top of page

By:

Prasad Dixit

11 October 2024 at 1:09:23 am

The Human Advantage in an Artificial Age

As artificial intelligence grows smarter and more efficient, the real battle may not be about machines surpassing humanity but about whether humans squander the qualities that still set them apart. With the recent news of a Chinese robot beating the human record in a half- marathon, there is renewed debate on how AI could outsmart human beings. Many experts see it as yet another proof of impending disaster as AI takes over most of the jobs in the years to come. This is not the first time when...

The Human Advantage in an Artificial Age

As artificial intelligence grows smarter and more efficient, the real battle may not be about machines surpassing humanity but about whether humans squander the qualities that still set them apart. With the recent news of a Chinese robot beating the human record in a half- marathon, there is renewed debate on how AI could outsmart human beings. Many experts see it as yet another proof of impending disaster as AI takes over most of the jobs in the years to come. This is not the first time when human civilization is facing a technological revolution that has the potential to impact society and economy in a profound manner. There is, however, a crucial difference with AI driven revolution that is often missed out. The first industrial revolution happened because steam engines were invented and it led to mechanization of production. It was followed by discovery of electrical energy and technologies to harness it for mass production. Next wave of evolution was led by computerization and automation in practically all the fields covering both offices and industrial shop floors through mainframes, personal computers, and programmable logic controllers. While all these leaps in technologies are very different in terms of the specific underlying inventions, they all have one thing in common. They were all invented to do things that were humanly impossible to do. One steam engine or electric motor could do the work that perhaps hundreds of humans would never be able to accomplish even with their collective muscle power. Automation of the manufacturing assembly line would deliver speed and accuracy that human beings would never be able to achieve. Beyond Human Technological advances in Telecommunication, for that matter, have simply expanded the range of 'hearing' and 'seeing' far beyond what human vocal chords, ears, and eyes could manage to do on their own. Computers, at its core, are essentially doing the math and calculations at a speed and accuracy that the human brain can never achieve. To add to that, machines using all these innovations in technology would work tirelessly without any fatigue for a duration that human beings would never be able to match. Although AI is yet another highly potent technological innovation, it is not as straightforward as the previous ones. It can absorb and synthesize huge amounts of data that the human brain perhaps cannot do. Ability of AI to answer any question reasonably well using all the global knowledge made available to it, summarize enormous amount of data and text quickly, quickly draw a complex picture based on instructions given verbally, predict a trend, recognize and highlight a specific face in a fraction of a second from millions of faces, write code based on simple English instructions, are all examples where the speed and accuracy of underlying computation is delivering what human being cannot match. However, there are several areas where human beings are trying to improve AI so that it can, some day, match or exceed capability that human beings themselves already have. Examples of this include the ability of AI to completely replace a human driver safely in all situations, understand full context or an intent behind a statement, carry out complex and well-coordinated mechanical activity in response to various unpredictable situations, react appropriately by correctly assessing the emotions at play, integrate generated code appropriately in the existing larger systems landscape, and so on. In such cases, AI is not exhibiting any capability that is humanly impossible to match. On the contrary, AI is trying to catch up with what humans can do easily. In other words, in these areas, AI is trying to become what humans already are. This very aspect separates AI driven technology revolution from all the previous ones. Direct Competition It is often said that AI and humans will co-exist in the future, and people will need to change their ways of working. It is obvious that AI is also going to directly compete with humans in many sectors. Equipment with an embedded chip on-board do compete with humans even today. A case in point is household equipment such as ‘intelligent’ washing machines and dish-washers where robots to do vacuum cleaning and floor mopping do compete with humans offering these services. A human household help can perform these activities far better than what a machine can do. However, given an affordable choice, an increasing number of households prefer machines over human maid services for a reason. Human household help may not always be punctual, sincere, honest, and reliable. But machines are. Uncontrolled emotions, anger, frustration, laziness, indiscipline, absenteeism do affect humans - but not AI driven machines (at least till the time AI itself acquires emotions of its own, and becomes self-aware some day). This aspect of comparison between AI and humans is likely to become far more prominent and consequential as AI driven machines and robots become more and more intelligent and thereby start competing far more effectively with human capability in many spheres. Competition is said to bring about improvement. Just as AI improves itself through continuous learning to mimic human behaviour and actions, human workforce also needs to improve itself by avoiding behavioural issues and inefficiencies referred to above. Otherwise, humans would lose the natural advantage that they still enjoy over AI, and which is likely to continue even in the foreseeable future. Employers or consumers in the labour-intensive service sector will accept AI driven machines and robots with all its known limitations if it turns out to be a better net-net deal in comparison to services offered by humans. This specific aspect has tremendous significance for India. Many Countries from the developed world do not have a young population with reasonably good IQ in required numbers. India, on the other hand, has it in abundance. One could compare it with abundant availability of Thorium or Sunlight in India as compared to the Western world. Consequently, unlike many Countries in the world that have a Uranium centric approach towards nuclear energy, India's approach needs to be centered around Thorium. India's strategy related to renewable, non-conventional, green energy needs to be based on solar power. Indian Context Strategies for adopting AI in the Indian context need to be similarly tailored for the Indian context. India needs to adopt AI in the areas where it clearly has an advantage over humans in terms of speed, throughput, ease of use, accuracy, and efficiency. However, the use of AI needs to be judiciously controlled in areas where AI is trying to catch up with the capabilities of the human mind and body. Several labour-intensive services such as drivers, caregivers for the elderly people, parcel delivery, security guards, maintenance and repair of various equipment, are all examples in that category. Educational policies and overall work culture in the Country needs to appreciate this reality. Just as AI experts are trying hard to 'teach' AI algorithms and improve them through supervised learning, another set of experts need to sensitize and teach humans on how to understand, appreciate, preserve, and further hone the significant natural advantage that they already have over AI. Despite all the technological breakthroughs in AI, in many areas, still, it is a battle that humans will lose only if they choose to. (The writer works in the Information Technology sector. Views personal.)

