AI to the left of them, AI to the right...
- 15 hours ago
- 7 min read
Into the dingy dungeon of unemployment should the jobless march? How much of the job loss is hype? Are machines replacing humans a utopian dream of Silicon Valley's heartless billionaires?
By Ajith Pillai in Chennai
At the recently concluded AI summit in India, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman gave a sharp, shocking response when asked by a journalist about the water, power, and mineral resources required to train and run generative AI models. Altman was ready with this counter: “People talk about how much energy it takes to train an AI model—but it also takes a lot of energy to train a human. It takes about 20 years of life—and all the food you consume during that time—before you become smart.”
He also noted that humans have evolved over billions of years and that science has developed over thousands of years to reach its current state, implying that time, money, and resources must be allocated to AI to enable it to reach human-like capabilities.
Through that one rhetorical outburst, Altman was articulating what many in the Silicon Valley believe—that chatbots and people can be equated, that machines can replace humans, and that machines can be even more intelligent and efficient.
The Atlantic magazine ran a piece on Altman’s observations in Delhi headlined ‘Sam Altman Is Losing His Grip on Humanity.’
The arrogance and overconfidence of Silicon Valley billionaires in their pursuit of disrupting human labour and taking over jobs have been criticised in the West. It is also well known that these tech billionaires often disregard democracy, environmental concerns, intellectual property, human rights, and labour, viewing them as obstacles to progress. Consequently, they frequently support right-wing leaders and even fascist figures, particularly those whom they believe can aid them in achieving their ultimate goal of allowing technology to govern society.
Perhaps Altman’s sharp observations at the Delhi AI Summit caught media attention in the West because he was airing his views in a country where the government had just rolled out the red carpet for Silicon Valley big wigs and even generously promised them a tax holiday till 2047, should they be inclined to invest in hyper data centres in India.
Remember, this magnanimity was in sharp contrast to protests in the US, Europe and Latin America against hyper- or mega-data centres, which guzzle enormous amounts of water, consume a lot of power, and are environmentally unfriendly.
Cloud computing and data centres are nothing new. They have been the buzzwords in the tech world for more than a decade now. So, when some tech bro declares that the cloud is the new real estate, don’t look heavenward hoping to spot an Amazon, Google or Microsoft cloud in the sky.
The cloud he is referring to is very much on earth. It inhabits data centres and enables the on-demand delivery of IT resources, such as servers, storage, databases, and software, for a fee.
Why is the cloud being described as the new real estate?
Like traditional landlords, data centre owners such as Amazon, Google, and Microsoft can rent out storage, computing power, and servers, and run applications, making them accessible via the internet. It’s called providing cloud computing for a fee, or Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS). Most companies, including start-ups not ready to invest heavily in setting up their own data centres, can rent cloud space and become operational.
The business has been good. For instance, in the fourth quarter of 2025, Amazon Web Services (AWS) reportedly contributed 57 per cent of the Amazon group's total gross profit of $103.427 billion, significantly more than the profits from Amazon's online shopping. With more and more businesses going online and AI-dependent, those who own cloud space (read data centres) are making big money.
India is now being identified as a new data centre hub, supported by a government that encourages the establishment of mega centres for specialised high-performance cloud computing, which is essential for training and operating generative AI.
Is this good news?
It certainly is for Silicon Valley billionaires keen to set up generative AI-compatible mega data centres, also called inference centres, in India. It is projected that inference centres will require $6.7 trillion in investment worldwide by 2030 to keep pace with demand for computing power.
For India, there is an undeniable downside beyond the initial infusion of foreign funds. The rapid increase in mega data centres, growing from 150 to over 800 in the next three years, will drive power demand to unsustainable levels. These hyper-centres also consume a significant amount of water, which is concerning for a water-scarce country. While the data centres may provide temporary jobs during the construction phase, once completed, they will each employ fewer than 200.
Meanwhile, not a day passes without alarm bells ringing about job losses caused by generative AI. It has been predicted that there will soon be huge layoffs in the tech industry in India, with programmers rendered redundant. Then comes news that jobs in journalism, advertising, design, finance, banking, law and HR will soon be taken over by AI.
