Disrupting the AI disruption

India needs to re-engineer education and social mores to thrive in the AI age

Disrupting the AI disruption PDF

Disrupting the AI revolution

Disrupting the AI disruption

Washington Post recently reported that the number of programmers in the US has shrunk by a quarter over the last two years, citing data from America’s Bureau of Labour Statistics. The accompanying chart showed an actual decline in excess of 27%. The decline started with the arrival of ChatGPT on the scene.

Proportionately more computer-related workers in India do programming work than in the US. Does this foretell doom for those seeking an information technology job in India, after completing a degree in engineering? If so, the implications would be profound, and negative. Engineering, for many, is a ticket to the organized workforce, social mobility into the middle class, and, in the case of some, physical mobility out of the country and into the land of opportunity abroad. Does AI mean a roadblock to all that?

I asked two AI chatbots how to prevent largescale worker redundancy as a result of AI.The chatbots came up with similar answers:

“AI can handle repetitive or routine programming tasks, but creative problem-solving and architecting complex systems still require human ingenuity. Encouraging programmers to shift their focus to these areas can create new opportunities.

Continuous learning is key. Providing training in emerging technologies like AI development, quantum computing, or blockchain can help programmers stay relevant…

Rather than replacing humans, AI can be seen as a tool to enhance productivity. Programmers who learn to leverage AI for tasks like debugging, code generation, and testing will remain indispensable.

Programmers could transition into roles like data analysis, product management, or even tech consulting in sectors such as healthcare, education, and finance.

Governments and organizations can play a role by creating policies that promote responsible AI use and ensure that job displacement is minimized… In other words, do ethical regulation of AI.

AI advancements open up opportunities for startups in diverse areas like… education, creative media, or sustainability solutions…

Building a culture of lifelong learning in the programming community can ensure adaptability to whatever changes come with technological advancements.”

It wound up with a piece of comforting falsehood: “…Programmers bring unique creativity and critical thinking skills that AI simply can't replicate—those qualities will always hold value.”

This last bit is fake, because it addresses programmers. It would be relevant, were it addressed to software developers, classified by the Bureau of Labour Statistics as an occupation distinct from programmers. In India, we tend to conflate the two, because all those who code tend to be engineers or those specifically trained in computer sciences. Programmers simply write the code they are asked to. Software developers tell them what kind of code to write.

Identifying a real-world problem amenable to an engineering solution, figuring out the engineering solution, architecting it, and sequencing and/or combining its different parts to deliver the solution call for cognitive skills way outside the remit of the normal computer coding/engineering curriculum.

A student who reads Shakespear and One Piece, thrills to music, debates real-world problems, including politics, is moved, sometimes, to protest against gross injustice, occurring, it might be the case, somewhere far off, plays team sports, spends time engaging with the opposite sex, including by going to the movies or on a ramble in a park, is more likely, after graduating, to develop engineering solutions to tangible problems than the Indian parent-teacher duo’s scholastic ideal: the nerd, absorbed in imbibing knowledge like an automaton, and preparing, all the time, to ace some test or the other.

The problem goes beyond norms of student rectitude, of course. India has for millennia been culturally attuned to believe that all knowledge pre-exists, and is contained in the Vedas. This notion has to be dumped, and society must accept that knowledge is constantly made and potentially unmade, as new knowledge often supplants the old.

When Einstein bent the traditional understanding of space and time out of shape, the scientific community in Europe sought and obtained proof of his general theory of relativity. Had this happened in India, he would have been branded an enemy of Sanatana Dharma.

The National Education Policy calls for the development of critical thinking. This is eminently sensible, and in line with the directive principle to promote scientific temper. Scientific temper comes swaddled in layers of Nehruana, and so would, in these times, be replaced with critical thinking. But what’s in a name, eh, Montague? Arjuna had ten.

There are other impediments to critical thinking embedded in the social structure. The entire gamut of social custom, tradition and ritual would be stripped of their sanctity by the piercing scrutiny of critical thinking, including caste, illegitimacy of marriage outside the caste or inside the gotra, and the valorisation of janeyudhari shivbhakts (sacred thread-wearing devotees of Shiva), and the dictum that women do not deserve autonomy (na stree swatantryamarhati).

Critical thinking cannot coexist with the absolute authority of the teacher or the textbook in the classroom. It cannot develop if teachers and sections of students and parents discriminate against other students based on their caste identity, a reality in parts of rural India.

India has to reengineer education and societal mores, to equip society to thrive in the age of AI, not merely survive its disruptive deployment.