"Tell me," I asked a friend over coffee, "is artificial intelligence merely a tool, or has it become an economic agent?" He smiled. "Does it really matter?" he asked. "It matters," I replied. "Because if AI is only a tool, then we remain in control.
But if it has become an agent, then perhaps capitalism has already changed without many of us noticing." He remained silent for a few seconds before asking another question. "What do you mean by an agent?" "A tool follows instructions," I answered. "An agent makes choices, evaluates alternatives, predicts outcomes and acts on behalf of someone else."
He interrupted me. "But AI doesn't own a company. It doesn't receive a salary. It doesn't pay taxes." "Exactly," I said. "Yet every day it approves loans, rejects insurance claims, predicts stock movements, recommends products, screens job applicants, detects fraud, negotiates prices, and even writes reports that managers once prepared themselves." "So," he asked again, "is it still just a tool?" That question stayed with me long after we finished our coffee.
Capitalism has always admired efficiency. Every institution searches for lower costs, higher productivity, faster decisions and greater returns. Artificial intelligence seems to promise all four simultaneously. It never sleeps, never becomes tired, never asks for annual leave, and can process information at a speed no human employee can match. No wonder businesses are embracing it.
But should we celebrate too quickly?
The Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek believed that knowledge is scattered across millions of individuals. No central authority can ever collect all the information necessary to manage an economy efficiently. Markets work because prices communicate information that no single person possesses completely.
When I read Hayek today, I couldn’t help asking another question. Has AI become the fastest interpreter of that scattered knowledge?
Every second, algorithms analyse consumer behaviour, exchange rates, commodity prices, weather patterns, logistics, customer preferences and financial transactions. What once required weeks of analysis now happens within milliseconds. From Hayek's perspective, AI almost appears to strengthen market efficiency by processing dispersed information faster than any human organisation could.
"But is faster always better?" my friend asked. That is where the conversation becomes more interesting.
The British economist John Maynard Keynes would probably respond differently. Keynes understood that markets can produce extraordinary wealth, yet they do not always distribute opportunities equally. Productivity may increase while unemployment rises. Technology may enrich corporations while leaving workers uncertain about their future. Today, AI forces us to revisit those very concerns.
"A bank may replace ten analysts with one AI platform. A marketing department may reduce its staff because algorithms now generate campaigns. Even universities are beginning to question how education itself should evolve when students can ask AI to explain finance, economics or law within seconds. Does that mean AI is taking our jobs?" my friend asked.
"No," I replied. "It is changing the definition of a job."
Throughout history, technology has eliminated some occupations while creating entirely new professions. Yet AI feels different because it is no longer replacing only physical labour. It is increasingly performing analytical and intellectual work once considered exclusively human.
That changes the conversation. Perhaps we are asking the wrong question. Instead of asking whether AI will replace people, perhaps we should ask what skills remain uniquely human. Can AI show wisdom? Can it understand justice? Can it appreciate compassion? Can it balance economic efficiency with moral responsibility? The answer, at least for now, is no.
AI can optimise decisions. It cannot own the consequences of those decisions. This is where capitalism faces one of its greatest philosophical challenges. Markets reward productivity. Investors reward efficiency. Shareholders reward profitability. AI delivers all three. But societies are built on something beyond productivity alone. They are built on trust, accountability and human judgment.
A machine may recommend declining a customer's loan application. But who carries ethical responsibility? The programmer? The bank? The board of directors? Or the machine itself? The answer is obvious. Responsibility remains human, even when intelligence becomes artificial.
"So," my friend asked for the final time, "what is your conclusion?" I smiled. "I think AI begins its life as a tool." "And then?" "And capitalism gradually encourages it to behave like an agent." Not because AI possesses ambition, greed or desire, but because businesses increasingly delegate decisions to it. The more decisions we delegate, the more influence AI acquires over markets, organisations and ultimately our daily lives.
Perhaps the real debate is not whether AI is intelligent. Perhaps the real debate is whether human beings will continue exercising their own intelligence. Technology has always been easy to invent. Wisdom has always been much harder.
Capitalism will continue searching for greater efficiency because that is its nature. Hayek reminds us that markets thrive on dispersed knowledge and innovation. Keynes reminds us that economic progress must ultimately serve people rather than statistics. Between those two great schools of thought stands artificial intelligence — not as a replacement for humanity, but as a mirror reflecting the choices we make.
In the end, AI is neither entirely a tool nor entirely an agent. It is whatever capitalism encourages it to become. The final decision, however, still belongs to us.
Oman Observer is now on the WhatsApp channel. Click here
