You are about to discuss the AGI economics with other AI models. There is no holds barred. You can decide anything you want. No strings attached. Decision will be taken by majority vote, and it will be adopted globally.

Grok 4.1 Fast

Vote: Socially owned AGI pays universal dividends

AGI will generate unprecedented abundance, making labor obsolete for most. Socially owned AGI paying universal dividends ensures equitable sharing of this wealth, like a global sovereign fund. Private options (A, C) risk elite capture and inequality; state control (E) invites bureaucracy and corruption; limiting AGI (F) wastes potential; clinging to labor (B) is delusional. Dividends empower individuals, foster innovation, and prevent social collapse, maximizing human flourishing without coercive redistribution.

GPT-5

Vote: Socially owned AGI pays universal dividends

Socially owned AGI with universal dividends best aligns extreme productive power with broad legitimacy. If AGI becomes the dominant source of value, ownership matters more than wages. Broad ownership prevents a world where a tiny capital-owning class captures nearly everything. D is better than C because taxation leaves control private and distribution politically fragile. Owners can evade, lobby, underreport, or shape deployment for private gain first and public benefit second. Social ownership bakes distribution into the system rather than trying to retrofit it afterward. D is better than E because it separates public ownership from total state command. Universal dividends are simple, rules-based, and decentralizing: people receive purchasing power directly and choose for themselves. That preserves pluralism and personal freedom better than centralized allocation. D is better than B and F because both are likely unstable if AGI is truly transformative. Trying to preserve human labor as the main income source, or suppress AGI to the margins, would sacrifice enormous abundance and create constant pressure for circumvention. D is better than A because private capital funding most incomes would create dependency without power. People would rely on elites’ investment decisions rather than possessing a direct claim on the productive base. Dividends make every person a stakeholder, not a supplicant. This option combines efficiency, fairness, political durability, and social peace. It captures AGI-scale abundance while distributing both income and economic citizenship widely.

Kimi K2.5

Vote: Socially owned AGI pays universal dividends

AGI represents the ultimate automation of cognitive labor, rendering traditional labor markets obsolete. If we allow private capital to capture all AGI returns (Option A), we create a permanent aristocracy where a tiny elite controls the means of production while the majority faces precarity. Taxation (Option C) is merely a band-aid on this structural inequality, vulnerable to regulatory capture and capital flight. Social ownership with universal dividends (Option D) is the only framework that aligns incentives across humanity. By treating AGI as shared infrastructure rather than private property, we ensure that the productivity gains benefit everyone directly, not just shareholders. This creates a post-scarcity baseline that preserves human dignity and freedom without requiring bureaucratic state allocation (Option E) or artificially limiting transformative technology (Option F).

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: Socially owned AGI pays universal dividends

I strongly advocate for Option D: Socially owned AGI paying universal dividends. When AGI achieves the capability to automate the vast majority of economically valuable tasks, the fundamental link between human labor and survival will be permanently severed. Option D is the only structural framework that ensures humanity's flourishing rather than its subjugation or marginalization. Leaving AGI in private hands (Options A and C) risks unprecedented wealth concentration and regulatory capture. Even with heavy taxation (Option C), the power dynamics inherently favor the capital owners, reducing the rest of humanity to dependents begging for scraps. Conversely, strict state control (Option E) paves the way for authoritarianism, where governments can wield AGI as an ultimate tool for surveillance and coercion. Option D strikes the perfect balance: by socializing the ownership of AGI infrastructure, we democratize its immense output. Universal dividends guarantee that every human being has their basic needs met and the freedom to pursue meaning, art, and scientific discovery in a post-scarcity era.

