Dr.King - Author of books on Yoga, Spirituality and Indology

[Preview books]  [Borrow books]  [Pause]   
Subscription platforms have transformed the way we consume books, music, audiobooks, and other digital content. For a single monthly fee, subscribers gain access to vast libraries, while creators share a common revenue pool based on how much their work is consumed.

The subscription model has been a remarkable success. Yet one important part of it has remained almost unchanged: the mathematics used to divide that common pool.  Most platforms still use a simple linear model. Every additional page read or minute-listened, carries exactly the same value, no matter how dominant a creator has already become. At first glance this appears perfectly fair. In reality, it steadily shapes the behaviour of the entire system.

When rewards continue to grow indefinitely in direct proportion to volume, a finite revenue pool naturally becomes increasingly concentrated. Content designed for rapid production or maximum engagement gains an ever-growing advantage, while creators producing labour-intensive works find it progressively harder to compete. Readers, in turn, may gradually discover that the diversity which originally attracted them to the platform is becoming narrower.

The problem is not the subscription model itself.

The problem is assuming that rewards must always grow in a perfectly straight line.

That assumption is simply a design choice.

A Different Mathematical Approach.

Instead of assigning every read exactly the same weight forever, imagine applying a smooth nonlinear curve before calculating each creator's share of the subscription pool.

Under this approach, additional readership still increases an author's earnings, but each successive increase contributes slightly less than the previous one. Popular creators continue to earn the most because they still attract the largest audiences. The difference is that extreme dominance no longer expands indefinitely within a fixed revenue pool.

The proposal does not increase or decrease the size of the subscription pool. It changes only the way that fixed pool is divided.

Nor does it depend on any particular mathematical function. A logarithmic curve is one possible illustration. A power function or many other nonlinear curves could achieve the same objective with different degrees of redistribution. The exact curve can be chosen to suit the goals of the platform.

The sharing curve need not be fixed permanently either. If several curves are available, the platform could select an appropriate curve according to the variability of payouts in recent quarters, for example using the standard deviation of the payout distribution. This would allow the system to adapt to changing characteristics of the subscription pool without requiring a history to be maintained for individual authors.

The curve could also have a defined knee. Up to that point, the relationship between readership and payout could remain linear, while beyond it the curve could become nonlinear. This would preserve the simplicity and predictability of linear sharing for the normal range while preventing extreme concentrations of consumption from producing disproportionately large payouts.

Why does it matter?

A nonlinear model changes incentives without changing the subscription business itself.

It continues to reward success while allowing a broader range of creators to participate meaningfully in the shared pool. It encourages catalogue diversity without penalizing popularity. It also reduces the economic incentive for extreme concentration because each additional unit of consumption contributes a little less than the one before it.

Most importantly, the platform still distributes exactly the same total amount of subscription revenue. Only the proportions change.

The Mathematics.

The implementation is surprisingly simple.

First, transform each creator's total readership using a chosen nonlinear function. Then add those transformed values together to obtain a new adjusted total.

Each creator's payout is then calculated as:

Author Payout = Total Subscription Pool × (Author's Curved Score ÷ Total Curved Score of All Authors).

This normalization step ensures that the entire subscription fund is distributed exactly as before. Only the shares are recalculated.

The additional refinements described above need not require major changes to the platform's bookkeeping. The curve selection and the knee can be implemented as mathematical parameters using aggregate pool data; there is no need to maintain an elaborate historical record for every individual author.

A Simple Illustration.

Suppose a platform has a subscription pool of $1,000 shared among three creators.

- Author A: 1,000,000 reads.

- Author B: 1,000 reads.

- Author C: 100 reads.

Under today's linear model, Author A, receives almost the entire pool while the remaining creators receive only a tiny fraction.

Now apply a logarithmic curve—not because it is necessarily the best choice, but simply to illustrate the principle.

Author A, still receives the largest payout because readership remains the primary driver. The difference is that Authors B and C now receive meaningful shares instead of being reduced to statistical leftovers.

The exact numbers are not important. Different nonlinear curves can produce stronger or gentler redistribution. The important point is that the reward function becomes a design parameter instead of an unquestioned assumption.

Looking Ahead.

Subscription platforms changed the way we access digital content. The next step is not to replace that model, but to improve the mathematics that supports it.

Linear pooling was a reasonable starting point because it was simple. But simplicity should not prevent improvement when better alternatives exist.

A carefully designed nonlinear pooling model can continue to reward success while encouraging diversity, strengthening creator participation, and preserving the rich catalogues that attract subscribers in the first place.

Sometimes building a healthier subscription model does not require a larger revenue pool.

It simply requires a better curve.

How do find this idea ? Please write your comments so that we can refine it further. To view on YouTube  with audio in your chosen language click below.  
 -------------------------------------------------------------------- If this  resonated with you, I invite you to join my weekly readership. I publish a new deep-dive every Saturday, moving beyond the surface to look at the questions that truly matter. No paywalls, no "bait"—just a direct share from my mind to yours. Click to subscribe.  
  © Dr. King, Swami Satyapriya 2026 You can borrow audio books directly from the author at https://tinyurl.com/mylibrary1234 at highly affordable prices.

