Daron Acemoglu argues that the AI industry faces a fundamental dilemma: reaching the massive revenues needed to justify its investments ($3.7 trillion annually by 2032) would trigger a dramatic surge in inequality, while failing to reach those revenues could trigger an economic crash. Either way, inequality likely increases.

• Van Nieuwerburgh's calculations show AI needs to generate $3.7 trillion in annual revenue by 2032 (up from ~$200 billion now) to hit a 10% return on investments averaging 3.6% of GDP annually—a threshold that would make capital income roughly 10% of total US national income.
• Since capital income is far more unequally distributed than labor income, a massive rise in capital's share of national income would sharply increase overall inequality, and automation typically drives wage inequality among workers as well.
• Acemoglu thinks the industry won't actually hit these revenue targets because AI diffusion is slow, open-source models will limit proprietary pricing power, and current AI can't automate entire occupations—so a crash becomes more likely than runaway inequality, though either outcome worsens inequality.