‘The future is already here — it’s just not evenly distributed. – William Gibson
In an age where technology has been sold as the great equaliser, we now confront a sobering paradox: the more intelligent our machines become, the less inclusive our societies risk being. The myth that progress lifts all boats was always fragile, but now we see a crueller twist, the tide is engineered, and many have no boat at all.
Artificial Intelligence is not merely another tool in humanity’s long arc of innovation. It is an accelerant, of productivity, yes, but also of inequality, precarity, and distrust. Unlike the mechanical revolutions of earlier centuries, AI does not leave room for the gradual adjustments of the past. It advances not in decades, but in quarters. It does not wait for systems to adapt; it forces them to. While doing so, it threatens to destabilise the very architecture of work, identity, and trust in the institutions that promised to safeguard both.
The Invisible Earthquake
The scale of disruption is colossal, and largely silent. From back offices to hospitals, from call centres to courtrooms, AI is quietly rewriting job descriptions, obsoleting roles, and recoding the economic DNA of modern life. The World Economic Forum’s projection, 83 million jobs displaced by 2027, is not hyperbole. But what is rarely discussed is the asymmetry: the new jobs being created often demand digital fluency, adaptability, and specialised knowledge that the displaced do not possess, and may not acquire in time.
The real crisis, then, is not technological. It is moral and political. We have failed to equip people not because we cannot, but because we have not tried hard enough.
The Delusion of Comforting Narratives
It has become fashionable in elite circles to talk of ‘reskilling’, a term so overused it has lost all meaning. In India, where more than 90% of workers are in the informal sector, the idea that millions can simply pivot into AI-ready roles is not optimism. It is abdication masquerading as policy.
Daron Acemoglu, whose work should be read more carefully in South Block and corporate boardrooms alike, warns against ‘excessive automation’ a pattern where firms prioritise efficiency without regard for the social carnage it causes. His conclusion is stark: without course correction, AI will deepen wage stagnation, collapse job ladders, and hollow out the middle class. But it will do something more corrosive still, it will destroy trust.
Trust, once lost, is a near-impossible currency to regain.
The Leadership Void
The current moment demands a courage that is in short supply. Too many in positions of power, in government, in corporate suites, even in academia, still cling to the hope that the market will self-correct. That technological unemployment is just a phase. That new jobs will somehow emerge from the rubble.
This is magical thinking. People cannot adapt to what they do not understand. And they will not embrace what they fear. To lead in the AI age requires not platitudes, but preparedness. Not reassurance, but readiness.
So, that preparedness must begin at the top. CEOs who do not grasp the basics of machine learning cannot credibly lead digital transitions. Ministers who cannot distinguish between algorithmic bias and automation risk cannot frame policies of resilience. It is not enough to delegate digital understanding. It must be embodied.
An Age of Emotional Upheaval
This is not merely a technological shift; it is an existential one. A job is not just a paycheque; it is a place in the world. Its loss carries a psychic cost that cannot be addressed with generic training modules or token severance packages. We need a social compact for the AI age, one that offers not only skill transitions but emotional anchorage.
Some nations are experimenting with Universal Basic Income. Others are crafting hybrid work ecosystems, blending human creativity with machine efficiency. India, with its vast demographic dividend and unstable employment base, cannot afford to wait. The time for pilot projects is over. We need national-scale policy recalibration, a framework that sees AI not as an economic abstraction but as a civilizational crossroads.
The Ethics of Exit
There is a quiet cruelty in how layoffs are now managed, sanitised phrases like ‘resource optimisation’ or ‘streamlining’ used to disguise what is often an act of economic exile. If we cannot offer continuity, we must at least offer dignity. Offboarding should come with retraining, counselling, networks, and respect.
This is not charity. It is self-preservation. When institutions treat people as expendable, people will return the favour with suspicion, resistance, and rage.
The Gathering Storm
Early signs are everywhere. In the US, creative professionals are striking against generative AI. In Europe, workers are pushing back against algorithmic management. In India, disillusionment simmers beneath the surface, especially among a digitally literate youth with few real opportunities.
And here lies the deepest danger: if people begin to believe that technology is the enemy, that it destroys more than it creates, and that their leaders are indifferent to that destruction, then trust will erode, not just in AI, but in democracy itself.
A Choice, Not a Fate
AI is not fate. It is force, malleable, directional, and political. It can serve us or displace us. But it cannot be left to drift.
What we need now is a politics of responsibility. Leaders must speak with clarity, act with courage, and legislate with empathy. They must admit that this transition will be hard, and that the costs will not be evenly borne. But they must also make it clear that justice in disruption is not a utopian fantasy. It is a political and moral necessity.
As the late economist John Maynard Keynes once said: “The difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas as in escaping from old ones.”
It is time to escape the old idea that technology is always progress. It is not, unless we make it so.
Ashutosh Kumar Thakur is a public policy professional and writer based in Bangalore. He writes on leadership, economic transition, and the future of work.
[Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of NewsX.]
