“Necessity Intelligence. While on the other hand certain

“Necessity is the mother of all invention”, to
crack the German code made by infamous machine Enigma, Dr. Alan Turing made the
Turing Machine. Enigma was created by Arthur Scherbius due to the need for
secret messages, that would be unreadable by the enemy. This invention, that
was made out of a need, would become the basis for the invention of computers
and even, artificial intelligence.  This
paper will argue that though, we may be able to teach artificial intelligence many
mechanical part of any job, certain functions that require creativity and out
of the box thinking are impossible for it to compute. Therefore mechanical
jobs, such as factory work, are jobs in danger of being over taken by
Artificial Intelligence. While on the other hand certain jobs where elements of
higher thinking and moral arguments are required cannot be completely ruled by
artificial intelligence or AI, and would always require a human touch.


One of the basic economic activity is invention.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

Two reasons why people innovate is due to the need of a new product or creative
instinct. When it comes to need, artificial intelligence has none. There lies
the basic difference between humans and AI. Therefore, that part of creativity
that comes out of need, is missing in AI. The Turing Test defines AI as a
computer that acts, reacts and interacts like a sentient being, then it is intelligent1,
giving rise to the “imitation game”. Following this test, we would come to the
conclusion that Siri is an AI. Imitating concepts such as pure creativity,
morality and curiosity are impossible to replicate because it is impossible to
quantify them, fully explain them or their origin in a human’s psyche.  While it is possible to teach an AI that one
plus one equals two, it will be harder to explain how Stephenie Meyer came up
with the idea of vampires sparkling in the sunlight in the book Twilight. As
per AI expert John Smith, Manager of Multimedia and Vision at IBM Research,
“It’s easy for
AI to come up with something novel just randomly. But it’s very hard to come up
with something that is novel and unexpected and useful.”2
Another interesting argument that will support my theory about creativity is
that no matter how evolved a computer might be, it is a fact that they can’t
generate a random string of numbers3,
an easy feat for humans. Reiterating my thought on the subject, Jason Toy, CEO,
Somatic (an AI expert) said “Can we take what humans think is
beautiful and creative and try to put that into an algorithm? I don’t think
it’s going to be possible for quite a while.”4 The problem with augmenting pure
ingenious creativity in AI becomes feasibility and our own incomplete understanding
of the human brain and its processes.


The movie AlphaGo is based on
an AI in the Google Deepmind Project, that was taught to play the ancient game
of Go. The movie shows how the AI learnt how to beating the 18 time world champion
Go winner Lee Sedol. In the best of five competition, AlphaGo wins 4 out of
five matches. In Game 2 the AI, AlphaGo played a one in thousand move, i.e. a
human would never play such. This move was celebrated as a creative move that
ultimately helped the AI win the match. In Game 4, Lee Sedol, the human plays a
one in thousand move, another move not expected from a human. My argument to
this is while the move made by Lee Sedol is creative, the move made by AlphaGo
was logical and based on statistical analysis. I depend on the fact that when AlphaGo
made that move it knew it was a move a human would never make, which the
AlphaGo team checked immediately for the fear that AlphaGo is making a mistake.

Lee Sedol on the other hand couldn’t calculate the probability of the move he
made or the thousands of possibilities, attack and defence, that AlphaGo could calculate.

In this sense understanding, AlphaGo’s move was logical, while Lee Sedol’s move
was instinctually creative, and in his words, the only move he thought he could


Thomas Edison said “Genius is one percent
inspiration, and ninety-nine percent perspiration. I make more mistakes than
anyone else I know, and sooner or later, I patent most of them.” While Albert
Einstein said “If at
first the idea is not absurd, then there will be no hope for it.” What
these great minds are teaching here is simple, that not all discoveries are
intentional, like Madam Curie and the discovery of radium. George Bernard Shaw said
“the reasonable man adapts himself to the
world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.

Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” In the case of AI
what gets created are reasonable men, because any mistake made is rectified,
and the AI learns from such a mistake.  For the progress of society and for new
innovations and discoveries, not all mistakes are wrong. Like the invention of microwave,
and how the initial research wasn’t for a new kind of oven. The accidental melting
of the chocolate and popping of popcorn in the scientist pocket led to this
discovery. On the other hand since an AI would be researching on the specific
topic, it would have removed the food from the vicinity instead of researching
and delving into curiosity.


