An epoch of AI and human rationality
Yuval Noah Harari, in one of the episodes of his popular show, argues that mechanized Artificial Intelligence (AI) will ruin the operating system of human civilization. The AI era—1990s and after—is making the human mind wonder if Harari is indeed right. Harari labels AI as a mechanized matter and trailblazers need to hold on to it for some time.
As the world keeps its fingers ahead for globalization, another non-estimated phenomenon has stepped in the form of artificial intelligence. The cognition power of chips triples in a short span of time while human intelligence continues to wane. Even AI developers make a similar adjustment with this idea of diminishing logical capacity of themselves. Still the cognitive power of humans always stands superior to the cognition of mechanized AI, because of the infinite omniscience of human beings.
It was Alan Turing, who first portrayed the concept of AI with a special linkage to medical science in 1950. Soon after, John McCarthy tried to use AI in science and engineering. The Turing Test, named after Alan Turing, pits the machines against human intelligence, capability and cognition. In this phase of rational advancement and development, pioneers are taking this step for the expansion of AI.
Looking back, all this was a far cry in the 1970s as the US Congress had imposed a restriction on the development and research of AI and more.
Human rationality
In an adjacent perspective, humans are born rational—they exhibit rationality in their real life and absurdity over synergistic machines. This fact seems to be realistic nowadays because rampant development of AI is causing massive unemployment. While human beings are trapped up by bounded rationality, human-developed tools like AI are free from it.
The tale of human rationality doesn’t end here, though. Eastern scriptures also seem to ‘bestow’ supernatural abilities on humans, endowing Ram—the protagonist in Ramayana—for example, with this special ability to get his arrow back to his quiver after striking a specific person.
Media capabilities, synergistic work value, optimal internal and external resource utilization are the predominant and key aspects of modern AI. In general, developed AI always yields some sort of limitations. So, the pioneer humans need to be vigilant for alleviating the risks invited in the long run via AI-based robotics and more.
Emergent perils
AI has some lethal perils and the whole of mankind may have to repent because of it in the long run. But defenestration is not the only way out. As per a BBC report, AI could replace the equivalent of 300m full-time jobs.
It could replace a quarter of work tasks in the US and Europe but may also mean new jobs and a productivity boom.
These job losses are likely to raise depression and anxiety levels of peoples of developed and underdeveloped nations. Because of this replacement, the overall productivity is likely to rise by 7-8 percent in a synergistic manner. Another standing challenge is the gradual erosion of AI and lower wages. Decrease in the spending power of humans leads to higher levels of relative inflation.
A rapid development of AI is likely to lead to an ensuing decline in human creativity. This may invite stagnation in any field requiring human expertise.
Neuralink, a digital chip developed by Elon Musk, is expected to be of great help in the treatment of disabilities, including the restoration of eyesight. Fresh hopes have arisen after the conduct of a successful trial on monkeys. Delays in decision-making can also be minimized by using such AI tools.
Speed accuracy and diligence are also elements of AI that can simultaneously execute millions and trillions of activities. Significant reduction in costs means huge economic relief for organizations and firms. The possibility of optimum use of resources is feasible when such AI models are used in defined working environments.
The author is a lecturer at Sindhuli Multiple Campus
Lalita Niwas probe exemptions: Supreme Court takes government to task
The Supreme Court has sought written explanations from the Office of the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers, the Office of the Attorney-General, the District Attorney’s Office, Kathmandu (DAO) and the Central Investigation Bureau (CIB) regarding the exemption of former Prime Ministers Madhav Kumar Nepal and Baburam Bhattarai as well as former chief secretary Lilamani Poudel from the Lalita Niwas land-grab probe.
A single bench of Justice Binod Sharma, following Tuesday’s hearing, sought explanations within 15 days from the above-mentioned offices as well as the two former PMs and former chief secretary Poudel in the high-profile scam involving the illegal transfer of the government-owned land (Lalita Niwas) located at Baluwatar in the name of influential individuals.
The court was responding to a petition from senior advocate Balkrishna Neupane, who claimed that the three had been enjoying immunity in the case because of their clout.
Additionally, the court has directed that this (Neupane’s) writ be attached with another petition concerning the land-grab, in which the Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) had given the two former PMs a clean chit, stating that the Cabinet’s policy decisions were beyond the purview of its investigation.
On Aug 27, DAO had filed cases at the Kathmandu District Court against 310 individuals vis-a-vis the land-grab, taking it as a case involving forgery of government documents, despite recommendations from the CIB to move the court by taking it as a case of organized crime, citing the ‘lack of clinching evidence’.
Among those charged with forgery are former Deputy Prime Minister Bijaya Kumar Gachhadar, former ministers Chandra Deo Joshi, Dambar Bahadur Shrestha and Chhabi Raj Pant along with former Minister of State Sanjay Sah. Former Chief Commissioner at the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority, Deep Basnyat, and former government secretaries Dineshhari Adhikari, Narayan Gopal Malego and Yubaraj Bhusal have also been facing charges in the same case.
Furthermore, the police (CIB) probe into the case has identified ‘brokers’ Shobhakant Dhakal and Ram Kumar Subedi as well as Min Bahadur Gurung, the owner of Bhatbhateni Supermarket, as ‘important players’. But the ex-PMs have managed to avoid the investigation process by and large, though police have recorded their statements as government witnesses on the basis of an Aug 6 SC directive. In earlier proceedings in August, the court had mandated an inquiry to bring all individuals directly linked to specific Cabinet decisions made on 11 April 2010, 14 May 2010, 13 Aug 2010, and 4 Oct 2013 under scanner. This included those responsible for both drafting as well as executing cabinet decisions.