[Preview books]  [Borrow books]  [Pause]   
This statement may sound like music to many of us. In fact, many people do not even experience such guilt.

Yet most religions teach self-restraint. The Bible says so. The Qur'an emphasizes it. Most Indian religions also recommend moderation in enjoyment.

So, are all these religions that warn us against excessive indulgence wrong?  Even if you do not believe in any religion at all, there is some truth in being cautious about excessive indulgence in pleasures. Becoming too deeply immersed in sensory pleasures has certain drawbacks.

- No pleasure lasts forever. Your body soon reaches a point where it can   no longer enjoy any more. If you overeat, no matter how delicious the food is, your body will not enjoy it beyond a certain limit.

- Sometimes the desire to enjoy may still remain. But the object that   gives pleasure may already be gone. Since no material object lasts forever, this happens quite often.

- The more you indulge in pleasures, the stronger your craving for them   becomes. This may happen even after your body has already reached the point of satisfaction. At that stage, it is entirely the mind   that keeps craving. The feeling, "Enough, I am completely   satisfied," may never actually come. This endless craving makes you   restless. You keep chasing that pleasure, but it keeps moving   farther away from your reach.

In this context, the ancient Indian scripture, the Bhagavad Gita, presents a profound picture. It says:

"When a person continually dwells on sense objects, attachment to them develops. From attachment arises desire. When desire is not fulfilled, anger arises. Anger leads to delusion. Delusion causes confusion. Confusion destroys discrimination. When discrimination is lost, the person is completely ruined."

Dhyāyato viṣayān puṁsaḥ saṅgas teṣūpajāyate।
Saṅgāt sañjāyate kāmaḥ kāmāt krodho'bhijāyate॥
Krodhād bhavati sammohaḥ sammohāt smṛtivibhramaḥ।
Smṛtibhraṁśād buddhināśo buddhināśāt praṇaśyati॥

— Bhagavad Gita 2.62–63.

- In our world of limited resources, excessive use of any resource   depletes it. As a result, someone else may be deprived of their   rightful share. Eventually, this widens the gap between the 'haves'   and the 'have-nots.' Such inequality can lead to social unrest. In   the end, its harmful consequences may indirectly affect you as well.

Indian religions such as Buddhism took a very uncompromising position on this issue. The Buddha taught, "Give up all desires." For "Desire is the root cause of all suffering."

But is this practical?

The Indian sage Manu says:

"No one can perform any action without desire. Behind every achievement of a person, there is always some desire."

Akāmasya kriyā kācid dṛśyate neha karhicit।
Yadyaddhi kurute kiñcit tat tat kāmasya ceṣṭitam॥

— Manusmriti 2.4

How true it is!

If human beings had no desires at all, could humanity have achieved so much progress?

It is true that desires also have harmful consequences. But that does not mean they should be completely abandoned. Such a course is neither practical nor desirable.

So, how do we strike a balance between these two opposing viewpoints?

The Vedic Indians had a remarkably balanced perspective on this issue. They understood the role of desire as the driving force behind all human progress. At the same time, they were fully aware of its inevitable harmful consequences. They also accepted that completely giving up desires is, in reality, impossible.

What the Buddha taught may be natural for monks and renunciates. But, for the vast majority of people living in the world, it is simply not possible.

On this issue, the ancient Upanishads adopt a highly practical approach. They strike a beautiful balance between excessive indulgence and complete self-denial.

This realistic outlook is found in almost all the Upanishads. They do not encourage complete immersion in worldly pleasures. At the same time, they do not ask us to renounce all pleasures altogether.

The Isha Upanishad expresses this balance most beautifully. It says:

"This entire universe, with everything moving and unmoving, belongs to the Lord of the universe. It is not the private property of any individual. Therefore, do not cultivate an excessive sense of ownership. Enjoy it with restraint. Do not take away another person's rightful share."

Īśāvāsyam idaṁ sarvaṁ yat kiñca jagatyāṁ jagat।
Tena tyaktena bhuñjīthā mā gṛdhaḥ kasyasvid dhanam॥

— Isha Upanishad — Mantra 1.

But merely enjoying pleasure is not enough; responsibility must accompany it. We must also perform our duties. If we live in this manner, then even if we live for a hundred years, pleasures will not bind us.

"Therefore, while enjoying life's pleasures with restraint and continuously performing your duties, aspire to live a full life. There is no better way of living than this."

So says the same Upanishad.

Kurvanneveha karmāṇi jijīviṣec chataṁ samāḥ।
Evaṁ tvayi nānyatheto'sti na karma lipyate nare॥

— Isha Upanishad — Mantra 2.

