3175x175(CURRENT).thumb.jpg.b05acc060982b36f5891ba728e6d953c.jpg)
AI is driving up the cost of everything from electricity to PC hardware, and non-users are the ones subsidizing the bill.
I didn't sign up for an AI subscription, but my bills say otherwise. We're all living in an AI shakedown where even if you avoid AI entirely, you still pay the price. You, me, and your grandparent who doesn't even own a smartphone are all subsidizing the AI industry.
I'm sick of notifications and emails about price increases. That, and I'm also sick of people shouting, "If you don't like AI, just don't use it". You may not use AI, but you're paying for it, both literally and figuratively.
For a moment, I'm going to put aside the fact that consumers don't care about AI PCs and that people don't pay for Microsoft's AI products. I'll take it as a given that some people genuinely use AI in one form or another and that AI is here to stay.
My question is: Should all of society have to pay an AI tax?
Demand for AI has driven up the cost of RAM. In turn, much of the best tech on the horizon is being pushed back. The Steam Machine is delayed, the Steam Deck is out of stock, and the PlayStation 6 could launch as late as 2029 — all because of AI.
On top of paying a metaphorical price, people are also paying a literal price because of AI. GPUs, SSDs, software subscriptions, and cloud computing have all increased in price at least in part due to AI. But it's not just gadget lovers who have to pay the AI tax.
You may not use AI, but you're paying for it
The Steam Machine will be more expensive than hoped and has been delayed because of AI-driven component shortages.
(Image credit: Valve)
Earlier today, The Financial Times reported on the rising cost of electricity prices and how those increases are connected to AI. That report was based on figures from a Goldman Sachs report on "The Macroeconomic Spillovers From AI Electricity Demand."
Electricity prices rose 6.9% year-over-year through December 2025, according to Goldman Sachs. That's way above the PCE (personal consumption expenditures) inflation rate of 2.9%.
Importantly, rising electricity costs affect non-AI companies. Goldman Sachs stated:
In a scenario in which non-AI customers bear half of the incremental cost of data center-related capex going forward (vs. a third in our baseline), we estimate that electricity prices would increase about 8% on average in 2026-2027 and 4% in 2028-2030.
The report goes on to explain how the demand for data centers to power AI will affect consumers and non-AI businesses. It also explains how some areas will be more affected due to the density of data centers.
Considering that most people in the modern world rely on electricity, there's a massive knock-on effect when electricity prices go up. Goldman Sachs expects lower disposable income and reduced consumer spending as a result of price increases.
Microsoft has made promises about building "Community-First" AI infrastructure, but those were largely mocked. Microsoft has failed on some past AI promises, so people are understandably dubious about the AI-related commitments.
Even if Microsoft kept its promises, that's no guarantee that other AI companies would stick to similar standards. There's money to be made in AI — and where there's money, there are people willing to sacrifice others to enrich themselves.
We're curing cancer, right?
I'd feel a bit more comfortable with people effectively paying an AI tax if AI was a genuine force for good. If AI paved the way for people living safely as automation worked in the background, I could see an argument for society sharing some of the load.
But AI is largely unregulated. It's frequently used by bad actors to take advantage of people or manipulate the masses. Even Microsoft warned that AI can be poisoned to manipulate recommendations. AI also poses a threat to security, elections, and privacy.
Even in innocent hands, AI is often used to make slop. Is your rising energy bill justified by someone making a video of a pig being ridden on a highway or AI blurring the background of a Microsoft Teams meeting?
Of course, AI may actually be used to cure cancer or do good. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said as much:
If AI stays on the trajectory that we think it will, then amazing things will be possible. Maybe with 10 gigawatts of compute, AI can figure out how to cure cancer. Or with 10 gigawatts of compute, AI can figure out how to provide customized tutoring to every student on earth. If we are limited by compute, we’ll have to choose which one to prioritize; no one wants to make that choice, so let’s go build.
While that would certainly better society as a whole, I don't think the primary use case for AI is curing disease. I also don't trust AI companies to ensure the technology is prioritizing bettering society over making money.
I'm not asking for a world without AI; that ship has sailed. I'm asking why a student buying a laptop for school or a baker trying to keep their ovens on has to cover the costs of AI.
If AI is going to save the world, how about the billion and trillion-dollar companies foot the bill rather than having everyday people pay an AI tax?
Hope you enjoyed this news post. Feedback welcome.
Posted Wednesday 18 February 2026 at 6:42 am AEST (my time).
News posts: 2023 5,800+ | 2024 5,700+ | 2025 5,700+ | 2026 (to end of January) 461
Recommended Comments
There are no comments to display.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.