Latest news with #AWorldWithoutWork
Telegraph
3 days ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
Forget smartphones and wokery. There's an even greater threat to our children's education
Given that today's children appear to spend much of their time in school being taught that the Vikings were champions of diversity and that human beings should be encouraged to choose between one or more of 72 different genders, you may fear that educational standards in this country are slipping somewhat. But perhaps we should be grateful. Because, believe it or not, things could actually be worse. Say, for example, we were to follow a radical proposal made the other day by Daniel Susskind. Dr Susskind is an eminent economist, as well as the author of a book entitled A World Without Work: Technology, Automation and How We Should Respond. And, speaking at the Hay festival, he argued that the traditional school timetable should be ripped up, so that children can instead focus on learning to use artificial intelligence. 'We should be spending a third of the time that we have with students teaching them how to use these technologies,' he declared. 'How to write effective prompts and use these systems, get them to do what we want them to do…' I appreciate that Dr Susskind is an exceptionally learned and intelligent man. None the less, I for one think his proposal sounds horrifying. We often talk about the need to ban smartphones in schools. Which is fair enough. But my priority would be to ban AI. The fundamental purpose of education, after all, is to teach children how to think. AI, however, does the opposite. It teaches them that they don't need to think. Because it will do their thinking for them. For proof, look at what's already happening in universities. In April, The Chronicle of Higher Education – an American journal – reported that ever-growing numbers of students were essentially outsourcing their studies to AI. When a professor at New York University tried to prevent his students from using AI to complete their assignments, he was met with consternation. Some students protested that he was interfering with their 'learning styles'. Another complained: '[If] you're asking me to go from point A to point B, why wouldn't I use a car to get there?' Meanwhile, one student asked for an extension to a deadline, 'on the grounds that ChatGPT was down the day the assignment was due'. Still, I suppose we'd better get used to this sort of thing. It seems that a new educational era is upon us. One in which teachers get AI to set homework, pupils get AI to complete it, and then teachers get AI to mark it. Soon enough, there will be no need for human involvement at any stage of the process. So, as schools will effectively be superfluous, the Government might as well just shut them all down. In fact, I urge it to do so as quickly as possible. Such a move would immediately free up tens of billions of pounds a year. And since, in due course, AI will be taking all the jobs that today's children could have grown up to do, we'll need the money to pay their benefits. Going underground Heartfelt thanks to Ash Regan, the Scottish nationalist and one-time candidate to succeed Nicola Sturgeon as First Minister. Because on Sunday, she provided us with the one of the most memorable political quotes of the year. Even if not necessarily on purpose. Ms Regan was being interviewed by The Herald newspaper about her plans to clamp down on prostitution in Scotland, by criminalising the buying of sex. Wasn't there a risk, asked The Herald 's reporter, that these plans might inadvertently drive prostitution underground? Ms Regan scoffed. Plainly she'd never heard anything so absurd. 'If you even think for one second, you cannot possibly drive prostitution underground,' she snorted. 'If you had a lot of women in underground cellars with a locked door, how would the punters get to them?' Having digested these extraordinary words, we can, I believe, draw only one conclusion. Ms Regan is 51 years old. And yet, during over a half a century on this planet, she has never heard – or at least, never understood – the phrase 'driven underground'. And so she'd taken it literally. After the interview, we must hope, a kindly aide will have taken her to one side, and gently explained that the expression is purely figurative. Otherwise, I fear that, despite Ms Regan's initial scoffing, she'll begin to worry that the reporter had a point – and that Scottish pimps really will take to opening brothels deep beneath the Earth's surface. If so, we must wait to see what revisions Ms Regan might make to her plans. Perhaps she will recommend that the Scottish NHS supply all prostitutes with free vitamin D tablets, to make up for the lack of sunlight they'll be getting. ' Way of the World ' is a twice-weekly satirical look at the headlines while aiming to mock the absurdities of the modern world. It is published at 6am every Tuesday and Saturday
Economic Times
17-05-2025
- Business
- Economic Times
Beyond Solow: Rethinking growth in the age of AI
Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of .) Long-run economic growth hinges on technological progress, a core insight of Robert Solow 's renowned Growth Model. The model argues that once an economy reaches a "steady state," growth can't be sustained through capital or labour alone. Instead, ongoing technological advancements are essential for higher output. A key assumption in this model is that technology enhances labour productivity without replacing workers. However, the rise of artificial intelligence challenges this assumption, potentially reshaping our understanding of economic Solow Model was developed in the 20th century, long before the emergence of advanced large language models. At that time, it was reasonable to assume that technological progress would boost productivity by enhancing rather than replacing human labour. This assumption matched the realities of that era. However, as artificial intelligence evolves, the idea that it might replace rather than simply support human labour is no longer speculative. It is becoming a visible trend. Leading economists have already begun to acknowledge this shift. In a 2019 study, Daron Acemoglu and Pascual Restrepo pointed to the rising wave of automation that could displace workers instead of making them more Susskind, in his 2020 book A World Without Work, examined how machines might render large parts of the workforce unnecessary. Futurist Martin Ford made a similar case in his 2021 book Rule of the Robots, where he predicted that AI would transform nearly every aspect of life. Clearly, economists and thinkers are increasingly warning of a future shaped by AI, where new jobs may not appear quickly enough to replace those lost, and the transition could be long and difficult. While some still hope for mostly positive outcomes, that seems less likely as AI becomes more capable and less limited to repetitive tasks. In this new environment, the assumption that technology only augments labour, as embedded in the Solow Model, may no longer AI functions as a labour-augmenting or labour-replacing technology largely depends on the context and era in which it is deployed. If social and economic constraints make large-scale implementation of AI more costly than the economic benefits of replacing labour, then even highly capable AI, comparable to the average worker, may end up serving primarily as a tool to augment human labour. This would be a blessing in disguise for many workers whose jobs are otherwise at risk of automation. However, if the scalability of AI improves to the point where its labour-replacing benefits outweigh implementation costs, then the foundational assumption of the Solow Model begins to collapse. In such a scenario, the production function would continue to shift upward, signalling higher output, but with reduced labour input. As a result, we would need broader measures of prosperity beyond indicators like GDP per capita to accurately assess our economic well-being, especially as a growing share of output will get concentrated in the hands of a small elite made primarily of business owners and top-tier technical specialists. At this stage, governments and societies may find themselves at a crossroads. Technological progress is irreversible, and businesses will inevitably adopt AI to remain competitive. Yet this path could lead to a troubling outcome, one where machines generate ever-increasing wealth, but human participation in economic production shrinks the larger question is: where do these dynamics leave India? What kind of future should we realistically anticipate? If we take a step back and consider the broader implications, India could find itself at a complex and uncertain crossroads. On one hand, it is an economic, social, and political imperative to foster an environment that supports AI adoption to remain globally competitive. On the other hand, this path comes with significant costs. As AI becomes more capable, labour input is likely to decline. A small minority of highly paid technical specialists could come to dominate the already prestigious IT industry. While output may increase due to AI's capabilities, the gains are likely to accumulate in the hands of top-tier investors and business elites thereby increasing inequality to unprecedented makes collaboration between the government and the private sector crucial. First, we must collectively recognize that the global AI landscape is currently dominated by Western nations. Even if AI improves productivity in Indian firms, a significant portion of the value created could end up flowing abroad. To safeguard economic gains, the government must foster an environment that encourages private investors in India to develop their own large language models and AI infrastructure. Second, India should identify the sectors most vulnerable to AI-driven disruption. The country is still far from deploying AI at scale, particularly in labour-intensive industries such as agriculture and construction. These, along with manufacturing and textiles, remain relatively insulated for now and must be central to job creation strategies. However, according to the 2023–24 Economic Survey, agriculture employs 45% of the workforce, services 28%, construction 13%, and manufacturing 11% which is in sharp contrast to China, where industrial employment remains around 30%. Compounding this is the fact that India's capital-to-labour ratio has doubled between 1994–2002 and 2003–2017, reflecting a growing tendency among firms to favour capital investments over labour. This trend strengthens the economic incentive to adopt AI, further raising the risk of labour displacement. The imbalance is troubling because more young Indians are entering IT, finance, and consulting which are sectors highly exposed to automation. If AI adoption leads to widespread job losses here, India could face a severe employment crisis, with limited fallback we need a new paradigm of economic growth, one that moves beyond the Solow model's assumption of labour-augmenting technology. Emerging models, such as modern extensions of Romer's endogenous growth theory and Aghion and Howitt's Schumpeterian framework, begin to account for labour-replacing technologies. Though still evolving, these models offer a necessary foundation for deeper debates on India's economic future in the age of AI. Ultimately, India must tread carefully in its transition to AI. Non-IT sectors, long overlooked, may offer a crucial fallback for the country's youth. However, their prolonged neglect could undermine our economic ambitions at the very moment we need them most.(Amit Kapoor is Chair and Mohammad Saad is a Researcher at the Institute for Competitiveness).
