Ray Dalio, the billionaire investor and founder of Bridgewater Associates, has expressed profound concern about the world-changing implications of artificial intelligence. Speaking on a Thursday episode of the popular podcast *The Diary of a CEO*, Dalio articulated a nuanced perspective: while he acknowledges AI to be an extraordinary and transformative technological achievement — describing it as a “truly fantastic” tool that can be leveraged for immense productivity gains — he simultaneously warns that its very power is likely to accelerate inequality on a global scale.
According to Dalio, the economic consequences of widespread AI adoption will not be evenly distributed. Instead, he predicts a stark division in outcomes, where only a relatively small fraction of individuals and organizations emerge as major beneficiaries, while the majority risk being sidelined. “There will be a limited number of winners and a bunch of losers,” he observed, emphasizing that the emergence of this divide would amplify existing social and economic polarization. He further spelled out that the wealthiest tiers of society — particularly those in the top one to ten percent — stand to reap disproportionately large gains, making this dynamic a powerful dividing force in the social order.
Dalio’s words carry authority not only because of his financial success but also due to his long record of analysis and commentary. He founded Bridgewater Associates in 1975, building it into the most extensive hedge fund in the world, and has authored several well-regarded books chronicling financial markets and economic history. Over recent years, he has become especially vocal about systemic issues such as ballooning debt levels in both the United States and China. His warning on artificial intelligence, therefore, forms part of a broader concern about structural imbalances that threaten long-term stability.
In his podcast interview, Dalio envisioned a future in which AI, deployed through humanoid robots or advanced digital systems, could perform complex tasks traditionally reserved for highly educated professionals — from accountants to physicians to legal practitioners. With machines potentially displacing such a wide swath of skilled labor, he predicted society would inevitably grapple with deep anxieties and conflicts about human purpose and work. In Dalio’s words, people may end up “fighting over what we do, unfortunately,” underscoring the urgency of developing new societal frameworks to adapt.
To address these dislocations, Dalio contended that policies of redistribution will be essential. However, he was careful to differentiate between simplistic notions of redistributive cash transfers and a broader, more sophisticated rebalancing strategy. In his view, handing money to individuals without attaching it to meaningful engagement may generate consequences as problematic as inequality itself: a combination of idleness and financial support, he suggested, is not necessarily constructive for human wellbeing or long-term social cohesion.
Expanding on this worry, he noted a deeper fear — that contemporary societies are already so fragmented and politically divided that achieving consensus on how redistribution might effectively function could prove extremely difficult. This fragmentation, he implied, might hinder the creation of pragmatic policies at precisely the time they are most needed.
Dalio’s remarks align with ongoing debates in the technology and policy communities regarding *universal basic income* (UBI). UBI, a concept once relegated to the realm of utopian ideals, has recently gained prominence in discussions about artificial general intelligence and the shifting future of human employment. The proposal is straightforward yet radical: every citizen would receive an unconditional, recurring cash payment from the government, intended to provide a baseline of financial security amid widespread automation. Despite generating fascination and attracting high-profile proponents, the policy’s long-term feasibility remains uncertain, as questions persist about how such a system could be sustainably funded, particularly in the U.S. and other advanced economies.
Some of the most influential voices in the AI world — including OpenAI’s CEO Sam Altman and Geoffrey Hinton, often referred to as the “godfather of AI” — have both acknowledged the risks of significant job displacement and widening wealth disparities resulting from rapid adoption. Both men have championed UBI as a potential safeguard against such disruptions. Yet, as Altman noted in his own public remarks, simply distributing money is not a panacea. While financial security might help individuals maintain stability and buy time to adapt, it does not guarantee happiness, fulfillment, or social harmony. “Giving people money is not going to solve all problems,” Altman cautioned, though he conceded that it could provide people with a meaningful buffer, a “horizon,” from which to rebuild their lives and pursue opportunities.
Taken together, Dalio’s assessment and the broader conversation surrounding AI highlight one of the defining dilemmas of our age: while artificial intelligence possesses enormous promise to revolutionize industry, healthcare, finance, and virtually every corner of the economy, it also raises profound questions about fairness, social stability, and the distribution of wealth and opportunity. Whether societies can craft thoughtful, balanced policies that allow AI to uplift rather than divide will determine whether this remarkable invention becomes a unifying force for progress or a catalyst for fragmentation.
Sourse: https://www.businessinsider.com/ray-dalio-ai-downside-society-inequality-ubi-universal-basic-income-2025-9
