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.)

When Missiles Fly, Minds Fall Silent

The Israel-Iran conflict underscores yet again the fragility of peaceful scientific inquiry in a militarised age.

Days after Israel’s strikes against Iran’s nuclear arsenals, the United States followed suit by launching precision airstrikes using B-2 stealth bombers on Iran’s nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. While global attention remains fixated on geopolitical shifts and regional power plays, a quieter casualty is being overlooked: the disruption of science.


Scientific activity in both Iran and Israel is grinding to a halt. As labs fall silent, decades of scientific progress risk being undone. Israel and Iran are key players in global research - Israel in AI, cybersecurity and MedTech; Iran in nuclear science, nanotech and biomedicine. War now threatens to undo their hard-won gains.


The impact is both personal and systemic. Imagine a doctoral student in Iran, just days away from submitting a thesis on low-cost cancer diagnostics. An airstrike near her university destroys access to the lab, wipes out research samples, and severs contact with her supervisor. Her academic journey ends not with a defence but with silence. In Israel, a start-up field-testing AI-powered agricultural drones is forced to shut down a critical trial after missile alerts halt operations and key team members are called into military service. These are not isolated stories. They reflect a larger pattern, the breakdown of scientific continuity.


This disruption deepened with the June 22 strikes. While aimed at Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, some of the targeted sites, particularly in Isfahan, were almost certainly dual-use, supporting both strategic and civilian research in fields like advanced materials and radiopharmaceuticals. These precision strikes, though militarily effective, come at a deeper cost. They destroy not just buildings, but the fragile ecosystems that keep science alive. When a scientific hub is cut off from its networks, the damage is not only logistical. It halts collaboration, disperses teams and sets back progress by years. What is lost is the continuity of knowledge, the transfer of expertise and the trust that binds institutions across generations. The fallout is intellectual, long-term, and global.


History reminds us that science and war share a paradoxical relationship. Major conflicts have occasionally accelerated scientific developments. World War II brought radar and penicillin. The Cold War launched satellites and climate modelling. But these advances often came at the cost of diverting research into military channels and deprioritising science that benefits humanity in the long run. U.S. interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan improved trauma care but left local universities in disarray. The lesson is clear. War may push some kinds of science forward, but it often halts or distorts the kind that sustains civil society.


In the current conflict, similar patterns are unfolding. Israel’s innovation sector, globally admired for its agility and reach, is likely under pressure. Missile alerts interrupt laboratory work, timelines grow uncertain, and global partnerships stall. In such conditions, innovation cannot be expected to thrive. It requires more than skill. It needs stability, trust, and time.


For Iran, the challenges are even more severe. Sanctions had already made it difficult to access equipment and collaborate internationally. Now, with facilities damaged and uncertainty deepening, researchers face isolation. There are signs of growing unease among scientists. Some may rethink their future in the country. If this continues, the loss of trained talent could be lasting.


The effects of this war go beyond borders. Science is inherently global. Ideas, datasets, and experiments often span countries and continents. But conflict shuts down collaborations, delays publications, cancels conferences, and tightens visa regimes. Even science diplomacy, often the last working bridge between hostile nations, begins to collapse. Just as damaging is the shift in research priorities. Budgets turn toward defence and surveillance. Fields like climate resilience, food systems and public health move down the list. Scientists lose not only their tools but the freedom to ask important questions. The cultural consequences run deep. Scientific neutrality becomes harder to maintain. Researchers may feel compelled to align with national narratives or stay silent. Young scientists quickly learn that their work is more likely to be used for war than for welfare.


It is this shift in purpose that makes the loss so profound. The same algorithm used to guide a missile could have been used to power a diagnostic device. The fuel now used for drones could have been used to launch satellites to monitor drought. The minds now shaping military strategy might have been solving challenges in energy, health, or education.


And yet, science has shown remarkable resilience. Some of the world’s most inspiring scientific efforts emerged from the ruins of conflict. Japan rebuilt its universities after World War II. Europe created CERN as a symbol of peaceful cooperation. Rwanda, after the genocide, invested boldly in agricultural science. These were not automatic rebounds but deliberate choices based on the belief that knowledge, not destruction, defines the future.


The global scientific community may not be able to stop wars, but it cannot afford to ignore their consequences. Even without sweeping interventions, it is possible to keep displaced researchers connected through communication, visibility and modest institutional support. Governments too should recognise that protecting research infrastructure and talent, even in small ways, is a strategic choice. Science takes decades to build, but can be lost in days. Preserving core institutions today means rebuilding with purpose tomorrow.


When the conflict ends, as it eventually will, the focus will turn to restoring physical infrastructure. But unless we also restore the institutions and values behind science, the recovery will remain incomplete.


Even in history’s darkest chapters, science has endured. Ideas have crossed borders, survived exile, and transformed the world. What keeps science alive is not infrastructure or funding alone, but the freedom to ask bold questions and the courage to pursue them.


A nation’s true strength is not in the missiles it launches but in the minds it allows to wonder, to question, and to create. If war silences that freedom, peace must restore it. Because when the missiles stop flying, the minds must fly.


(The author is the former Director, Agharkar Research Institute, Pune and Visiting Professor, IIT Bombay. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page