As advanced AI could make productive intelligence abundant, traditional metrics—prices, wages and gross output—will misstate what matters; this paper argues for 'Flourishing Value Theory', assessing technologies by their counterfactual contribution to durable human and planetary flourishing and prescribing governance and measurement architectures to align AI adoption with societal well‑being.

Main Finding

The paper proposes Flourishing Value Theory (FVT): a theory of economic value for prospective post‑AGI economies that defines value as the counterfactual, distribution‑sensitive contribution of an intervention (system, institution, or policy) to the durable capabilities of persons and communities to flourish within social and planetary constraints. FVT argues that when generally capable AI makes productive intelligence much more abundant, traditional value anchors—labour embodied, market price, revealed preference, or gross output—become insufficient. Instead we need a multidimensional, agency‑preserving, risk‑sensitive value architecture whose primary output is a transparent value profile; only after explicit specification of beneficiaries, weights, horizons, distributional rules, ecological limits, and downside‑risk tolerance should any aggregate scalar be used for decisions.

Key Points

• Motivation: AGI or similarly capable AI can weaken multiple scarcities (cognitive labour, information, productive capability), producing four key separations that undermine classical value concepts:
  • Production ≠ human labour (labour input no longer tracks worth or distribution).
  • Price ≠ social value (marginal price can approach zero for socially valuable digital goods; monopoly pricing may be socially harmful).
  • Revealed preference ≠ autonomous well‑being (AI can shape preferences it satisfies).
  • Output ≠ flourishing (more measured output can coexist with declines in agency, meaning, trust, health, or ecological stability).
• Core definition: Value = counterfactual contribution to durable human and community capabilities to flourish, evaluated across multiple dimensions, time, distribution, ecological constraints, and downside risk.
• Net societal value: At organizational/societal scale, value = value created across all materially affected people, institutions, and planetary systems after accounting for harms, externalities, distributional effects, and downside risks.
• Primitives and required specifications: A complete post‑AGI value architecture must make explicit:
  • beneficiaries and affected populations
  • dimensions and indicators of flourishing
  • counterfactual baseline and causal horizon
  • distributional rule and agency protections
  • critical thresholds (non‑compensatory constraints)
  • ecological limits and systemic downside‑risk tolerance
  • legitimate decision procedures for specifying weights/time horizons/etc.
• Evaluative form: Multidimensional value profiles (not a single universal index). Aggregation into a scalar is permitted only after legitimate specification of normative parameters.
• Relation to existing frameworks: FVT is the theoretical companion to Flourishing Metrics and Return on Flourishing (RoF). RoF provides operational value accounting and ROI‑style decision tools; FVT supplies the normative and conceptual grounding for what to measure and why.
• Conceptual shifts: Interprets value creation as three transitions highlighted in RoF:
  • scarcity → governed abundance
  • transaction → transformation
  • zero‑sum rivalry → positive‑sum and infinite‑game dynamics Alongside a cross‑cutting regenerative form: agency‑preserving collective expansion of consciousness (a mode of societal value).
• Seven high‑level propositions (themes derived): claims about the changing roles/interpretation of price, labour, preferences, ownership, non‑substitutability of certain human capacities, dynamics of work replacement, and the importance of regenerative assets.
• Practical applications: applies framework to work‑replacing AI and defines criteria for “flourishing businesses” across AI adoption stages (firms, governments, investors, AI governance bodies).

Data & Methods

• Methodological approach: integrative conceptual synthesis and structured review across the economics‑of‑AI literatures rather than a new empirical model. The review is comprehensive at the level of major research programmes and field‑shaping contributions, selective for narrow applications.
• Literature mapped:
  • Growth and transformative‑AI models (e.g., task substitution, growth regimes, endogenous risk)
  • Task‑based automation and labour exposure studies
  • Micro studies of generative AI, firm productivity, organisational complementarities and concentration
  • Distribution, ownership, international development, and public finance responses
  • Data, market power, and algorithmic economies (not fully included in the excerpt)
• Scope and normative assumptions:
  • “Post‑AGI” used as a scenario class (generally capable, sufficiently autonomous AI able to perform/coordinate a large share of valuable cognitive work), not a precise timing claim.
  • Normative scope initially human and planetary; the framework would be revised if credible moral status for AI systems became established.
• Formalisation: deliberately conceptual and procedural rather than equation‑based. The author argues formal models and empirical calibration should follow explicit normative choices rather than hide them.
• Empirical evidence cited: heterogeneous micro and macro results on productivity, employment, distribution, firm concentration, and innovation—used to motivate the theory rather than to validate a specific quantitative claim.

Implications for AI Economics

• Reframe the central problem: With abundant productive intelligence, economics should shift from allocating scarce productive capability to governing abundant capability toward sustain‑able forms of life worth sustaining.
• Measurement and policy:
  • GDP, market prices, wages, and firm profits become partial or misleading signals of social value; policymakers and firms need flourishing‑based metrics (e.g., Flourishing Metrics, RoF) to assess true societal impact.
  • Distribution and ownership regimes matter for how AI rents translate into durable capabilities—public finance, taxation, sovereign wealth, transfers, and institutional design remain central tools.
  • Regulatory and governance designs must protect agency, prevent preference manipulation, internalise ecological limits, and manage systemic downside risks from powerful AI systems.
• Firm and investor strategy:
  • Firms should evaluate AI adoption not only for short‑run profit or productivity but for net societal value and resilience across distributional and ecological constraints; “flourishing‑business” criteria should guide strategy across the AI‑adoption journey.
  • Concentration risks and appropriation of AI rents can produce high private value while lowering net societal flourishing; governance and competition policy are essential.
• Research agenda:
  • Formalise FVT primitives into operational decision architectures and empirical measures; calibrate Flourishing Metrics and RoF with longitudinal data.
  • Model preference formation and AI‑mediated choice environments to capture manipulative channels.
  • Incorporate ecological constraints, planetary boundaries, and threshold/non‑compensatory effects into macro and welfare models.
  • Evaluate international distributional effects and mechanisms to share AI‑generated capabilities globally.
• Normative and institutional constraints on aggregation:
  • Any aggregate welfare scalar used for policy must be procedurally legitimate: population, weights, time horizon, distributional rules, agency protections, ecological limits, and downside‑risk tolerances must be democratically and transparently specified.
• Conclusion for practitioners: Intelligence abundance does not abolish economics; it changes its object. Value accounting and policy must explicitly orient abundant capabilities toward durable human and planetary flourishing rather than rely on inherited scarcity‑based signals alone.