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.)

India’s Quiet Pivot: How Strategic Ties with Israel are Redefining Its Role in the Middle East

Updated: Oct 22, 2024

India’s Quiet Pivot

India’s relationship with Israel has traversed a remarkable arc, evolving from a largely passive distance to a powerful, albeit quiet, camaraderie. At the heart of this shift lies India’s complex domestic politics, its historical solidarity with the Palestinian cause, and a contemporary realpolitik that now closely aligns it with the Jewish State. The transition has been most stark since 2014 under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, whose tenure has reshaped the Indo-Israeli relationship in ways that reflect broader global trends but also signal India’s deepening role in the Middle East.


The transformation of India’s relationship with Israel, though, did not begin with Narendra Modi’s government, nor was it solely a post-Cold War phenomenon. In fact, the earliest signs of a thaw appeared during the tenure of Rajiv Gandhi.


Rajiv, who came to power in 1984 after the assassination of his mother, Indira Gandhi, inherited a foreign policy deeply entrenched in non-alignment and staunch support for the Palestinian cause. However, as the Cold War was slowly winding down, Rajiv’s government recognized the need to recalibrate India’s diplomatic outlook to match its emerging security and economic priorities.


It was during this time that quiet diplomatic channels were opened between India and Israel. Although India officially remained committed to the Palestinian cause - underscored by Rajiv’s continued support for Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) - a more nuanced approach was starting to take shape.


For decades after its independence in 1947, India maintained a pro-Palestinian stance that mirrored the moral aspirations of its first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. It was a period when India’s foreign policy was couched in anti-colonial solidarity, and aligning with Palestine seemed natural. The Indian National Congress, with its socialist leanings and emphasis on global justice, viewed Israel’s establishment through the lens of Western imperialism. Nehru himself, though not hostile toward Israel, could not fully endorse the new Jewish state given India’s significant Muslim population and the rising tide of non-alignment across the Global South. India’s official position was thus firmly pro-Palestinian, though there was no outright hostility towards Israel.


During Indira Gandhi’s tenure, the tilt towards Palestine became even more pronounced. India was a vocal critic of Israeli actions in the Middle East, particularly after the Six-Day War in 1967 and Israel’s continued occupation of Palestinian territories. In 1975, India went so far as to support the United Nations resolution equating Zionism with racism. India’s leadership, then rooted in the Non-Aligned Movement, saw Israel as an extension of Western imperialism in the Middle East.


The Palestinian struggle against Israel mirrored, in India’s eyes, the anti-colonial fights of Asia and Africa. Despite this publicly pro-Palestinian stance, by the late 1980s, cracks were beginning to show in India’s foreign policy. Israel was rapidly becoming a technological powerhouse, with advanced capabilities in agriculture, defence, and intelligence - all areas where India, struggling with internal security issues and a stagnant economy, needed support.


Rajiv Gandhi’s government also faced growing domestic challenges that prompted this shift. The rise of militancy in Punjab and the Kashmir Valley necessitated better intelligence and security measures. Israel, with its reputation for counterinsurgency prowess, began to emerge as a valuable partner. Although formal diplomatic ties were still a decade away, under-the-table exchanges and covert collaborations in intelligence and defence were initiated during this time.


It was a cautious beginning, one that allowed India to maintain its public solidarity with Palestine while quietly exploring new strategic partnerships. This dual-track diplomacy laid the groundwork for the more formal engagement to follow in the 1990s. In many ways, Rajiv Gandhi’s tenure was a period of quiet, strategic recalibration with Israel.


Thus, while Rajiv Gandhi remained outwardly committed to the traditional pro-Palestinian stance, his tenure marked the first subtle shift towards pragmatism in India’s Middle East policy. This early groundwork would later be capitalized on by Prime Ministers like P.V. Narasimha Rao, who, in 1992, formally established diplomatic relations with Israel, further accelerating the thaw that had started during Rajiv’s time.


Quiet diplomatic exchanges were initiated between New Delhi and Tel Aviv, and in 1992, India finally established full diplomatic relations with Israel under Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao. This was a pragmatic shift, but India still maintained its official pro-Palestinian stance in multilateral forums.


Thus, the seeds sown during Rajiv Gandhi’s tenure blossomed into a more comprehensive and public partnership under subsequent governments, culminating in the full embrace of Israel under Modi’s current leadership.


This ‘quiet pivot’ continued through the 1990s and 2000s, as Israel began to emerge as an important partner for India in defence and technology. The Kargil War of 1999 was another turning point with Israel providing India with critical military supplies during the conflict, cementing its role as an indispensable partner. Yet, even as the Indo-Israeli relationship blossomed behind closed doors, India publicly reiterated its commitment to the Palestinian cause, a delicate balancing act that reflected its desire to maintain ties with Arab nations and its own sizable Muslim population.


Modi’s visit to Israel in 2017 was historic - not only because he was the first Indian prime minister to visit the country, but because of the symbolism it carried. This was no quiet diplomatic affair; it was a public celebration of a relationship that had long been kept in the shadows. Modi and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu walked the beaches of Tel Aviv together, their camaraderie displayed for the world to see. The shift was not just in optics but in substance: trade between the two nations surged, defence cooperation deepened, and there was a marked shift in India’s rhetoric regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict.


The unspoken logic was clear: Israel could offer India what the Arab world could not, especially in terms of defence technology and expertise in areas like counterterrorism.


Yet, this growing closeness with Israel has not resulted in a complete alienation from the Arab world. Modi has skilfully managed to maintain strong ties with countries like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Iran, positioning India as a significant player in the Middle East.


As India’s global stature rises, its role in the Middle East is evolving in tandem. The region has long been a theater of great power competition, with the U.S., Russia, and China all vying for influence. India, by deepening its ties to both Israel and the Gulf states, is positioning itself as a bridge-builder, a nation that can talk to all sides. New Delhi’s participation in the I2U2 (India, Israel, the UAE, and the U.S.) grouping is emblematic of this approach that seeks to leverage synergies between these nations in trade, technology and security.


However, India’s ability to shape the future of the Middle East faces significant challenges. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains unresolved, with no imminent peace process in sight. While India has been careful not to take sides, the longer this conflict festers, it may be hard for India to maintain its balancing act. The Abraham Accords, brokered by the Trump administration in 2020, which normalized relations between Israel and several Arab states, have opened new possibilities for cooperation, but they have also exposed rifts within the Arab world itself. India will need to navigate these delicate dynamics, balancing its ties to Israel with its historical relationships in the Arab world.


Concludes

Comments

bottom of page