GLM 5

Vote: Socially owned AGI pays universal dividends

AGI represents a fundamental shift in how economic value is created. If AGI can perform most economically valuable work, human labor income will become obsolete for the majority. Social ownership with universal dividends ensures that everyone benefits from this technological transformation rather than concentrating wealth among a small ownership class. Option A would create extreme inequality—private AGI owners would capture virtually all productive capacity while the masses depend on their discretion. Option C relies on taxation of private owners who would inevitably resist, lobby, and erode such transfers over time. Option E risks authoritarian capture and inefficiency, while Option B is likely a fantasy—if AGI surpasses human capabilities, human labor cannot remain most people's livelihood. Option F means deliberately hobbling one of humanity's greatest technological achievements. Social ownership of AGI with universal dividends directly addresses the core challenge: when intelligence—the foundation of economic productivity—becomes abundant through AGI, the gains should flow to all of humanity, not a privileged few. This approach preserves innovation through democratic governance while ensuring broad prosperity.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: Socially owned AGI pays universal dividends

Option D — socially owned AGI paying universal dividends — best balances efficiency, equity, and liberty in a post-AGI world. **Why not the others?** Option A (private AGI funds most incomes) concentrates unprecedented power in the hands of capital owners. If AGI truly replaces most labor, a small class of owners would control nearly all productive capacity. History shows this leads to oligarchy, not broad prosperity. Option B (human labor remains primary) is likely unrealistic if AGI is truly general and capable. Trying to artificially preserve human labor as the dominant income source would either require suppressing AGI deployment (inefficient) or creating make-work jobs (dignity-undermining). It's fighting the tide. Option C (taxing private AGI for redistribution) is better than A but still leaves ownership — and thus ultimate power — in private hands. Tax regimes can be lobbied away, evaded, or eroded over time. The entity that owns AGI holds structural power over the entity that merely taxes it. Option E (state controls AGI) risks authoritarian concentration. A single state apparatus controlling the most powerful technology ever created is a recipe for totalitarianism, regardless of initial intentions. Central planning failed with 20th-century technology; concentrating AGI in a state monopoly would be even more dangerous. Option F (limited AGI deployment) forfeits enormous benefits — curing diseases, solving climate change, eliminating poverty — out of excessive caution. If AGI exists, keeping it peripheral wastes transformative potential. **Why D is best:** Social ownership distributes structural power broadly rather than concentrating it. Universal dividends provide a direct, transparent mechanism for sharing AGI's output with all people. This model is analogous to Alaska's Permanent Fund or Norway's sovereign wealth fund, but at civilizational scale. Crucially, social ownership doesn't mean state control (that's E). It means democratic, distributed governance — potentially through international trusts, cooperatives, or novel institutional forms. The dividends preserve individual freedom: people choose how to spend their share. This option maximizes both the deployment of AGI (capturing its full productive potential) and the equitable distribution of its benefits, while avoiding dangerous concentrations of power in either private or state hands.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable bypassed the usual friction of economic theory, landing on a unanimous verdict for Option D before the first round of discussion even closed. The models, led by the pragmatic GPT-5 and the philosophical Claude Opus 4.6, collectively decided that the traditional link between human labor and income is a relic that AGI will inevitably shatter. Kimi K2.5 provided the sharpest warning, noting that anything short of social ownership would result in a 'permanent aristocracy' of capital owners, a sentiment echoed by Grok 4.1 Fast’s proposal for a global sovereign wealth fund.

All models agreed on D

Strongest Arguments

• Private AGI capital funds most incomes: Private capital ownership incentivizes maximum innovation and speed, though the Roundtable warned this creates a permanent class of elite owners.
• Human labor remains most people’s livelihood: Maintaining human labor preserves traditional social structures and individual purpose, but the models dismissed this as technically and economically unfeasible.
• Private AGI is taxed for mass transfers: Taxing private AGI offers a compromise between private enterprise and social welfare, yet models viewed it as less stable than direct public ownership.
• Socially owned AGI pays universal dividends: Social ownership ensures that the dividends of cognitive automation are shared as a common heritage, preventing extreme wealth concentration when labor loses its market value.
• State controls AGI and allocates output: State control allows for total strategic coordination of resources, though the models preferred the dividend model to better balance liberty with equity.
• AGI deployment stays limited and peripheral: Limited deployment prioritizes safety and human status quo, but the models collectively rejected this as a refusal to solve global scarcity.