 While technology is not the solution by itself, that you do not have a solution without technology accepting that, there is also an objectivity, objectifying of artificial intelligence by which it is said, machine took the decision, it has distilled the intelligence of many more people, it is a better decision making tool than a individual human being. So that is the caution that we also need to build in, that exactly what you are saying, if I take that to its logical conclusion, that ultimately technology created by us for a society which is unequal, ingrained in people who are doing the, shall we say, the crafting the artificial intelligence solution would obviously replicate the existing inequalities in its tool as well. So the question is, therefore what do we do? If you are critical of what happens when this is done, would you say, any AI that is produced must be auditable, I must be able to see its chain of logic, now you have an adaptive learning system, there are problems of doing it, how can I make it auditable, so that I can try and see where these decisions have come or is it ingrained into the, shall we say, the. I would go much further. Go ahead. So, actually the line you are proposing is the currently accepted line and I don't think it's a. It's far enough. It's anywhere near far enough. So in US especially, the whole debate about ethical usage of AI is pretty much constrained on fairness and transparency, so as you say, it should be auditable, the data going in should be fair and it should basically not be bigoted AI, I sympathize with that. I also think that it doesn't really address the problem, because I think the problem is of power, not of fairness. You can create the most fair, non-bigoted AI possible, you can audit all the data, you can be completely transparent about it, actually you cannot, mathematically there are reasons why AI at after a point becomes incomprehensible, even to the people who created. But I don't think that is where the main problem is. Because you make a perfect AI, it produces something, the data is going in, it's giving a decision, it's a machine learning thing, lots of data is going in, but you are auditing it, you know how it works, it's working precisely as it was intended to, which by the way never happens with any technology, but for our thought experiment, let's suppose that that exists. And you put it in the hand of value producers who are concentrated with all the wealth and hence can afford that AI. That will just accelerate the concentration of wealth, increase precarity and inequality, or AI is perfect, it's just how it is being used by people. So I think it's a question of power, who is wielding the AI rather than what is the composition of the AI, sure it is our responsibility as technology developers to be more wary of you know unintended consequences and to have auditable and transparent AI. But I think the real battle is in who controls it, who builds it, who controls it and who gets to decide what the value produced from that AI, how much of that. Who appropriates it. Who appropriates it. Now that's the last Warren Buffett warning that if we don't solve the problem of this kind of inequality we are creating, they will come to us with pitchforks and I think the Warren Buffetts of the world also sort of caricaturized the working classes of it. But leaving that out he's basically saying, hey you guys you take it too far, if you don't take it this far maybe we'll survive, if you take it too far we won't survive. I mean isn't that sort of trying to have the cake and eat it? Of course, no sympathy for Mr. Buffett, but I'm saying even the Buffett today is worried about the... That's a good sign. Unintended consequence of undrammeled capitalism, which is what we have let loose and technological shall we say libertarianism, cyber libertarians, libertarians of different kinds who are techno optimists but don't believe that... They are not techno optimists, they are techno determinists and there is a difference I would say. Optimism with technology and I myself consider myself a technological optimist is thinking that you need technology for a better future and I think that's a perfectly valid position to have. I will let you put it this way, a cyber libertarian says state is bad and that is not determinism, that's what he wants to actively create a technology which will create ABCD including money which cannot be, we cannot have that without a state. You can argue they want state as a repressive engine but they don't want state anywhere else except protection of private property. That is the cyber libertarian shall we say. I don't think that position is achievable thankfully. I think that's an extremely naive political platform which comes from living in a developed western country where you have an abundance of wealth, that's not realizable. Historically speaking that's a naive position. The state has always been the foundation of technological change always, big science happens because of state. The state has also been the bedrock on which capitalism rests. You cannot have capitalism without a strong state. All sensible capitalists recognize this, all good economists know this. So I am dismissive about the techno libertarian nonsense, it's naive. Last question before we wrap up, how do you think when you say it's a political question? The question is how do you translate the social choices that you have into political answer? I think first of all we should disabuse ourselves from the notion that we need to translate it. The consequences of untrammeled technology usage in capitalism and AI in the future because AI hasn't happened yet in the Indian context. They will be pretty obvious to the social situation. Now what is happening in India is that you have had recently a lot of job cuts, AI has nothing to do with that. Even automation has nothing to do with that. These were bloated industry, there were other structural reasons. But they embraced the automation narrative because that was in the popular culture and they were like automation is responsible because they want to sort of shed the responsibility of having created those industries in the first place. So when actually these forces become visible in the global south, they will be visible. They will not be something that we'll have to go around convincing people that hey look something is happening. They'll be visible. I think our job is to hold the callers of those who are accountable and not to think ourselves as sort of the vanguard educating the masses. Rather when the crisis depends at that time to make certain that the chaos is not used by malfactors, it's not appropriated in some way to make a spectacle out of it and make a political spectacle out of it or something. And I think one of the jobs we have, so to speak, those who recognize the phenomena is to accelerate the politics around it. That is one useful thing I think we can do because right now the vocabulary to understand this problem is a bit vague, yes. While the discomfort might be felt by people who are at the receiving end of this and these would be the most vulnerable people, it might be needed to create a vocabulary so that they can organize in an easier fashion and they can agitate in an easier fashion. I think that would be a job to address and something I have been trying to do addressing a lot of different audiences. So instead of thinking of ourselves as emancipators, I think we should be thinking of ourselves as organizers in this case. Well, I'm not so sure we should even distinguish organizers and emancipators as separate categories. What I would say is that what you are saying is A, we need politics. B, we need organization. C, we need a certain kind of consciousness, okay? Who creates it, how it's created and D, we need struggles. These are the instruments of change, consciousness, organization, struggle. And all three must be with a political, shall we say, objective. Otherwise, these three by themselves are not enough. You need a political objective. Thanks Anupam for being with us. It's been a pleasure talking to you, but particularly on issues that are also close to my heart, which people in news click may not realize or people watching news click may not realize. Thank you so much for watching news click. Do keep watching us, visit our YouTube channel and our Facebook page.