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.)

Vanishing Districts

Updated: Jan 2, 2025

Vanishing Districts
Rajasthan

Rajasthan’s BJP government led by Chief Minister Bhajan Lal Sharma undid a major administrative experiment by the previous Congress regime when it dissolved nine of the 17 districts and three divisions created in 2023, citing impracticality and financial strain. While the move ostensibly prioritizes administrative efficiency, detractors in form of the opposition Congress claim it reeks of political opportunism, triggering a fierce debate over governance and electoral manoeuvring in the desert state.


Sharma’s decision has reduced Rajasthan’s administrative map to 41 districts and seven divisions. Key regions such as Dudu, Neem Ka Thana and Shahpura have lost their district status, triggering widespread protests led by the Congress, which has predictably called the move undemocratic and promised statewide agitations.


The BJP’s rationale, articulated by Parliamentary Affairs Minister Jogaram Patel, emphasizes the districts’ alleged lack of feasibility, noting that many new districts lacked adequate infrastructure, including administrative offices and essential personnel.


Since independence, Rajasthan has struggled to balance its vast geographical expanse with effective governance. The creation of districts is both a developmental necessity and a political gambit. With its large size and uneven population distribution, the state faces unique administrative challenges that political parties have often sought to address or very often, exploit.


The Congress’s 2023 initiative ostensibly drew on longstanding public demands for smaller administrative units. Over the past decade, more than 50 locations lobbied for district status, particularly in regions like Sikar, which remains the home turf of Congress state president Govind Singh Dotasra. However, critics argue that these new districts had disproportionately favoured Congress strongholds, leaving BJP-dominated regions like Mewar largely untouched.


Now the BJP’s annulment of these districts, though couched in administrative logic, has been widely interpreted as a political tit-for-tat. For example, Neem Ka Thana and Sikar, areas where BJP candidates fared poorly in the last election, were among those dismantled.


In Sanchore, former Congress Minister Sukhram Bishnoi led protests outside the Collectorate, accusing the BJP of betrayal. Similar scenes have unfolded in Shahpura, Anupgarh, and Kekri, where demonstrations ranged from market closures to blockades of national highways. Former Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot defended his administration’s decisions, highlighting Rajasthan’s administrative backlog compared to neighbouring Madhya Pradesh, which boasts 53 districts despite being smaller.


The BJP, however, appears unperturbed, projecting itself as the custodian of fiscal discipline. It argues that the previous government’s approach lacked due diligence. Patel’s pointed remarks about the impracticality of creating districts without financial planning resonate with voters concerned about resource allocation.


Beyond the immediate political theater, the controversy raises larger questions about the role of administrative boundaries in India’s federal structure. Unlike Western democracies, where electoral boundaries rarely change, India’s states frequently redraw their maps, driven by demands for better governance or political advantage. Rajasthan’s experience mirrors broader national trends, where the creation of smaller units often serves the dual purpose of addressing local grievances while shoring up party bases.


Historically, administrative reorganization in India has been fraught with contention. The linguistic reorganization of states in the 1950s and the carving out of new states like Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand in 2000 illustrate the interplay between governance and politics. Rajasthan’s district saga adds another chapter to this ongoing narrative, highlighting the precarious balance between efficiency and equity.


The embattled Congress is attempting to seize the moment to position itself as a champion of regional aspirations. Whether its agitation can translate into electoral gains remains uncertain.


That said, Rajasthan’s vanishing districts, far more than a political squabble, are a microcosm of the challenges facing Indian democracy. As states grapple with demands for decentralization, the balance between governance, resource allocation and political strategy remains as elusive as ever.

Comments


bottom of page