AI didn't take the job. It changed what the job is.

Mint

5 hours ago

Over the past few weeks, I've been on the road. Parbhani, Pune, Chennai, Jaipur. In small-town labs and factory floors, I saw jobs that still exist, but don't look like they used to
In Parbhani I met Dr. Chaitanya, who runs a 24-hour diagnostics lab above a heart clinic. He told me he's failed to detect cancer before—not out of neglect, but because he was worn out. Now, when something doesn't feel right, he runs the slide through a machine. It doesn't get distracted. It doesn't get tired. It caught leukaemia in a boy whose report looked normal at first glance.
In Jaipur I spent time inside Wipro's factories. I met Chandni—just out of college, far from home—running a CNC machine built for someone twice her size. The platform was raised to fit her. Sensors pause the line if she skips a step. She's not fighting the machine. She's learning to work with it.
And then I came back to Bengaluru.
Over the weekend, I caught up with a few junior engineers—entry-level coders, recently let go. We sat in a noisy café near HSR, talking about layoffs. Some of their friends—older, with fatter salaries—had been let go, too, from well-known names on Outer Ring Road. Most of them hadn't told their families yet. Someone joked their severance would go into a 'detox trip". But the silence after that said more.
Also read | Mary Meeker's AI report: Decoding what it signals for India's tech future
I kept thinking about all of it. From Parbhani to Jaipur to Bengaluru, I've seen AI reshape work—but in such unsettling ways. In some places, it keeps people going. In others, it shuts the door.
And I've come back with questions I can't truly answer.
Who gets to stay in the game? Who gets to rewrite their role? And who just disappears?
***
We've spent years asking the wrong question. It's never been just 'Will AI take jobs?" That's the headline version—the one that misses what's actually unfolding on the ground.
What I've seen is something slower and harder to name: jobs are shifting shape. The work still exists, but it doesn't look like it used to. Doctors don't just rely on training—they rely on machines to catch what their fatigue might miss. Factory workers aren't lifting metal—they're supervising systems. Engineers aren't writing code—they're managing what the agents spit out. In some places, people are being lifted. In others, pushed out.
This isn't about replacement. It's about redefinition. And not everyone is getting the chance to adapt.
***
In Parbhani, Dr. Chaitanya isn't trying to be some AI-era pathologist. He just doesn't want to miss a sign of cancer again. He bought the scanner not because anyone sold him a pitch-deck future, but because he was tired. Because late at night, after hours of non-stop samples, the eyes slip. And he knows what that costs. The machine doesn't replace his judgment – it just doesn't lose focus when he does.
In Jaipur, Wipro didn't automate Chandni out. They built the floor to fit her. She's running a CNC machine designed for someone taller, stronger—but they raised the platform instead. Her job wasn't taken. It was made possible. She oversees the system now. And when she sends money home, there's no debate anymore about whether girls can handle mechanical work.
Also read: Indian companies lag in workforce upskilling amid AI disruption, job cuts
And then there's Bengaluru.
The coders I met had barely started. A few months in, then gone. Not for bad performance. Just… gone. Their work was handed to tools they weren't trained to supervise. Their seniors—some drawing seven-figure salaries—were asked to leave too. One of them said most of his severance would go into a detox trip. We all laughed. But it didn't feel funny.
Same tool. But in Parbhani, it buys time. In Jaipur, it makes the job possible. In Bengaluru, it ends it.
****
There's something I've been noticing everywhere lately—in factories, hospitals, GCCs, even small startups. Someone in the room knows how to work with the AI. Not just use it, but shape it. Prompt it right. Catch when it's wrong. That person sets the tone for how work flows.
And then there's everyone else.
Trying to keep up. Hoping they're not left behind.
It's not just a skill gap. It's who gets the confidence to speak up. Who gets the permission to push back when the machine's answer doesn't feel right. Who gets to set the rules for how AI shows up—and who's left cleaning up after it.
One founder told me straight: 'We're not hiring another ops exec. We're hiring someone to manage the agents." The job still exists. It just looks different now. And the person who knows how to talk to the machine gets to decide how everyone else works around it.
That's the shift I can't ignore. It's not about mass layoffs. It's about brutal sidelining.
Not fired. Still on payroll. But it is no longer in the loop.
***
I keep coming back to something Andy Grove once said. Intel was stuck in the memory chip business, losing ground fast. Grove turned to CEO Gordon Moore and asked, 'If we were fired, and the board brought in someone new, what do you think they'd do?" Moore said, 'They'd get us out of memories." Grove paused, then said, 'Then why don't we walk out the door, come back in, and do it ourselves?"
And that's what they did. They walked back in and changed the company.
Also read: Microsoft envisions a web driven by AI agents. What will it look like?
What stayed with me wasn't the decision itself—it was the mindset. They gave themselves permission to reset. Same chairs. Same table. Just a different way of thinking.
Most people I meet don't get to do that.
In every workplace I've visited lately—factories, hospitals, GCCs—there's always someone who gets to reframe the game. The person who speaks up, shapes the tool, sets the tone.
Everyone else is just trying to stay in the room. Or figuring out the exit.
***
I asked Dr. Chaitanya if he ever worries AI will take over his work. He didn't hesitate. 'I just don't want to miss what matters," he said. 'Let the machine help with the rest."
Chandni said the same thing, in different words. 'If it helps us do the work better, why fear it?"
Neither of them were trying to protect their turf. They just wanted the tools to hold up when it counted. When they're tired. When something's easy to miss. When a mistake can't be undone.
They weren't talking about AI as a threat. They weren't talking about it as the future. They were talking about the work—what it asks of them, what it gives back, and what they still want to hold on to.
*****
So yes, people will need to learn. New tools, new ways of working, new habits. That's always been part of work.
But before any of that, they need a little space to figure things out. To ask questions without sounding slow. To try, to fumble, to not know right away—and not be punished for it.
Because the bigger risk isn't that AI takes your job.
Also read: Why AI is central to the new browser wars
It's that you're still in the role, still showing up every day—but slowly pushed out of the decisions. Not because you can't contribute. But because no one gave you the chance to learn how.
And by the time you notice what's changed, the work has already moved on—without your voice in the room.
Pankaj Mishra is a journalist and co-founder of FactorDaily. He has spent over two decades reporting on technology, startups, and work in India with a focus on the people and places often left out of the spotlight.