أَعُوذُ بِاللّٰهِ مِنَ الشَّيْطَانِ الرَّجِيمِ

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ

In the name of ALLAH, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful

Is AI the Destiny?

There is an ongoing debate in the technological world that reflects a claim that Artificial Intelligence (AI) is the destiny of humankind and our habitat planet Earth will be managed and controlled by AI. Whether AI is humanity’s destiny depends on whether you see it as a preordained path or an amplifier of human agency. It is the most powerful tool we have ever created to accelerate our potential, but treating it as an inevitable endpoint means giving up the very choices that define our future.

Viewing AI as our inevitable destiny often stems from its rapid evolution and massive scale, but this perspective brings up a major philosophical divide:-

The "Manifest Destiny" View: Proponents argue that building artificial general intelligence (AGI) is our civilizational duty. In this view, AI is the natural next step in evolution—a way to transcend biological limits, solve complex scientific challenges, and unlock the cosmos.

The "Tool" View: Critics and philosophers argue that destiny implies a lack of free will. Viewing algorithms as an inescapable fate can quietly hollow out human capabilities and transfer control to tech systems. As commentators note, treating AI as destiny is often a marketing tool, while humans ultimately remain responsible for control and direction.

Shining Science @ShiningScience: "Ford was forced to rehire hundreds of engineers”.

Ford was forced to rehire hundreds of engineers after its AI’s mistakes proved to be more expensive than human salaries.

In a striking reversal of the tech-first industry trend, Ford Motor Company has brought back over 300 veteran human engineers after realizing its artificial intelligence systems could not match their decades of specialized expertise. The automaker had heavily integrated AI across its industrial system, deploying automated quality checks and hundreds of AI-powered cameras to detect assembly defects.

However, Ford’s leadership admitted they mistakenly believed software could simply absorb design requirements and immediately output high-quality vehicles. Instead, without the institutional knowledge of retired and departed engineers to train the algorithms, the automated tools amplified flaws rather than catching them, contributing to high-profile quality and recall issues.

To resolve these setbacks, Ford rehired, newly hired, or promoted 350 'gray beard' experts to restore craftsmanship standards. These seasoned technicians are now mentoring junior staff and retraining the very AI models designed to replace them, proving that algorithms are only as good as the experienced minds feeding them data.

This course correction has already yielded remarkable dividends, highlighting the ongoing necessity of human judgment in manufacturing. As companies worldwide scramble to cut costs through automation, Ford’s experience serves as a powerful reminder that some skills simply cannot be automated out of a spreadsheet.

https://x.com/ShiningScience/status/2072048518290866650?s=20

Now another thread may also be read in the same line:-

Shanaka Anslem Perera @shanaka86 "The Great Fear: AI would Replace Humans".

In 2026 the opposite is quietly unfolding. A third of the companies that fired people to install AI have already hired them back, and when the researchers ran the math, the layoffs turned out to have saved almost nothing. Yup!

Let’s start with the hardest fact. Gartner surveyed 350 large companies, 80 percent of which had cut jobs for AI, and found no meaningful link between those cuts and better returns.

The idea the whole wave rested on, fewer people means lower cost means higher profit, simply was not in the data. Careerminds, polling 600 HR leaders who had run layoffs, found nearly a third said rehiring cost more than the layoffs ever saved. Forrester reports 55 percent of employers now regret the decision, and more of them expect AI to grow their headcount next year than to shrink it, 57 percent against 15. A year ago top executives went on live television to announce the people they had replaced. This year they are quietly reposting the jobs.

You can see why?

Klarna swapped 700 support agents for an Ai chatbot, watched satisfaction slide mainly because the AI chatbots lack the human personality / emotions and that touch, and its chief executive admitted their company had gone too far. Tech giant IBM automated their HR desk, which handled the easy 94 percent of requests and stalled on the 6 percent that needed judgment, and is now tripling entry-level hiring.

American giant Ford brought back more than 350 veteran gray beard highly skilled engineers to catch defects its automated systems had missed. These are all facts. Check for yourself.

One thing is worth getting right, because it is where most takes fall apart. This is not AI failing, and it is not machines needing us. The economy is still adding jobs, and the roles that build and steer AI are in heavy demand. What broke was one crude assumption, that a model which can finish a task can therefore hold a job. It cannot.

The judgment, the escalation, the human trust, the memory of ten thousand past cases that experience, that human touch, personality and emotions, that was the job, and it was exactly what got deleted when the people walked out replaced by AI.

So the machines are not taking the work. They are sorting it into two piles, the tasks a model can finish and the judgment a person was always there to hold. The companies that bet everything on the first pile are paying, twice, to rebuild the second. It turned out to be far larger than they admitted.

https://x.com/shanaka86/status/2072710315482198099?s=20

Academic science tells us that the universe is governed by consistent, observable physical laws rather than random chance. It establishes that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old, all life evolves through natural selection, and human activity fundamentally alters the global climate and biosphere. Therefore, if AI is a destiny, it is not an endpoint we merely arrive at; it is a collaborative trajectory. How we guide its development ensures it serves our collective needs rather than dictating them?

The "Divinely Revealed books" (Torah Bible, Quran) do not mention artificial intelligence (AI), as it is a modern technology. However, theologians and faith leaders suggest evaluating AI through overarching principles stated in the "Revelations". Humans are tasked with managing the Earth. AI is a tool to be used for the common good and human flourishing. Intelligence and creativity reflect being made in God's image. AI is a product of this God-given creativity but cannot possess a soul or human experience. Holy Scriptures emphasize wisdom over mere cleverness. Users should discern how algorithms shape them and ensure technology does not replace the pursuit of human wisdom.

Humans' Destiny can't be ruled by any thing else but he himself. The humans are the ultimate architects of their own fate. While genetics and environment (including tech tools) hand us a specific set of cards, how we play them—and the meaning we create from them—is largely in our own hands. We must comprehend the message given by famous poem "Invictus," by William Ernest Henley; which ends with "I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul."