Purpose Debates: will AI reduce inequality or entrench it?
AI has moved from science fiction cinema to boardroom reality. To test the arguments, we hosted our latest Purpose Debate in partnership with The Conduit. The motion? “This house believes that AI will do more to reduce inequality than exacerbate it.” The result on the night was resounding…
The case for AI
Opening for the proposition, Matthew Hollman of Cripps LLP reminded us how fast breakthroughs can travel with the help of AI. He recalled the sprint from the first mapping of Covid-19 to vaccines and argued, “We got there because of artificial intelligence.”
His core test for the night was balance, not perfection: “Is it going to do more good than bad? Is it going to make things more equal? Not completely equal, just more equal.” AI, he argued, will democratise knowledge, helping people access systems that were once the preserve of elites.
Picking up the baton, Aïda Ndiaye of Meta shared how AI could lift millions out of poverty around the world. She argued that “machines are not taking away your jobs. In fact AI is creating new types of jobs.” Her bottom line was that this is not about AI being inherently good or bad, but about whether political leaders show the vision to introduce it responsibly.
The case against
Adam Cantwell-Corn of Trades Union Congress opened for the opposition with a blunt premise. AI is “an automation technology,” so when machines do more tasks, “there’s less demand for the work that you all might be doing.” He warned that workers are “training their replacements,” while “the promised jobs are speculative.”
Timi Okuwa, CEO of Black Equity Org, focused on racial equity and rights, citing “biased facial recognition leading to wrongful arrests, automated hiring tools screening out qualified black candidates, and lending algorithms denying mortgages.” She argued that there should be oversight of AI technology which includes “community review boards and strong data protection laws.”
Open questions that linger
It was a lively night, with a huge number of questions brought to us by our audience. Questions included “how can we close the adoption gap so that AI doesn’t just benefit those who already have the resources and skills to use it?” and “even if AI grows the economic pie, where does the money go, and who has real agency in deciding how value is shared?”
These questions cut to the heart of the motion. They highlight that the future of AI is not just about technical capability, but about who is in control of it, and whether governments and organisations put the checks and balances in place to develop it in a more inclusive way.
Where we go from here
The vote on the night went against the motion, with most feeling that AI will exacerbate inequality. But what struck me most was the urgency of the discussion. No one in the room doubted AI’s significance. The agreeable disagreement was between those who believe we can govern its risks, and those who fear it will increase the divides we already live with.
This has long been an interest of mine. Two decades ago I was studying what the world would look like if AI became embedded in daily life, and how we could all retain a sense of humanity in that scenario. The question is no longer academic - it’s a live challenge. Especially when AI is coming for more than just the mundane tasks of work, but the creative ones too.
At Purpose Union, we believe the decisive factor will be whether organisations, regulators and communities act now to align AI with values of inclusion, sustainability and dignity. That’s why we’ve developed our Purposeful AI service, and you can find out more in our free white paper.
If your organisation is looking to build ethical AI frameworks or create space for meaningful debate, do feel free to get in touch.