Time of India
17-05-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Beyond Solow: Rethinking growth in the age of AI
Long-run economic growth hinges on technological progress, a core insight of Robert Solow 's renowned Growth Model. The model argues that once an economy reaches a "steady state," growth can't be sustained through capital or labour alone. Instead, ongoing technological advancements are essential for higher output. A key assumption in this model is that technology enhances labour productivity without replacing workers. However, the rise of artificial intelligence challenges this assumption, potentially reshaping our understanding of economic growth. The Solow Model was developed in the 20th century, long before the emergence of advanced large language models. At that time, it was reasonable to assume that technological progress would boost productivity by enhancing rather than replacing human labour. This assumption matched the realities of that era. However, as artificial intelligence evolves, the idea that it might replace rather than simply support human labour is no longer speculative. It is becoming a visible trend. Leading economists have already begun to acknowledge this shift. In a 2019 study, Daron Acemoglu and Pascual Restrepo pointed to the rising wave of automation that could displace workers instead of making them more productive. Daniel Susskind, in his 2020 book A World Without Work, examined how machines might render large parts of the workforce unnecessary. Futurist Martin Ford made a similar case in his 2021 book Rule of the Robots, where he predicted that AI would transform nearly every aspect of life. Clearly, economists and thinkers are increasingly warning of a future shaped by AI, where new jobs may not appear quickly enough to replace those lost, and the transition could be long and difficult. While some still hope for mostly positive outcomes, that seems less likely as AI becomes more capable and less limited to repetitive tasks. In this new environment, the assumption that technology only augments labour, as embedded in the Solow Model, may no longer hold. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Play War Thunder now for free War Thunder Play Now Undo Whether AI functions as a labour-augmenting or labour-replacing technology largely depends on the context and era in which it is deployed. If social and economic constraints make large-scale implementation of AI more costly than the economic benefits of replacing labour, then even highly capable AI, comparable to the average worker, may end up serving primarily as a tool to augment human labour. This would be a blessing in disguise for many workers whose jobs are otherwise at risk of automation. However, if the scalability of AI improves to the point where its labour-replacing benefits outweigh implementation costs, then the foundational assumption of the Solow Model begins to collapse. In such a scenario, the production function would continue to shift upward, signalling higher output, but with reduced labour input. As a result, we would need broader measures of prosperity beyond indicators like GDP per capita to accurately assess our economic well-being, especially as a growing share of output will get concentrated in the hands of a small elite made primarily of business owners and top-tier technical specialists. At this stage, governments and societies may find themselves at a crossroads. Technological progress is irreversible, and businesses will inevitably adopt AI to remain competitive. Yet this path could lead to a troubling outcome, one where machines generate ever-increasing wealth, but human participation in economic production shrinks dramatically. Ultimately, the larger question is: where do these dynamics leave India? What kind of future should we realistically anticipate? If we take a step back and consider the broader implications, India could find itself at a complex and uncertain crossroads. On one hand, it is an economic, social, and political imperative to foster an environment that supports AI adoption to remain globally competitive. On the other hand, this path comes with significant costs. As AI becomes more capable, labour input is likely to decline. A small minority of highly paid technical specialists could come to dominate the already prestigious IT industry. While output may increase due to AI's capabilities, the gains are likely to accumulate in the hands of top-tier investors and business elites thereby increasing inequality to unprecedented levels. Live Events This makes collaboration between the government and the private sector crucial. First, we must collectively recognize that the global AI landscape is currently dominated by Western nations. Even if AI improves productivity in Indian firms, a significant portion of the value created could end up flowing abroad. To safeguard economic gains, the government must foster an environment that encourages private investors in India to develop their own large language models and AI infrastructure. Second, India should identify the sectors most vulnerable to AI-driven disruption. The country is still far from deploying AI at scale, particularly in labour-intensive industries such as agriculture and construction. These, along with manufacturing and textiles, remain relatively insulated for now and must be central to job creation strategies. However, according to the 2023–24 Economic Survey, agriculture employs 45% of the workforce, services 28%, construction 13%, and manufacturing 11% which is in sharp contrast to China, where industrial employment remains around 30%. Compounding this is the fact that India's capital-to-labour ratio has doubled between 1994–2002 and 2003–2017, reflecting a growing tendency among firms to favour capital investments over labour. This trend strengthens the economic incentive to adopt AI, further raising the risk of labour displacement. The imbalance is troubling because more young Indians are entering IT, finance, and consulting which are sectors highly exposed to automation. If AI adoption leads to widespread job losses here, India could face a severe employment crisis, with limited fallback options. Finally, we need a new paradigm of economic growth, one that moves beyond the Solow model's assumption of labour-augmenting technology. Emerging models, such as modern extensions of Romer's endogenous growth theory and Aghion and Howitt's Schumpeterian framework, begin to account for labour-replacing technologies. Though still evolving, these models offer a necessary foundation for deeper debates on India's economic future in the age of AI. Ultimately, India must tread carefully in its transition to AI. Non-IT sectors, long overlooked, may offer a crucial fallback for the country's youth. However, their prolonged neglect could undermine our economic ambitions at the very moment we need them most. (Amit Kapoor is Chair and Mohammad Saad is a Researcher at the Institute for Competitiveness).
