AI Doom Fears Overstated, Global Pause Unrealistic: Zoho Co-Founder Sridhar Vembu

Predictions that artificial intelligence could lead to catastrophic outcomes are overstated, and a global pause in AI development is unlikely, Zoho cofounder Sridhar Vembu said on Wednesday, while urging India to keep its strategic options open and invest heavily in foundational R&D across sectors.

Vembu, said India should pursue an independent approach to AI, building on partnerships without becoming locked into the emerging technology rivalry between the United States and China.

"We must be friends with everybody, enemies with nobody and keep our options open," Vembu, Chief Scientist and Co-founder, Zoho said in an interview with PTI.

He called for extensive investment in foundational research and development, drawing a distinction between long-term scientific and technological capabilities and the large sums being spent by global companies on developing and deploying frontier AI models.

"We need to make extensive investment in critical foundational R&D. There is a difference between foundational R&D versus spending tens of billions of dollars on AI model development or deployment," he said.

Such research should span every sector, Vembu said, adding that building foundational capabilities does not necessarily require investments on the scale of frontier AI model development.

"It is not a $10 billion proposition and can be done for $100-200 million," he said.

Vembu said he does not subscribe to predictions that AI will inevitably wipe out humanity, although he acknowledged that concerns about the risks posed by increasingly capable systems merit attention.

"... Maybe we can pay attention to it, but am I really worried about it? No, absolutely not," he said.

His greater concern is the erosion of human judgment and skills as people become increasingly dependent on AI tools, as well as the potential disruption to jobs, particularly in software engineering.

On regulation, Vembu said governments are likely to remain behind technological advances, as has happened with earlier technologies. He compared the development of AI with the early automobile industry, when cars became widespread before rules governing licensing, speed and road safety were established.

The implication, he said, is that AI governance will evolve alongside the technology rather than necessarily preceding it.

Vembu also rejected calls for a worldwide halt to AI development, arguing that such a move would be difficult to implement because major AI laboratories would have little incentive to stop while competitors continued developing the technology.

A central concern for Vembu is the effect of AI on the development of skills among younger workers and students.

Citing a study by the US National Bureau of Economic Research involving lawyers, he said junior lawyers using AI tools completed tasks faster but did not necessarily build or retain the underlying knowledge needed to perform the work independently.

The same dynamic could apply to software engineers, he said, while more experienced professionals were better positioned to use AI because they already possessed a strong underlying foundation.

Vembu said Zoho may therefore consider restricting AI access for junior engineers until they have mastered core skills and fundamentals. He said a similar principle should apply to schools and colleges.

"The priority is that humans should be learning," he said, arguing that workers should retain critical skills rather than surrendering them to AI systems.

The issue has broader implications for education and workforce development: while AI can increase productivity in the short term, excessive reliance on the technology during the learning phase could affect how effectively future workers acquire expertise and exercise independent judgment.

Vembu said he does not expect AI to make entire professions obsolete, pointing to the continuing importance of human judgment, accountability and context in areas including medicine, law and software architecture.

He acknowledged that software engineering jobs could come under pressure as AI becomes more capable, but argued that automation could also create demand in other areas of the economy.

"I am worried about the number of software engineering jobs, but at the same time I am optimistic that other categories of work will expand to absorb us," he said.

He described four broad "pillars" of enduring human work - nature, nurture, culture and scripture - encompassing areas such as agriculture, education and healthcare, entertainment and sport, and religious life.

His argument is that lower costs and higher productivity generated by automation could free up resources for sectors where human participation, judgment and relationships remain central.