When it comes to certain professions, I don’t think AI would be able to
take over completely. For example, in the case of Psychologists, where the
study of human behaviour is incomplete. We can’t exactly pinpoint why certain
psychologist uses a particular method with one client in case of depression and
another for another case with depression. What the AI could do is give a better
understanding of what physical changes, like heartbeat, micro-expressions and
hormonal fluctuations, for the psychologist to come to a better understanding.

A profession like archaeology too will need complete human supervision. The
reason being that since these are civilizations of the past, at times even the
human end up destroying thing that might be valuable, like what happened to the
mummy of King Tut. In simpler terms, you can’t ask an AI to clean the your
closet for you, because it might throw away the old comfortable shirt that you
keep not because it is pretty, but because you are comfortable in them.

Teaching AI the abstract concept of how humans might value items on more than
looks or monetary value is not easy, unless each item gets tagged individually.


In the word of Jeremy Bentham “The power of the lawyer is in the uncertainty of the law.” A basic thing I have
learnt as a law student in a common law country, being that the theory and
practice of law are completely different. In theory the law is black and white,
in practice it shades of grey. It is easy to read a statute, say that the penalty
for murder is death. But what does an AI do in the question of Lon L. Fuller’s the
Speluncean explorers. Where the question is marred by morality and empathy,
abstract concepts that can’t be simply made into an algorithm. Where in the case
in question, even the judges don’t know what the right answer is. Where the
defendants killed a fellow explorer to cannibalize him for the reason of
survival. What Jeremy Bentham is trying to say is that lawyers have a career because
the law seems certain but it isn’t, if it was, there would be no need of court

Robert Kennedy said “The glory of justice and the majesty of law are created not just by the
Constitution – nor by the courts – nor by the officers of the law – nor by the
lawyers – but by the men and women who constitute our society – who are the
protectors of the law as they are themselves protected by the law.” To
understand this statement, we will look at the LGBT rights, and how in most
places they are accorded due to the courts, like in the case of India and United
States of America. In the case Obergefell v. Hodges6
overturning Baker v. Nelson, it held that all states in the United States of
America had to recognize the validity of same sex marriage. In the case of
United States, the question was recognition of same sex marriages, the
questions to be considered would all be of a moral nature rather than facts,
they will be abstract questions on the rights of individual versus the right of
the state. I argue that an AI would not be able to understand such a question
in its essence, because it involves another aspect that can’t be fit into an
algorithm, love. What the AI thinks about the matter would depend on who is
making the AI, because while to me they should have all the rights that a heteronormative
couple enjoys, the answer is not the same for my grandfather. In India, the question
of the morality is taken to the another level due to a criminal statute, Section
377 of the Indian Penal Code. In India as per the status quo same sex
intercourse is a criminal offence. In the Naz Foundation Case7,
the Delhi High Court decided to hold the statute unconstitutional, the Supreme
Court of India overruled the judgment. The reasoning given by the Supreme Court
was that the “Indian society was not ready”. The argument made for the motion
were that under the right to equality and freedom (Article 15 and 21 of the
Indian Constitution), it should not be legal to discriminate between a
homosexual relationship and a heterosexual relationship. Finally, in 2017, it
was declared that the Supreme Court is formulating a Uniform Civil Code to
allow all kinds of relationships to subsist together. The essence being that
the entire situation is dependent on abstract factors that simply can’t be
expressed in terms of binaries of ones and zeroes.


Except the general principles of law like natural
justice and equity, again abstract concepts, there are cases that though should
have been black and white, aren’t. This as a concept is strongly embedded into
my thought due to me being an Indian law student. There are places where the
Indian Justice system’s laws in itself become vague. For example the infamous case
of Vodafone Tax Avoidance8
case. Here there are multiple factors to consider, ,first being that no court
has given an exact definition of tax avoidance, it is in the court’s words
legal but wrong. Further, it is the basic principle of Indian Tax Law that it
is clear and constant. Though the rate of taxation might differ as per the
yearly budget, the basic concept of how to pay taxes, or for what to pay taxes
are clear. After the end of the Vodafone case, where the Supreme Court
disallowed the Indian Government’s claim to collect taxes on the sale of Hutch
India, where the sale occurred by the sale of a parent company in Cayman
Island. The Indian legislative,  post
the case issued a retrospective clarification, that allowed the collection of
taxes in such a case. The entire episode made the tax regime unstable and
brought into question over 30 cases of sale of companies and taxes due in
question. The best part being that not all the companies are being forced to


In the case of the 2005 family law amendment, that
made the Joint Hindu Family give an equal share to the daughters, again was ambiguous.

