Artificial intelligence (AI) has rapidly transitioned from a futuristic promise into an everyday reality, shaping the way individuals work, study, and interact with information. AI tools such as ChatGPT have been celebrated as revolutionary, offering efficiency, speed, and unprecedented access to knowledge. Yet beneath the glamour of technological advancement lies a troubling reality: AI is increasingly commodified, with access and quality stratified according to the ability to pay. What began as a transformative resource designed to democratise access to knowledge has instead become another instrument of capitalist hierarchy, privileging those with financial resources while marginalising those without. This phenomenon is especially pronounced in legal education and practice, where students and young professionals are finding their opportunities conditioned by their capacity to purchase premium AI access.

The Commodification of AI

Karl Marx observed that in every historical epoch, the dominant ideas are those of the ruling class.¹ In contemporary society, this principle is manifested in the commodification of AI. AI’s promise of universal access to efficiency and knowledge has been mediated by corporate structures that monetise access through tiered subscription models. For instance, tools like ChatGPT operate on a stratified basis: while a free version provides limited services, higher tiers—often at considerable cost—offer superior functionality, faster processing, and enhanced features.² This system creates a hierarchy of access, not determined by merit, but by financial capability.

This commodification extends beyond OpenAI. Nearly every significant AI service today follows a similar trajectory: introductory free trials designed to attract users, followed by subscription models that place meaningful capabilities behind paywalls.³ Such structures ensure that the “perks” of AI—whether extended word limits, advanced research tools, or higher model versions—are privileges of those who can afford them. Consequently, AI has shifted from being a universal aid to a capitalist commodity, accessible in its full potential only to the elite.

AI and the Legal Lens

From the perspective of legal education, this inequality is particularly concerning. The foundational training of law students involves mastering basic skills such as drafting, case law analysis, and legal research. These are precisely the functions now outsourced to AI tools. A law student equipped with premium AI access can draft pleadings, generate comparative case summaries, or refine moot memorials at a pace and quality far superior to a peer restricted to free services. The result is an uneven playing field where access to advanced AI determines performance more than skill or diligence.

This reality reflects a deeper structural problem: AI is not simply a neutral tool, but an amplifier of existing socio-economic disparities. In elite institutions, where students may more easily afford premium subscriptions, AI functions as an additional advantage, consolidating the privileges already available through institutional prestige and access to resources. In contrast, students in less affluent institutions, or those from lower-income backgrounds, risk being systematically disadvantaged, not because they lack ability, but because they lack the means to purchase access.

The Economics of Inequality

The commodification of AI is justified by providers on economic grounds. High-quality models require significant investment in computational resources, infrastructure, and development. Subscription models are therefore framed as a necessary mechanism to sustain innovation. Yet this economic rationale obscures the broader social implications. By placing advanced AI features behind paywalls, corporations effectively reproduce and exacerbate class divides.

This process mirrors what Marx identified as the capitalist tendency to turn social goods into commodities, accessible only to those with purchasing power.⁴ AI, marketed as a tool of empowerment, becomes in practice a gatekeeper, reinforcing the socio-economic hierarchy. As subscription prices rise in line with model improvements, access will remain concentrated in the hands of those with disposable income, while the rest are left behind. The outcome is a digital divide that is not merely technological but class-based.

Educational and Professional Consequences

The legal profession is already deeply competitive, with opportunities for internships, clerkships, and jobs contingent on performance and output quality. In such a context, the disparity created by differential access to AI is far from trivial. A student with premium AI access can generate multiple drafts, refine arguments with greater precision, and conduct faster research, thereby producing work that appears more sophisticated than that of a peer without similar access. The evaluation of merit thus becomes distorted: employers, professors, and competition judges may attribute quality to individual skill when, in reality, it is a product of financial access to superior AI.

This inequality is compounded by the perception that AI may render traditional legal training obsolete. Reports already suggest that college degrees are being devalued on the basis that AI will perform tasks once reserved for graduates.⁵ For law students, this creates a double burden: not only must they contend with the fear that their years of study may lose value, but they must also compete with peers whose AI-assisted output outpaces their own. The reliance on AI, therefore, does not democratise education but risks stratifying it along lines of wealth.

