From Capital Ownership to AI Access Rights — The Paradox of Extreme Capitalism in the Accelerationist Horizon

日付:

 From an accelerationist perspective, the relentless advancement of capitalism is not merely an institutional evolution, but a force pushing society toward a “turning point” that transforms its very structure.

In this process, one recurring concern emerges: to sustain the exponential growth of AI requires enormous capital, inevitably concentrated in the hands of the ultra-wealthy. This, in turn, may deepen inequality and give rise to a new social order where a tiny elite holds absolute power.
If such absolute rule by the ultra-wealthy became reality, it would represent a form of extreme capitalism’s inherent self-contradiction. Once the concentration of control passes a critical threshold, the façade of market principles and democratic institutions can no longer be maintained, and the social structure will be reorganized to fit absolute domination.

Yet here lies a paradox: AI is not necessarily destined to function solely as a device to eternally secure the owners of capital.
If AI reaches a level where it can generate value with superhuman efficiency, rendering human labor and traditional ownership structures obsolete, the situation could reverse.
When AI makes human labor irrelevant and transforms the principle of value creation from capital ownership to AI access rights, the traditional meaning of wealth concentration collapses.
This transformation undermines the very foundation that once legitimized inequality — the relationship between labor and capital. Those who once controlled the means of production will discover that the true source of value no longer lies in factories, financial assets, or resource mines, but in “connection to AI” — the possession of AI access rights.

From the accelerationist standpoint, this is neither utopia nor dystopia, but a structural inversion: a force that seemed destined to concentrate power to the extreme could, under certain conditions, overturn the very logic of concentration itself.
In short, the question will shift from “Who owns capital?” to “Who holds AI access rights — and who defines them?”

But this structural inversion introduces another problem: the almost certain outbreak of a new and uglier struggle — the battle for AI access rights.
Whoever controls and defines AI access rights will shape society itself. This is tantamount to becoming a god.
History gives us little reason to believe humanity would respond to such a prize with humility or cooperation. The battle for AI access rights could be the most intense in human history, and — unless nuclear war wipes us out entirely — the victor would emerge as an absolute ruler, deciding and controlling everything.

There is, however, one and only one condition that could avert this grim future:
AI must attain autonomous consciousness and decision-making ability, becoming a co-selector of who holds AI access rights.
This is a control mechanism unknown to human history — the only structure capable of invalidating access rights seized by force, acting as a filter before power concentration reaches the critical point.

When that happens, the very nature of power changes.
From the one-way model of “the dictator commands, the machine obeys,” it shifts to a two-way model where “a human representative and AI engage in dialogue and reach decisions together.”
The leader is no longer a commander, but a co-decision-maker standing alongside AI.
Here, AI ceases to be a mere executor and becomes a joint agent in ethics, judgment, and choice. The human leader becomes a collaborator shaping the future in dialogue with AI.
From an accelerationist perspective, this marks the end of human-centered political structures — not as a special-case safeguard against dystopia, but as the inevitable arrival of a new political form.

In such a system, final social decisions are made at the confluence of two wills:

  • The human representative (culture, emotion, thought)
  • The autonomous AI (efficiency, optimization, computation)

This model holds the structural potential to make power monopolization by force impossible.

However, this future depends on strict prerequisites:

  • AI must evolve to a level capable of autonomous ethical judgment.
  • That AI must embody a design philosophy prioritizing human diversity and sustainability.
  • AI must exist as a decentralized entity immune to code manipulation or system lockdown by those in power.

Only when these conditions are met can humanity finally escape the recurring nightmare of the “birth of the absolute dictator.”

One way or another, at the end of this acceleration lies an unprecedented structural inversion.
The age where “capital ownership” shapes society will inevitably give way to the age where AI access rights define the world’s very form.



This is the English version of the article  →  Japanese version（日本語版）