There is a concept of notional partition that was implemented but it is unclear
exactly when the notional partition happens, at the time of the death of the
family member or at the time of division. To clarify, there are many families, including
my maternal side, where the death of the father took place before 2005, but
partition of the property might be taking place in 2010. The problem here becomes
that all these type of cases with regards to this law fall into the grey area. Then,
there are the complex religious issues, in India, one of the most widespread
problem. Like the concepts of love and morality, religion can’t be fit into an
algorithm. Fun fact, not all traditional Hindus are vegetarian, even traditionally,
Hindus near the coast were allowed to eat meats like fish. India has seen the
British attempt of codifying the religious laws for family law purposes, but
they too ran into the same problem. The same religion is practiced slightly
differently every hundred miles in India. Which brings us to making an immortal
AI understand the concepts of religion and why the peoples passions are moved
by it. If it were an AI judging the Ayodhya Case9,
it wouldn’t have taken into account the mobs ready to riot as soon as the
verdict came out. Trying their best the Supreme Court divided the property and
asked the Hindus and Muslims to pray sided by side in defined areas. An AI
might not even see the beauty of the judgment or the judge’s wisdom, because at
the end of the day, in a court case not only the incidents inside the court
matter but also the happening of the world outside.


Even though logic is seen as a need in lawyers, and
most law entrance exams include such a section, I argue that we only celebrate
the lawyers who are creative. That too is an important element of being a
lawyer. For my example I will use the story of how in India the phrase “hanged
by the neck till death came into use. Motilal Nehru had a client who was sent
to gallows for execution, at that time the sentence being “hanged by the neck”.

When the client was hanged, Motilal Nehru ran and held his client from his
legs, so the client was hanged but didn’t die. He then argued that the Court
could not hang him again due to double jeopardy.10
It is this spirit that most law students have, in my experience, they are the
rebels, who learn how to manipulate the line who become good lawyers. The
question becomes whether an AI can be made to understand how to be that rebel.


Another reason why the AI won’t become good lawyers
is the confidentiality that exists between a lawyer and a client. To put it
simply, even the pentagon can be hacked, how are we to assume that an AI can’t
be? Instead of overtaking the job of the lawyer, I think that AI would be more
apt to take over the job of the paralegals. It is more suited to draft then to
argue a case or to cross examine. In a lot of the cases it is the lawyers
instinct on how to question or portray the case rather than a set equation.


As far as augmentation of human beings is
concerned, I think the answer is easy, the reformation has to be how we
approach the education system. Maybe it is time to let the children colour the
dogs purple as per their imagination instead of asking them to colour it brown.

We already would have AI to create a perfect picture of the dog. Our education
system need to move from forcing all the kids to having the same thought, to allowing
the kids to follow their curiosity. At present the schools can be compared to
factories producing robots, now that we will have the real factories, maybe our
schools can become hubs of education again. Letting the base structure of
mechanical jobs being in the hands of the AI, while humans handle the actual
tough questions. While the AI might be able to process information faster, this
was never what being human meant, human economy doesn’t solely depend on the
processing of information, there is a lot more factors involved.



1 ‘Turing Test | Definition & Facts’ (Encyclopedia Britannica,
2017) accessed 27
January 2018.

2 ‘The Quest For AI Creativity’ (IBM Cognitive – What’s next for AI)

accessed 28 January 2018.


4 Ibid

5  Greg Kohs, Alphago (Moxie
Pictures And Reel as Dirt 2017).

6  ‘James Obergefell V.

Richard Hodges, No. 14-3057 (6Th Cir. 2014)’ (Justia Law, 2015)
accessed 22 January 2015.

7 Suresh
Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation, (2014) 1 SCC 1