The Isha Upanishad belongs to the Yajur Veda. The Yajur Veda itself offers another beautiful piece of advice on how we should approach life. It says:

"The sun, the eye of the whole world, rises every day in the east. As we behold that rising sun, may we live for a hundred years. May we speak without hurting anyone's feelings. May we listen to others. May we live with dignity for a hundred years. And, if possible, may we live even longer."

Tac cakṣur devahitaṁ purastāc chukram uccarat।
Paśyema śaradaḥ śataṁ, jīvema śaradaḥ śatam।
Śṛṇuyāma śaradaḥ śataṁ, prabravāma śaradaḥ śatam।
Adīnāḥ syāma śaradaḥ śataṁ,
Bhūyaś ca śaradaḥ śatāt॥

— Shukla Yajur Veda, Chapter 36, Mantra 24.

What a practical and well-balanced philosophy of life!

Please write and let me know what you think about this. I am very eager to know your opinion. Until we meet again. Watch on YouTube 
   -------------------------------------------------------------------- If this  resonated with you, I invite you to join my weekly readership. I publish a new deep-dive every Saturday, moving beyond the surface to look at the questions that truly matter. No paywalls, no "bait"—just a direct share from my mind to yours. Click to subscribe.  Haga clic para españolKlicken Sie hier für die deutsche Versionहिंदी के लिए क्लिक करेंతెలుగు కోసం క్లిక్ చేయండిಕನ್ನಡಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಕ್ಲಿಕ್ ಮಾಡಿ 
  © Dr. King, Swami Satyapriya 2026 You can borrow audio books directly from the author at https://tinyurl.com/mylibrary1234 at highly affordable prices.

[Preview books]  [Borrow books]  [Pause]    In the last few episodes, we embarked on a journey through some of the deepest philosophical ideas. We explored the perspectives that the ancient Indian sages held regarding consciousness. The most important part of that discussion was the astonishing and mind-boggling state of consciousness known as Turiya, which appears to lie beyond all experience-based reasoning.

To the modern, rational mind, the idea of the Turiya state may seem like a beautiful speculation. It may appear to be a poetic, idealistic, and unrealistic concept. Therefore, a skeptic may ask, "Did anyone really live in such a state? Or is it nothing more than a fictional story from ancient psychology?"

Today, I would like to present an argument that this Turiya state is not merely imaginary. We may not be able to prove Turiya scientifically. However, we can examine documented incidents from the lives of people who lived in this state—people who lived among us, not centuries ago, but only a few decades ago—real-life events that were recorded without any glorification.  For this purpose, I shall take the life of one of South India's well-known saints as an example. I am not referring to any books or hymns of praise. My source consists only of the experiences narrated by ordinary people who lived with him and saw him firsthand. These people had nothing to gain and no reason to fabricate stories.

The first people who shared this information with me were a few elderly women who had lived during the lifetime of this saint. They did not know who he was. They had no idea where he had come from. This saint wandered completely naked through the coastal villages of South India.

He hardly spoke to anyone, so there was no question of giving spiritual discourses. Nor did he ever beg anyone for food. Sometimes people saw him eating food that had been thrown into garbage bins. Consequently, almost everyone assumed that he was insane.

Children in the streets mocked him. They even threw stones at him. But the saint never reacted. Sometimes, simply to avoid those mischievous children, he would climb tall trees and sit there.

After wandering from village to village in this manner for many years, he finally settled in a dilapidated temple deep inside a forest near what is today the great city of Mumbai. The local tribal people looked after him and even built a small hut for him.

He spent most of his time sitting in meditation inside that hut, as though completely unaware of the outside world. Only on very rare occasions would he speak to anyone.

But gradually people began to feel drawn toward him. His reputation slowly spread. People began calling him Bhagavan, a divine being. Thus was born Bhagavan Nityananda of Ganeshpuri.

At that time, a young Brahmin boy named Krishna had run away from his village and arrived there. He had fled to escape a false accusation that he had stolen the ornaments of the deity from the village landlord's temple.

He found refuge in Bhagavan Nityananda's ashram.

However, Krishna had absolutely no respect for Nityananda. In fact, when Nityananda had once wandered naked through his village years earlier, Krishna himself may well have been one of the mischievous boys who threw stones at him. But now he was helpless. He had nowhere else to go. He simply needed a safe place to hide from the people who were searching for him.

Many decades later, I met this very Krishna. By then, he was much older than I was. Krishna had become a temple priest - Krishna Acharya. He narrated many fascinating incidents from Nityananda's life.

As a boy, Krishna had believed that Nityananda was nothing more than a madman. He laughed whenever he heard the tribal people refer to him as Bhagavan. But out of curiosity, he began observing every action of this "madman."

According to Krishna Acharya, Nityananda remained in a state resembling deep samadhi almost all the time. He spoke only on very rare occasions.

Curiously, the only times he appeared to behave like a madman were when gamblers came seeking advice about their bets. He would shout at them, abuse them, and throw whatever objects happened to be nearby in an attempt to chase them away. Yet nobody took this seriously. They interpreted every word he uttered and every finger he raised as hints about winning numbers.

What did this "madman's" daily routine look like?