A River Runs Through It

The Polavaram–Banakacherla project has rekindled old water wars between Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, with deeper currents of politics and power at play.

Telangana
Telangana

Few things stir passions in India’s southern states as deeply as water. For decades, the sharing of river flows between Telangana and Andhra Pradesh has been the subject of fierce legal, technical and political wrangling. The latest flashpoint is the Polavaram–Banakacherla project, a grand scheme by Andhra Pradesh to divert floodwaters from the Godavari river to the parched Rayalaseema region and parts of coastal Andhra. The project, say its backers, is an act of hydraulic salvation. Its critics, chiefly Telangana’s Congress government, see it as an illegal siphoning of the state’s rightful resources.


On paper, the plan sounds benign. Andhra Pradesh’s irrigation minister, Nimmala Ramanaidu, insists that the project would tap only the surplus floodwaters of the Godavari - waters that would otherwise drain uselessly into the Bay of Bengal. According to his figures, over 3,000 thousand million cubic feet (TMC) of water flood into the sea each year. If Andhra Pradesh can catch a fraction of this excess, Rayalaseema’s parched fields might bloom.


But Telangana sees red. Its irrigation minister, N. Uttam Kumar Reddy, has accused Andhra Pradesh of trying to bulldoze its way past legal clearances and water-sharing norms enshrined in the Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal (GWDT) Award and the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act of 2014. Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy has gone a step further, threatening not only legal action but a full-fledged political campaign while accusing Andhra of attempting to divert 400 TMC of Godavari water to Krishna and Penna basins without due consent.


Congress-ruled Telangana’s rage is not only aimed at Andhra Pradesh, whose government is a BJP ally. Reddy also trained his guns at K. Chandrasekhar Rao (KCR), the former chief minister and head of the opposition Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS). In 2016, KCR himself told the river management’s Apex Council that surplus Godavari water, then estimated at 3,000 TMC, could be used to irrigate Rayalaseema. He even laid the foundation for the Banakacherla project. Now, as BRS leaders accuse the Congress of failing to resist Andhra’s designs, the Congress is accusing them of complicity.


All this exposes a darker truth: water politics in the two Telugu states is often less about the rivers than about who controls them. In the past, Telangana’s leaders justified their massive, questionably cleared schemes like the Kaleshwaram Lift Irrigation Project on similar grounds of surplus water. Andhra Pradesh is now echoing that same rationale. Each state blames the other for procedural short-cuts, while accusing New Delhi of partisanship or neglect.


The heart of the matter lies in the ambiguity surrounding ‘surplus’ waters. The Godavari, India’s second-longest river, is mighty in monsoon but fickle in lean months. Diverting floodwaters without affecting downstream allocations is an engineering challenge and a political minefield. Who gets to define what constitutes ‘surplus’? How much of it can be harnessed without disrupting flows elsewhere? These are questions that India’s outdated river tribunals and half-formed river boards have yet to answer with consistency.


The Centre, as always, is walking a tightrope. Telangana has already petitioned ministries including Jal Shakti, Finance and Environment and warned of legal escalation. Andhra, for its part, is banking on Chandrababu Naidu’s renewed proximity to the Modi government to fast-track permissions.


For Telangana, memories of historic water neglect during its decades under unified Andhra rule still sting. For Andhra, especially Rayalaseema, the project is an overdue attempt to redress regional imbalance within the state.


There is an urgent need for institutional reform. India’s river boards are essentially toothless. Until water-sharing agreements are periodically reviewed, transparently enforced and jointly monitored, each project becomes set to be a pretext for conflict.


The Polavaram–Banakacherla saga is about competing visions of justice and development in a climate-stressed India. As states scramble for every drop, the Union government must rise above parochial politics and insist on clear, enforceable mechanisms that prioritise long-term sustainability over short-term gain. If not, India’s rivers may continue to unite regions on the map but divide them in spirit.

Comments

bottom of page