolution were factories, machines, and capital. Now, a new and perhaps more important means of production is being added to these: Intelligence itself.

Artificial intelligence will write code, design, diagnose diseases, develop drugs, manage factories, and participate in scientific research. When combined with robots, it will be able to replace not only intellectual labor but also a significant portion of physical labor.

I wrote about this in the first essay, noting that the production equation is changing.

Natural resources + capital + labor = production.

Increasingly replacing it with:

Natural resources + capital + less labor + energy + artificial intelligence + robots = production.

If the weight of human labor in the production equation is decreasing while artificial intelligence is becoming one of the most important means of production, we are facing perhaps the most important property question of the 21st century:

Whose will artificial intelligence be?

A few big companies?

States?

Systems open to everyone?

Or will society also have a right to the wealth created by this new means of production?

In his article, the Chinese engineer Liu Shengyu, whom I quoted above, thinks that artificial intelligence could lead humanity to one of two radical extremes: On one side, a communism where productive forces are liberated to a massive extent; on the other, a Cyberpunk-like dystopia where economic resources and technological power are concentrated in the hands of a few companies. (1)

I couldn't help but smile when I read this. The probability of Liu having read my articles is close to zero. I have been writing about this view for the last two weeks, but there is more to it. I also wrote about it in my book Turkey's Factory Settings for the Twenty-First Century, published at the beginning of 2024. I mention this for the following reason.

The fact that we are looking at the same technological transformation from two different ends of the world and asking similar questions, and putting forward similar possibilities of change, shows that our predictions are not that imaginary.

However, I need to discuss and develop my own thesis a bit more here. Because digital fascism and utopian communism are not two alternatives that can emerge at the same speed.

Digital fascism can come very quickly.

The concentration of wealth, data, artificial intelligence, and political power in a few hands could be enough for this.

Utopian communism, on the other hand, must be built.

And it cannot be reached overnight. It requires an economic, political, and social transition process that will take a long time. This means that discussing digital fascism and utopian communism is not enough. We must also discuss what kind of economic and political order will be established during the transition period in between.

SOCIAL PROPERTY

In my book Turkey's Factory Settings for the Twenty-First Century, which I started writing in 2023 and was published in early 2024, I wrote the following during the days when we were still at the beginning of artificial intelligence:

As a result of technological developments, data management, algorithms, and artificial intelligence, robots will increasingly take the place of humans in production. We will face a new distribution problem that we have not encountered before, different from the class contradictions we have seen throughout history.

And while looking for a solution, I focused specifically on one concept:

What is public, or rather social, property, and is it not the most fundamental human right of the new age?

Both a country's natural resources and all infrastructure investments made by the state are not the property of the state, but the common property of that country's citizens.

All natural resources, mines, rivers, lakes, forests, pastures... The owner is the nation. This asset cannot be used for the prosperity of a handful of people.

The same situation applies to assets created with taxes paid by society over generations.

Roads, bridges, ports, dams, electricity and communication infrastructure, satellites, schools, universities, hospitals... Even urban rents that emerge as a result of public decisions and investments...

Defining all of these only as “state property” is incomplete. This accumulation of wealth is the common capital of society. By paying taxes, enduring inflation, and taking on public debt, it was not the state but the citizens who made all these investments. Even children who could not be fed enough due to inflation and the difficulty of making a living took their share of the social cost of this wealth accumulation.

In a country, the equality of citizens cannot consist only of equality before the law. Every citizen also has a right to the common wealth that the country has created over generations.

Therefore, alongside the most fundamental human rights such as the right to life, the right to shelter, freedom of expression, freedom of thought, freedom of belief, the right to disseminate ideas and organize, the right to equality before the law, the right to vote and be elected, and the right to education and health, we must also add the right to social property as a fundamental citizenship right.

And this right also gives us clues for the question of whose property artificial intelligence will be.

WHO IS THE OWNER OF KNOWLEDGE?

Let's think about the engineers who make today's most advanced artificial intelligence systems. It requires immense intelligence, creativity, education, and work discipline. We cannot underestimate them. The engineer, scientist, inventor, artist, or entrepreneur who provides innovation should receive the reward for the value they create. We should even be proud of them as a society.

It is also natural for those who are more creative, work harder, and take more risks to earn more. A system that does not reward creativity eventually kills creativity. But let's also look at the other side of the coin.

The most successful artificial intelligence engineer of today did not discover the mathematics they know themselves. They did not invent the computer themselves. They did not develop the transistor themselves. They did not build the internet alone. They did not create all the programming languages themselves. They did not establish the university that trained them themselves.

The scientific knowledge used by today's generations rises on the massive accumulation of knowledge created by thousands of scientists, mathematicians, philosophers, and engineers who lived before them.

One cannot be a good computer programmer without knowing mathematics well. One cannot be a good artificial intelligence developer without knowing computers well. One cannot be a good physician or genetic engineer without receiving a good medical education.

And behind all of this are education systems, universities, laboratories, research institutions, and centuries of knowledge accumulation.

Behind a significant portion of these is society. There are people who pay taxes. Now add to this the massive accumulation of information and data created by billions of people on the internet.