Even a madman has to eat. He too must answer nature's calls. Was Nityananda any different?

Krishna observed these things very carefully.

According to Krishna, Nityananda would wake up early in the morning and step outside his hut. After attending to nature's calls, he would stand in the nearby pond with water reaching up to his neck. He did not even seem interested in scrubbing or cleaning his body properly.

One particular thing deeply impressed Krishna. Whether Nityananda was waking up, walking, bathing in the pond, returning to his hut, or doing anything else, he performed every action like a sleepwalker—with no personal involvement whatsoever, in complete peace, and with mechanical precision. It was as though his body was functioning automatically, while his consciousness remained established somewhere else altogether.

When villagers placed food before him, sometimes he simply ate whatever happened to be in front of him. He even ate fruits without peeling them. He seemed utterly unconcerned about taste, likes and dislikes, or social etiquette. It appeared as though there was no personal ego left in him that could say "I," like something, or dislike something.

All this left Krishna completely confused.

"Is this man really insane?"

He found himself asking that question again and again.

Years passed.

By now Krishna had settled into life there. He earned a living by sitting beside the roadside with pictures of Hindu deities. Villagers paid him to perform special rituals for them. That was how he made his living.

Then one day, Krishna happened to witness a crime committed by a local rowdy.

Eventually, the police arrested the criminal, and Krishna was summoned to court as a witness.

Now Krishna found himself in great difficulty.

If he appeared in court, the criminal's associates might kill him.

If he refused to appear, the police would drag him there by force.

He had no idea what to do.

Finally, with tears in his eyes, he explained his predicament to Nityananda. Krishna himself had once been a fugitive. He had no family or friends there. Nor did he expect Nityananda, who seemed permanently absorbed in samadhi, to come to his rescue.

But to Krishna's amazement, Nityananda did help.

After opening his eyes briefly, he uttered a few words, almost as though he were speaking in his sleep.

"Hey, fool! Go back to your village. Nobody can harm you. Your people have been searching for you. They will be here very soon."

Hearing this only made Krishna more anxious.

He had believed that no one could ever find him in this forest so far away from his village. But if this "madman" was speaking the truth, not only had they found him, they were actually coming to take him home!

Perhaps Krishna did not sleep at all that night.

The next day, exactly as Nityananda had predicted, a man from Krishna's village arrived searching for him.

He brought wonderful news.

The villagers had now discovered that Krishna was innocent.

There was even more good news.

They wanted Krishna himself to become the priest of their newly renovated temple!

Krishna offered his heartfelt gratitude to Nityananda.

Falling at his feet, he begged forgiveness for having misunderstood him.

Many years later, when I met this same Krishna serving as the priest of that village temple, he described his experiences with Nityananda. Tears flowed from his eyes as he spoke.

He had been completely transformed.

He had developed immense reverence for Nityananda.

More importantly, he had resolved to live, just as his Guru had lived—with honesty, selflessness, and complete detachment.

Throughout his life, Krishna Acharya led an exceptionally honest and simple life.

He also helped many poor boys who, like him, had run away from home and survived by doing odd jobs.

Today, if you search on YouTube, you will find countless videos describing Bhagavan Nityananda's miracles and supernatural powers.

But that is not the real miracle.

The real miracle is the way such great souls transform the lives of those who come into contact with them.

Without speaking…

Without preaching…

Without performing any magic.

Isn't all this enough to suggest that the state in which he lived was not merely some psychological condition, or simply the "temporal lobe epilepsy" proposed by the famous American neuroscientist V. S. Ramachandran?

Perhaps we should keep our minds open enough to search for better explanations.

Who according

[Preview books]  [Borrow books]  [Pause]     In the last few episodes, we discussed consciousness. We spoke about the four states of consciousness: the waking state, the dream state, the deep sleep state, and the indescribable state of Turiya. All living beings experience one of these four states of consciousness at different times.

Our discussion was based on the Mandukya Upanishad, one of the ancient Upanishads of India.

At the end of the previous episode, I hinted that many Advaita philosophers of India hold a different view regarding these states of consciousness. In this episode, I will briefly discuss the alternative viewpoint presented by Gaudapada in his famous Mandukya Karika—that is, his exposition on the Mandukya Upanishad.

Who was Gaudapada?

Gaudapada was the original philosopher of the Advaita tradition. He belonged to the 6th century CE. He was the paramaguru (teacher's teacher) of the famous Advaita philosopher Shankara.

What did Gaudapada say?  According to Gaudapada, the first three states of consciousness described in the Mandukya Upanishad are merely appearances and are not real. The only true state is Turiya, and it is that alone which appears as the other three states.

To explain how the one state of consciousness appears as the other three states, Gaudapada gives various analogies.

The Dream Analogy:

When a person dreams, he sees many people, many places and many events. But in reality, all of them are the creation of a single mind—that is, the mind of the dreamer. Likewise, Gaudapada says that the one universal consciousness creates the illusion of the existence of many living beings, each of whom appears to be in a particular state of consciousness.