Reliance and Exclusion

A particularly troubling aspect of this inequality is the growing reliance on AI. Tasks as basic as drafting emails, writing memos, or conducting preliminary research are now increasingly delegated to AI systems. This reliance creates a paradox: while AI has become integral to modern workflows, full participation in this new paradigm is conditional upon financial privilege. The very tool designed to enhance collective progress now threatens to leave behind entire sections of society.

This exclusion undermines the narrative that AI is a revolutionary force for human advancement. Progress cannot be considered collective if vast numbers of individuals are excluded from participating due to affordability barriers. In competitive domains such as law, where opportunities are already scarce and highly contested, the exclusion is particularly damaging. A candidate should be evaluated on skill, knowledge, and merit—not on whether they could afford a premium AI subscription.

The Indian Context

The implications of this commodification are especially stark in India, one of the world’s largest and fastest-growing markets for digital technology. While AI adoption is accelerating, the cost of premium access remains prohibitive for many students and young professionals. With subscription plans running into thousands of rupees per month, AI risks becoming a resource monopolised by urban elites and privileged institutions.⁶ The majority of students, even in advanced universities, may find themselves excluded from the full benefits of AI, thereby reinforcing the class divide under the guise of technological progress.

Moreover, this inequality is often invisible. The allure of AI as a symbol of progress obscures the fact that its benefits are unevenly distributed. Society celebrates technological advancement without acknowledging the exclusion it generates. In this way, AI contributes to what Marx described as the mystification of capitalist relations: inequality is reproduced under the appearance of universal advancement.⁷

Towards Equitable Access

The recognition of AI’s commodification does not necessitate its rejection. AI remains a powerful tool with the potential to enhance education and legal practice. The challenge lies in ensuring equitable access. Institutions, policymakers, and corporations must take steps to democratise AI use. Law schools, for example, could provide institutional subscriptions, ensuring that all students have equal access to premium features. Governments might consider subsidising AI access for educational purposes, recognising it as a public good rather than a luxury.

Additionally, the growth of open-source AI models offers a partial counterbalance to the dominance of corporate providers.⁸ By promoting and investing in open alternatives, societies can resist the monopolisation of AI as a capitalist commodity and instead treat it as a shared resource. Without such measures, however, AI will continue to function as a mechanism of exclusion, privileging the wealthy while marginalising the rest.

Conclusion

Artificial intelligence has been heralded as a transformative force, capable of increasing efficiency, saving time, and advancing civilisation. Yet its current trajectory reveals a more troubling reality: AI is increasingly commodified, with its most powerful features reserved for those who can pay. In legal education and practice, this creates an uneven playing field, where students and professionals with financial privilege gain unfair advantages over their peers.

Drawing on Marx’s insight that the ruling class defines the dominant ideas of an era, it becomes clear that AI, in its commodified form, reflects the logic of capitalist hierarchy. Far from democratising knowledge, it risks reinforcing inequality, creating a society in which technological progress is reserved for the few. Unless access is broadened through institutional support, government intervention, or open-source initiatives, AI will function less as an instrument of empowerment and more as a mechanism of exclusion.
If the goal of AI is truly to advance humanity, then it must serve as a universal resource rather than a privilege of wealth. Otherwise, it will not be remembered as a tool of progress, but as yet another instrument through which class divides were entrenched in the digital age.

Footnotes

1. ‘ChatGPT Subscription Price in India: Free, Go, Plus and Pro Plans Explained’ Times of India (New Delhi, 16 August 2025) https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/technology/tech-news/chatgpt-subscription-price-in-india-free-go-plus-and-pro-plans-explained-know-how-to-sign-up/articleshow/123508557.cms accessed 16 September 2025.

2. Nathan Gardels, ‘Will AI Make College Degrees Obsolete?’ Noema Magazine (Los Angeles, 10 April 2023) https://www.noemamag.com/will-ai-make-college-degrees-obsolete/ accessed 16 September 2025.

3. ‘OpenAI Rolls Out Cheapest ChatGPT Plan at $4.6 in India to Chase Growth’ Reuters (New Delhi, 19 August 2025) https://www.reuters.com/world/india/openai-rolls-out-cheapest-chatgpt-plan-46-india-chase-growth-2025-08-19/ accessed 16 September 2025.