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.)

The Sabarmati Report: A Cinematic Take on a Tragic Chapter in India’s History

The Sabarmati Report

As we delve into biopics of political leaders and the audiences’ reactions to them, this week’s big release, The Sabarmati Report, is stirring conversations across generations. Scheduled to hit theatres on Friday, the film explores the events surrounding the tragic incident at Godhra Station on February 27, 2002, where 59 passengers perished in a fire. The victims included 27 women and 10 children, with another 48 passengers injured. The incident sparked the infamous Gujarat riots, a period of intense violence that claimed more than 2,000 lives, leaving an indelible mark on the country’s socio-cultural landscape.


For Generation Z, iGen, and Generation Alpha, who may only know about this tragic event through history books or second-hand stories, The Sabarmati Report provides a medium to engage with it on an emotional level. In a time where the lines of narrative are often drawn through political affiliations, the film seeks to offer a perspective that could open viewers to understanding the pain endured by survivors and the long-lasting trauma that still resonates with affected families.


Director Dheeraj Sarna takes on the challenging task of presenting the story through a journalist’s perspective. Played by Vikrant Massey, the protagonist explores the intricate social and political dynamics of the time, aiming to tell the story of the masses rather than favouring one viewpoint over another. The film also stars Raashii Khanna and Riddhi Dogra in significant roles, adding depth to the unfolding drama.


As with any film depicting real-life events, The Sabarmati Report has generated divided opinions. The release of the trailer brought immediate responses from the media and public, with one section labelling it as a propaganda film, while others applauded it as a long-awaited attempt to reveal "the reality." These polarized reactions underscore the sensitivity surrounding events that shaped the lives of thousands and are still viewed through distinct ideological lenses.


The film’s approach to addressing the role of media coverage at the time adds an interesting layer to the narrative. The story points to a perceived difference in how English and regional media covered the event, with suggestions that mainstream outlets may have overlooked certain perspectives. This aspect of the film challenges the audience to reflect on how media framing can influence public opinion, particularly during times of crisis.


Producer Ektaa R. Kapoor, along with Shobha Kapoor, Amul V. Mohan, and Anshul Mohan, has taken a thoughtful approach to ensure that the film invites viewers to consider all facets of the tragedy. They hope that audiences will not see the film as a mere political statement but as a portrayal of an event that continues to shape lives. For those who survived or lost loved ones, the pain remains palpable, and for others, it is a chance to look back and understand a defining moment in modern Indian history.


When dealing with such complex and emotionally charged subjects, filmmakers inevitably face accusations of bias. This has become especially relevant in an era when art and narrative are often dissected through the lens of political leanings.


The filmmakers stress that their goal is to offer a balanced viewpoint and allow audiences to engage with the story as a work of art rather than a political statement.


The conversation around The Sabarmati Report is also a reminder of the delicate balance required when dealing with historical tragedies. While artistic liberties are a filmmaker’s prerogative, they must tread carefully to avoid infringing on religious or cultural sentiments. In doing so, they contribute to preserving India’s rich socio-cultural fabric—a mosaic of diverse perspectives and beliefs. When audiences view the film, they are invited to remember this, to step away from potential divisions and appreciate the film as a nuanced story rather than a critique of any one community or belief.


In closing, The Sabarmati Report encourages reflection rather than judgment. Through the eyes of a journalist protagonist, it allows viewers to revisit an era defined by grief, fear, and resilience. By presenting multiple facets of a sensitive historical event, the film challenges audiences to see beyond easy narratives and explore the human cost behind headlines. Whether they walk away with new perspectives or fresh questions, viewers are reminded that storytelling can be a powerful force for empathy—a necessary bridge across India’s diversity.


(The author is a communication professional. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page