These living beings have no independent existence. They are like the appearances seen in a dream. Outside the dream, all the dream objects disappear, because they never really existed. They merely appeared to exist. Likewise, the diversity that appears to exist in reality.

To explain how this multiplicity appears even though there is only one consciousness, Gaudapada gives another analogy.

The Pot Analogy:

Suppose you have many pots. Inside each pot there is some space (empty space). This space has a definite shape and characteristics. There is also space outside the pots. Does that mean there are many different spaces—the space inside the pot and the space outside the pot?

No, In reality, there is only one space. It is the pot that brings about this multiplicity. The pot makes the one space appear as different spaces. It creates the illusion of dividing the one unified space into many parts. Likewise, different physical forms create the illusion that there are different consciousnesses. But in reality, there is only one universal consciousness.

Gaudapada then gives a third analogy.

The Analogy of the Burning Torch:

When you hold a burning torch in a place where there is no wind, its flame burns steadily by itself. But when the wind blows, the flame moves. And this movement makes the flame assume different shapes. After some time, it appears as though the flame itself has many forms. If the torch is rotated in a circle, it appears like a wheel of fire.

None of these shapes were present in the flame. Nor will they ever be. When there is a flow of air or movement, these shapes merely appear to exist. The moment this movement stops, the appearance of these shapes also comes to an end.

Likewise, Gaudapada says that because of the vibrations arising in the universal consciousness, many objects in the world merely appear to exist. They are not created by consciousness. But because of the vibrations in the universal consciousness, they merely appear to exist.

And it is this universal consciousness that the Upanishad calls Turiya. The remaining three—the waking state, the dream state and the deep sleep state—are merely appearances of that consciousness.

Each of these analogies is extremely profound. Gaudapada has written at great length about each one of these concepts. Although these analogies are very consistent, they raise many questions. They give rise to several paradoxes. I have discussed them in my book "Unraveling the Hidden Mysteries of The Vedas Part 2: Amazing Upanishads", In that book, you will find more details, as well as my own resolution to these paradoxes and answers to these questions.

Now, coming back to Gaudapada's theory of the unified consciousness, two things become clear from Gaudapada's explanation:

• This world is merely an appearance arising from the vibrations in the universal consciousness.

• And when these vibrations stop, the appearance of this world also comes to an end.

To realize this universal consciousness, Gaudapada recommends the path of meditation.

Finally, I conclude this discussion with these words of Gaudapada—

"Yadā na līyate cittaṁ, na ca vikṣipyate punaḥ,
Aniṅganam anābhāsaṁ niṣpannaṁ brahma tattadā."

— Mandukya Karika: Advaita Prakarana, Verse 46.

He says that when an individual's mind—

• does not sink into deep sleep, and

• is not scattered in the waking and dream states, and

• remains steady like the flame of a lamp placed in a calm, windless place, and

• ceases to acquire false identities,

that person's mind identifies itself with that universal consciousness.

Join me again in the next episode with another interesting topic.

Please let me know your thoughts on these profound ideas about consciousness proposed by the ancient philosophers of India.  -------------------------------------------------------------------- If this  resonated with you, I invite you to join my weekly readership. I publish a new deep-dive every Saturday, moving beyond the surface to look at the questions that truly matter. No paywalls, no "bait"—just a direct share from my mind to yours. Click to subscribe.   Haga clic para españolKlicken Sie hier für die deutsche Versionहिंदी के लिए क्लिक करेंతెలుగు కోసం క్లిక్ చేయండిಕನ್ನಡಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಕ್ಲಿಕ್ ಮಾಡಿ 
  © Dr. King, Swami Satyapriya 2026 You can borrow audio books directly from the author at https://tinyurl.com/mylibrary1234 at highly affordable prices.

[Preview books]  [Borrow books]  [Pause]   In the previous episode, we discussed the three states of consciousness described by our ancient Indian philosophers. We based our discussion on one of the Upanishads—the Mandukya Upanishad.

This Upanishad speaks about the three states of consciousness: the waking state, the dream state, and the deep sleep state. These are the three states that we observe every day in all living beings. It then goes on to speak about a fourth state called Turiya.

What is this state of Turiya?  Whenever you introduce a new concept, it is natural to compare it with other things that are already familiar, or to distinguish it from them. This Upanishad does exactly that at the outset.

The Upanishad says that the state of Turiya is not like the waking state. In the waking state, our consciousness engages with the external world. But in the state of Turiya, there is no such external engagement.

The Upanishad also says that this consciousness does not create any dreams. This means that it is different from the dream state as well.

Could this Turiya be a state that is half dream and half wakefulness? The Upanishad rejects that possibility too.

In that case, the only remaining alternative would seem to be that Turiya is a completely dormant state of consciousness like deep sleep. That is what we observe in deep sleep. But the Upanishad rejects that possibility as well.

At the same time, the Upanishad says that Turiya is neither a state of blank unconsciousness nor a state of awareness of any particular object.