Clickbait journalism often thrives on attracting readers and viewers with sensational predictions, particularly those suggesting that various professions will be overtaken by generative AI. A section of the media seems to derive vicarious pleasure in declaring professions on the brink of extinction. This is not the first time that such stories have hit the headlines. Indeed, every time a new model is released, it is accompanied by stories of the job landscape undergoing tectonic changes, with thousands being given the pink slip.
Recent feedback from India's tech sector suggests that the job-loss narratives may be overstated. Babak Hodjat, Chief AI Officer at Cognizant, told Reuters that claims that AI tools will replace large IT service firms are "overblown". Additionally, other IT service companies, such as Tata Consultancy Services and Wipro, have stated that AI will enhance rather than diminish the roles of software service firms.
Alagunambi Welkin, General Secretary of the Union of IT and ITeS (IT-enabled Services) employees, which represents tech workers nationwide, had this pertinent point to make in a discussion moderated by The Hindu: “The retrenchments or restructuring happening in companies are not primarily due to AI, but in the name of AI. The claims that AI is going to take over massive jobs, that no more developers are needed and that AI can do entire end-to-end development, we think, are far-fetched… So, what we see is cost-cutting, typically done by major multinational corporations, now being termed AI-based cost-cutting.”
Come to think of it, if all the news about job losses were true, the number of unemployed individuals would increase so significantly that it would further harm or derail other businesses -- ranging from hospitality to real estate. Imagine a world where most blue-collar and white-collar workers, as well as many in the middle and upper-middle class, are out of work. So who would have the purchasing power to buy the products that line our stores? And who would travel to Phuket in Thailand or even Manali in Himachal Pradesh on holiday?
Should the unemployment situation spin out of control, then governments across the world will have to act. Finding jobs for the jobless may not be easy in most countries. Neither will Universal Basic Income (UBI) help unless it is substantial enough to maintain the public's purchasing power at a level which makes commercial activity viable. If that is not achieved, industries and businesses will have to shut down.
So, will the world as we know it, cease to exist in ten years' time?
Will we become slaves to the machines and the corporations that run them?
Or, will governments, faced by mass unemployment and unrest, declare war on the techno overlords?
Will they, as suggested by the eminent Greek economist Yanis Varoufakis, the country’s former finance minister, and author of TechnoFeudalism, nationalise "cloud capital" and declare data centres public property to be used for the common good?
The future does seem dark if major decisions are left to generative AI. The latest issue of the New Scientist reported on a study conducted by Professor Kenneth Payne at King's College, London. In the study, he pitted three leading language models—GPT-5.2, Claude Sonnet 4, and Gemini 3 Flash—against each other in simulated war games. The scenarios involved international standoffs, existential threats to governments, and competition for scarce resources. In all, 21 war games were played, in which leading AIs from OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google opted for the nuclear option in 95 per cent of cases.
That brings us to the question: how much can we trust artificial intelligence?
Can we allow it to operate autonomously? Who will be held accountable for fatal errors made by it? Regardless of its training, a generative AI bot remains just a tool.
And we should never ever forget that.
Ajith Pillai is member, Editorial College, senior editor and writer, independentink.in.
A seasoned journalist working in the profession for 40 years, he has reported out of Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Andhra Pradesh and Kashmir on a broad spectrum of events related to politics, crime, conflict and social change. He has worked with leading publications, including The Sunday Observer,Indian Post, Pioneer, The Week and India Today, where he headed the Chennai bureau. He was part of the team led Editor Vinod Mehta that launched Outlook magazine and headed its current affairs section till 2012. Under his watch, Outlook broke several stories that attracted national attention and questioned the government of the day. He has written two books—'Off the Record: Untold Stories from a Reporter’s Diary,’ and a novel, ‘Junkland Journeys’. He is currently working on ‘Obedient Editor’, a satirical novel on the life and times of a ‘compromised’ journalist. The short story presented here is from a collection that is awaiting publication.