The Cabinet under Nepal had sanctioned the transfer of government-owned land to private individuals whereas the Bhattarai Cabinet had approved the registration of a portion of the prime property in the name of ‘Pashupati Tikinchha Guthi’.
Street vendors are also part of society
The primary message for all stakeholders—government bodies, lawmakers and the general public—to acknowledge is that street vendors are an integral part of our society. Street vendors are firmly entrenched within our society and contribute to the national economy directly or indirectly by engaging in self-employment.
It is the responsibility of the government to manage appropriate workspaces for street vendors. The major consideration is determining suitable locations for this purpose. There are various possible options, including utilizing footpaths within designated hours in specified areas. Many cities like Bangkok, Dhaka, and Calcutta boast of expansive footpaths suitable for the purpose. In our case, where such broad footpaths are lacking, alternatives like squares, intersections and other open spaces can become workspaces. Additionally, there are wider roads where traffic is relatively light during specific times, presenting another viable option. Ultimately, the key factors are the selection of suitable places, appropriate timing and effective management.
The author is an urban planner
‘South bloc’ in geopolitics and great power rivalry
In contemporary geopolitics, international organizations play a crucial role in shaping global governance and power dynamics. China and the United States have reached an ideological stalemate as they are entrenched in shaping global governance through intergovernmental groupings by influencing the Global South. A contested US, an emerging China and a rising India have been openly trying to stabilize their relationship with renewed dialogues and regular diplomatic engagements, which have been at their lowest in the last 50 years with the risk of war. The Group of 20 (G20) and the Group of 77 (G77) are two prominent blocs within the international community.
The triad diplomacy between China, Russia and North Korea is an endeavor of Russia to globalize the war in Ukraine. President Putin’s ambition and strategic misstep is costing the world colossal losses, together with Sino-American rivalry. Putin is rooting for an international system that is multipolar, upholds conservative values, is largely delinked with the US and gives space to Russia as a dominant player in a new era of global politics. In the Cold War, the inclination of the ‘Third World’ toward the Non-Aligned Movement was phenomenal.
But in the era of Cold War 2.0, India’s influence in the Global South is more visible as the G20 summit, just concluded with North-South cooperation, has shown. Like India, China also has plans to lead the Global South for South-South cooperation.
It is important to compare India’s role in the US-governed G20 with that of the China-led G77. Additionally, discussions on the concept of the ‘South bloc’ and its implications for geopolitics and great power rivalry are essential for international relations.
Geopolitical significance
The G20 comprises Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey, United Kingdom, and the United States along with the European Union. This bloc, accounting for more than 80 percent of world GDP, 75 percent of global trade, and 60 percent of the global population, was established in 1999 as a platform for Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors to discuss international economic and financial issues and address major issues related to the global economy, such as international finance stability, climate mitigation and sustainable development. India and the US are key players in the G20, which comprises major economies of the world. Both countries possess significant geopolitical and economic clout. India represents a large emerging market with tremendous growth potential, whereas the US remains a global superpower with vast influence.
The Group of G77 (G77) was established in 1964 and originally consisted of 77 member-states, hence its name.
Over the years, the membership has grown to include 134 developing countries from Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean. China’s membership in the G77 in 1994 grants it a platform to represent the interests and aspirations of developing nations to promote economic cooperation, coordinate positions on international issues and advocate for development needs of member-states. As the world’s second-largest economy, China’s growing influence in G77 gives it a considerable geopolitical leverage.
Global politico-economic connection
The New International Economic Order (NIEO) approached around after the Intergovernmental Group of Twenty-Four on International Monetary Affairs and Development or the Group of 24 (G24) was recognised in 1971 as a chapter of the G77 to harmonize the opinions of developing countries on international monetary and development releases, which then envisaged North-South cooperation in 1973 in the Algiers Conference of non-aligned countries. The sixth Special Session of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), established in 1964 as an authorities’ body of the UN General Assembly in stimulating trade and development predominantly in developing countries or the Global South, adopted a program of action while the Paris talks (North-South Dialogue of 1977) negotiated North-South cooperation by setting up the Willy Brandt Commission with an understanding to revitalize the issues of international economic development emphasized by the World Bank Commission Report (1980) for North-South cooperation.
In G20, both India and the US possess strong and diversified economies. With the nominal GDP of $25.46trn in 2022, the US has a higher GDP and greater economic influence globally. India’s GDP of $3.39trn in 2022-23 with economic growth rate and potential offer has vast opportunities for investment and development. The G20 is composed of most of the world’s largest economies’ finance ministries, including both industrialized and developing countries. It accounts for around 80 percent of the gross world product (GWP), 75 percent of international trade, two-thirds of the global population and 60 percent of the world’s land area.
G77 accounts for 80 percent of the world’s population. Within the grouping, China’s economic strength is emerging with the GDP of $18trn and its Belt and Road Initiative aims to channel financial aid, infrastructure projects, and investment among the G77 nations o
This is Part I of a two-part series.
The author is a Strategic Analyst, Major General (Retd) of the Nepali Army, and is associated with Rangsit University, Thailand