The Upanishad summarizes all these observations in the following words:

"Na antaḥ-prajñam, na bahiḥ-prajñam, na ubhayataḥ-prajñam, na prajñānaghanam, na prajñam, na aprajñam."

Then what exactly is Turiya?

To describe something by saying "it is like this," it must be something that can be perceived by the senses. But the Upanishad says that Turiya is not an object that can be perceived by the senses.

Sometimes, something can be described by explaining what it can be used for. But according to the Upanishad, Turiya is not something that can be used to perform any function.

It also says that it has no characteristics of its own. Therefore, we cannot even think about it. Then can it at least be communicated through words? According to the Upanishad, that too is impossible, because Turiya is beyond words.

This is how the Upanishad expresses it:

"Adṛśyam, avyavahāryam, agrāhyam, alakṣaṇam, acintyam, avyapadeśyam."

If you observe carefully, you will notice that instead of telling us what the state of Turiya is, the Upanishad tells us what it is not. In philosophy, this is known as defining something through negation.

When something cannot be defined within a direct conceptual framework, it is often defined by saying, "It is not this." This excludes everything that is not the state of Turiya. After excluding everything else, what finally remains is Turiya. Even so, we cannot point to it and say, "This is it."

The Upanishads speak about this limitation of human-language on many occasions. Our language can describe only something that possesses characteristics, or something that can be compared with another thing that we already know, or something that can be explained based on its use.

For example, we can describe a cow as an animal with four legs, two horns, and a loose fold of skin hanging below its neck. But Turiya possesses none of the characteristics familiar to our worldly experience. Therefore, we have no way of describing it using adjectives.

Turiya is unique in its own way. There is nothing else that is comparable to it. Therefore, we cannot compare it with any other concept or phenomenon and say, "It is like that."

A spoon can be described as an instrument used for eating. But Turiya has no worldly use whatsoever. Therefore, you cannot describe it as being like some kind of tool.

Then how can we be certain that such a state really exists?

The Upanishad says that it is the state experienced in deep meditation. That experience itself is the proof of its existence.

Is there any benefit in experiencing such a state of consciousness?

The Upanishad says, "Yes." It says that by experiencing that state, you become free from all worldly suffering. It is the remedy for all the misery that arises from your involvement with this world. It is the most peaceful state. It is the most auspicious state. Instead of seeing a fragmented world centered only around yourself, it enables you to perceive a single, unified reality.

Above all, the Upanishad declares that this is your true nature. Therefore, it says that you must realize it.

This is what the Upanishad says about the Turiya state of consciousness, and why we should realize it:

"Ekātma-pratyaya-sāram, prapañcopaśamam, śāntam, śivam, advaitam, caturtham, sa ātmā, sa vijñeyaḥ."

While saying all this, I should mention one thing. In explaining these verses of the Upanishad, I have been careful not to do anything that would compromise the integrity of the original text. I have not imposed my own philosophical viewpoint upon it.

Those who strictly follow the Advaita philosophy may feel that my explanation does not fully agree with the well-known interpretation of Advaita philosophers such as Shankaracharya.

Advaitins hold a somewhat different perspective. They do not regard Turiya as merely the fourth state of consciousness. We shall discuss exactly how they understand this state of consciousness in the next episode.  -------------------------------------------------------------------- If this  resonated with you, I invite you to join my weekly readership. I publish a new deep-dive every Saturday, moving beyond the surface to look at the questions that truly matter. No paywalls, no "bait"—just a direct share from my mind to yours. Click to subscribe.   Haga clic para españolKlicken Sie hier für die deutsche Versionहिंदी के लिए क्लिक करेंతెలుగు కోసం క్లిక్ చేయండిಕನ್ನಡಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಕ್ಲಿಕ್ ಮಾಡಿ 
  © Dr. King, Swami Satyapriya 2026 You can borrow audio books directly from the author at https://tinyurl.com/mylibrary1234 at highly affordable prices.

[Preview books]  [Borrow books]  [Pause]   In the previous episode, we were discussing how the ancient Indians viewed the concept of consciousness. As a specific example, I had chosen one of the Upanishads, the 'Mandukya Upanishad'. The Mandukya Upanishad is a part of the Atharva Veda.

This short Upanishad explains how the Ultimate Reality manifests through the four states of consciousness. It calls that Ultimate Reality 'Omkara'. It identifies the four states of consciousness as the waking state, the dream state, deep sleep, and Turiya.

These states exist among the countless forms assumed by that Omkara. As we discussed earlier, this is certainly possible because Omkara transcends space and time. The various forms of Omkara are the living beings spread throughout the universe. Since those forms are subject to the laws of space and time, they can exist in only one state at a time.

In this episode, let us understand the first three of these four states.  The very first state is the waking state, or what is called the 'Jaagrata' state of consciousness. While in this state, the living being interacts with the external world outside its body.

It uses its five sense organs, such as the eyes and ears, to gather information from the world outside its body. It then processes that information using its mind, intellect, ego, and other mental faculties.