Then we need to ask a new question:

The product of a person's creativity can certainly belong to them. But to whom does the economic value created by the common knowledge of society and humanity that makes that creativity possible belong?

There is no easy answer to this question. The ownership of knowledge itself and the sharing of the economic value built upon common knowledge are not the same thing. I think one of the most important property debates of the artificial intelligence age will begin here.

IS NATIONALIZATION THE SOLUTION?

One must also not fall into a trap here. What I call social property is not state property. Taking the means of production out of the hands of private capital and putting them into the hands of the state does not mean that economic and political power has passed into the hands of society.

The last century showed us enough examples of this. In fact, when economic power and political power are united in the same center, a much greater concentration of power can emerge.

That is why what I am trying to describe as “utopian communism” is not the state property model in the Soviet Union.

There can be private property. There can be freedom of enterprise. The engineer, scientist, artist, inventor, and entrepreneur can receive their share of the value they create. But society must also receive its share of the value created by its own common capital and knowledge accumulation.

Through taxes? Can taxes alone answer this question? Through social wealth funds? By accumulating natural resource revenues on behalf of all citizens? By society having a share in technologies developed with public resources? By transferring a direct share to society from the productivity increase created by artificial intelligence and robots? Through a new structure inspired by the Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund?

Perhaps through other methods we haven't thought of yet today. The technical details of these can be solved later. But first, we need to discuss the principle:

While acknowledging the right of individual creativity, can we also acknowledge the right of social accumulation?

IS SOLVING THE PROPERTY PROBLEM ENOUGH?

Let's say we solved the property problem. We shared the massive increase in production created by artificial intelligence and robots with society. We eradicated poverty. We secured people's basic needs such as education, health, housing, and social security. Working ceased to be a necessity to avoid starving.

Have we reached utopia?

We also need to discuss freedoms. A human is not just an economic being. Having a full stomach does not automatically make them free.

In an age of technology where algorithms influence people's behavior patterns, political preferences, consumption choices, and even the dreams they see, how free will a person be able to be?

I wrote about this in the second essay. Saving a person from hunger or working is not enough.

It is necessary to leave them time to think, to express their thoughts freely, to travel, to dream, to ensure they meet with art, to create, and to look at a beautiful view without doing anything.

Freedom is a person's ability to be the owner of their own time, and while using that time, not to be faced with the fear of hunger and poverty. Economic power that supports freedom is necessary.

BEING ABLE TO AUDIT THREE POWERS

Perhaps the fundamental problem of the 21st century will be to be able to limit three separate powers at the same time:

The power of capital.

The power of the state.

The power of the algorithm.

If we limit the power of capital and make the state unlimited, we cannot reach freedom.

If we limit the power of the state and leave economic and technological power to a few companies, we still cannot reach it.

If we limit both and leave decisions about our lives to algorithms that know us better than we know ourselves, this time we could create another power that we have not seen in history; while reducing human life to algorithmic rationality, we could turn into soulless people who forget love, compassion, passion, pain, and happiness. A human who loses their soul also loses art and aesthetics.

We cannot save a person from the domination of capital and leave them to the domination of the state. We cannot save them from the domination of the state and leave them to the domination of the algorithm.

This is where the question “who will control the controllers?” comes up again.

WE WILL NOT WAKE UP TO UTOPIA THE NEXT MORNING

What I have been arguing from the beginning is that we are at a dual crossroads in this great technological revolution process: Digital fascism or utopian communism.

We must add something to this. These are not dilemmas where they appear before us at the same time and we have to choose one or the other. These are not two paths at an equal distance.

Digital fascism can come much faster.

If the economic power of a few companies, the political power of the state, the data of billions of people, and the algorithmic power of artificial intelligence combine, its infrastructure can be built in a very short time.

Utopian communism, on the other hand, is not an order we will wake up to the next morning. If it is to be reached, an economic, political, and social transition process is required.

What will replace the neoliberal order that is shaking today? What will be the role of the market and the state? What kind of balance will be established between private property and social property? Will artificial intelligence and data change the relationship between planning and the price mechanism?

A friend of mine reminded me of a very important concept after the last essay I wrote about China: “digestion period.” Humanity digested the economic and social transformation created by the Industrial Revolution in about two centuries. Capitalism and socialism changed by clashing, competing with each other, and being influenced by each other.

So, how much digestion period will artificial intelligence give us?

While technology is changing at a very high speed, will law, politics, economy, culture, and society be able to change at the same speed?

Digital fascism can come very quickly. But if a utopia is to be built, society will need to digest it and build its institutions. Without falling into digital feudalism and digital fascism, and without having reached utopian communism yet, what will we put in place of neoliberalism in this transition period of the artificial intelligence age?

I will continue from here in the next essay. Of course, if a new order is to be established in a world where there is inequality between countries, questioning imperialism is also the subject of a separate article...

(1) Cyberpunk: A depiction of a dystopian future where high technology and great social inequality exist side by side; economic and technological power is concentrated in giant corporations, and digital surveillance and control are widespread. A science fiction subgenre/aesthetic in literature and cinema...