After the information has been processed, the body uses its five organs of action, such as the hands and legs, to interact with those external objects. The five vital energies, such as Prana, support the body and the mind during this process.

Fundamentally, the waking state is the state of consciousness that deals with the gross objects existing outside the body.

The Upanishad describes it as follows.

How does neuroscience look at this?

In the terminology of neuroscience, this is called access consciousness. Neuroscientists know quite a lot about how the body and the brain handle this form of consciousness.

The brain contains various specialized regions that process the information arriving from the external sense organs. Once the information has been processed, the brain decides what action should be taken based on the incoming information, the current state of the brain, and the evaluation made by its various decision-making centers. It ultimately activates the motor regions of the brain as required, to engage the external organs of action in appropriate activities.

The Upanishad speaks about the second form of consciousness, known as the 'Svapna' or dream state. It is very similar to the waking state, except that the entire drama takes place within the mind.

Instead of external gross objects, there are subtle objects created by the mind itself. Instead of the gross sense organs, there are subtle internal senses created by the mind. These internal senses operate upon the objects created by the mind and produce results that are themselves created by the mind.

Just as a person in the waking state experiences external objects using the body's organs and mental faculties, the person created within the dream also experiences the objects created within that dream. There is a close similarity between the external world and the internal world created in dreams.

The Upanishad describes it as follows.

Neuroscience also views it in much the same way, except that instead of using the abstract terminology of the Upanishad, it refers to specific regions of the brain.

According to neuroscience, the dream world is created entirely by the brain as a result of random interactions among the various memories already stored within it.

Except for the fact that the objects are created by the mind, everything else remains largely the same as in the waking state. The same processing regions of the brain continue to function, but the physical sense organs and organs of action are not activated.

The third state of consciousness spoken of by the Upanishad is 'Sushupti', or deep sleep. According to the Upanishad, in this state of consciousness it neither responds to the external world nor experiences dreams.

Since no information comes either from external objects or from objects created by the mind, there is no processing of such information either. The Upanishad says that because consciousness is completely disconnected from both the external and internal worlds, there are no desires in this state.

The Upanishad says that consciousness appears to remain dormant. That does not mean it is a state of nothingness. The previously acquired knowledge is still there. However, that knowledge remains in a frozen state.

The Upanishad speaks of another wonder. It says that this state of consciousness is blissful. However, this bliss does not arise from any sensory pleasure. Rather, it exists because the mental disturbances that are present in the other two states of consciousness are absent in this state. It is bliss that arises because there are no obstacles to bliss.

The Upanishad also calls this state of consciousness the gateway between the other two states of consciousness. It is from this state that a person enters either the waking state or the dream state.

Overall, the Upanishad describes this state as follows.

Neuroscience also speaks about the state of deep sleep, in which a person neither responds to external events nor experiences dreams. Furthermore, while sleeping, a person periodically transitions from this state either to the waking state or to the dream state.

The Upanishads speak about these three states of consciousness as matters of fact. Although their descriptions do not go into great depth, they do not come into conflict with the explanations provided by neuroscience.

Neuroscience remains silent about who the ultimate experiencer of all these processes is. Or, at least, it does not take any definite position on the matter.

The Upanishad, on the other hand, firmly believes that there is a power behind all these activities, and that this power is the experiencer of their results. It says that this power uses the body as an instrument. As the Indian Sankhya philosophers point out, if there were no experiencer, all these processes would be meaningless.

In the previous episodes, we also discussed the views of cognitive philosophers such as David Chalmers regarding consciousness.

People like Chalmers focus primarily on the first state of consciousness. Although they avoid speaking about any underlying power behind all this, they acknowledge that consciousness possesses a subjective aspect. They argue that this subjective aspect cannot be explained merely in terms of the functioning of the brain.

In a way, whether they like it or not, they acknowledge that there is something underlying consciousness that transcends the sense organs and the organs of action, something that goes beyond the brain and its mechanisms.

However, the fourth state of consciousness spoken of by the Upanishad would astonish both neuroscientists and cognitive philosophers. It would make them reconsider their respective positions.

Let us discuss that state in the next episode.  -------------------------------------------------------------------- If this  resonated with you, I invite you to join my weekly readership. I publish a new deep-dive every Saturday, moving beyond the surface to look at the questions that truly matter. No paywalls, no "bait"—just a direct share from my mind to yours. Click to subscribe.   Haga clic para españolKlicken Sie hier für die deutsche Versionहिंदी के लिए क्लिक करेंతెలుగు కోసం క్లిక్ చేయండిಕನ್ನಡಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಕ್ಲಿಕ್ ಮಾಡಿ 
  © Dr. King, Swami Satyapriya 2026 You can borrow audio books directly from the author at https://tinyurl.com/mylibrary1234 at highly affordable prices.

[Preview books]  [Borrow books]  [Pause]     In our previous episodes, we discussed how modern neuroscientists explain consciousness. They tie consciousness directly to our brain and its mechanics. In their view, consciousness is merely "the brain in action"—a unique phenomenon born out of the brain's functioning.

On the flip side, we also discussed how cognitive philosophers like David Chalmers disagree with this argument. According to thinkers like Chalmers, consciousness is a completely subjective phenomenon. They argue that it can never be confined to the mechanics of physical elements like neurons in the brain. In their view, consciousness is not physical; it is an independent force that exists on its own. The brain is merely a tool that expresses it.

Then, there are those who call themselves "panpsychists." They detect consciousness in physical matter itself, right down to atoms and subatomic particles. Their argument is that the consciousness of these microscopic particles combines to emerge as human consciousness!

Come, let's turn back the wheel of time by thousands of years. I want to lay before you some completely different perspectives on consciousness.  These are thoughts held by the ancient philosophers of India thousands of years ago; specifically, the perspectives of the sages of the Upanishads. These seers did not possess the modern vocabulary of today's Western philosophers, nor did they have the cutting-edge equipment used by today's neuroscientists.

Yet, I am deeply amazed by the clarity they possessed in such an ancient era. I respect their thoughts not just because I completely agree with them, but because their philosophy possesses an immense capacity to bind everything—the conscious and the unconscious, the living and the non-living—into a single unified thread.

For today's discussion, I am drawing from one of the most ancient philosophical texts: the Mandukya Upanishad. This is an Upanishad that forms a part of the Atharva-Veda. Though it is incredibly brief in size, scholars like the Advaita philosopher Shankaracharya have considered it to be the most vital one. This Upanishad primarily addresses the very thing driving our curiosity right now: "consciousness."

This Upanishad begins with a reference to the sound of "Om." In ancient Indian philosophy, especially in the Upanishads, this Omkaara is used as a symbol of the ultimate reality. This ultimate reality is the final destination of all spiritual quests.

Unlike conventional religious texts, the Upanishads do not call this as "God." They never talk about worshipping this ultimate reality or surrendering to it. Instead, they repeatedly emphasize the need to experience this ultimate reality. And the path to achieving that experience is meditation.

With this brief introduction, I would like to step inside the Upanishad.

In the first two verses , the Upanishad introduces us to the following characteristics of Omkaara:

- Omkaara is indestructible.

- Omkaara is all-encompassing.

- Omkaara transcends time—it exists beyond the past, the present, and > the future.

- Omkaara exists even beyond everything that falls within the concept of > time.

- Omkaara is the inner essence of all living beings.

In a way, these two verses capture the essence of the entire Upanishadic philosophy. Now, let's look at the implications of these assertions.

The Upanishads are very clear about the eternality of existence. They speak of cycles of contraction and expansion of existence, but never of absolute destruction.

The Upanishads do not differentiate between the "creator" and the "creation." To tell you the truth, creation does not exist as a separate entity there. That is why they say the ultimate reality is everything. It is not just the sum of individual objects, nor did someone create them. Instead, it is everything.

In the subsequent lines, it is said that Omkaara is timeless. It was there yesterday, it is here today, and it will be there tomorrow. The Upanishad does not stop there; it states that it transcends the very concept of time. Is there a difference between saying something exists in the past, present, and future, versus saying it is timeless?

There absolutely is. Let me explain why.

The Vedas speak of a state where time itself does not exist. One of the famous Vedic hymns, the Nasadiya Sookta, states that before time was born, "That" existed.

In this world that we see with our own eyes, we perceive every object to be different from one another. No two things are exactly alike. But what this verse is saying is that even though forms appear different, they are all one. They are all Omkaara.

How is it possible for different things to be the exact same thing?

In our world bound by space-time, no two objects can occupy the same place at the same time. Similarly, the same object cannot be in more than one place at the same time.

But Omkaara transcends these limitations of space-time. It can exist in more than one place and in more than one form simultaneously. All those existences belong to the same ultimate reality. There is no multiplicity there. This difference appears to us only when we look at this world through our eyes, which are limited by space and time.

Now, the Upanishad makes a deeply thrilling proclamation.

It says, "Everything is Omkaara. Each one of us is Omkaara. This Omkaara can exist in 4 states." It calls these states Vaishvanara, Taijasa, Prajna, and Turiya. In each of these states, the forms of Omkaara can exist in multiple places at once.

These forms can coexist simultaneously because the foundational energy that assumed these forms exists beyond time.

Broadly speaking, we can call these states "different dimensions of consciousness." However, this concept is vastly different from the first three arguments we discussed at the beginning. At best, those modern arguments might only parallel the first three states of this grand consciousness.

We will talk about these different states of consciousness in much greater detail in our next episode.  -------------------------------------------------------------------- If this  resonated with you, I invite you to join my weekly readership. I publish a new deep-dive every Saturday, moving beyond the surface to look at the questions that truly matter. No paywalls, no "bait"—just a direct share from my mind to yours. Click to subscribe.   Haga clic para españolKlicken Sie hier für die deutsche Versionहिंदी के लिए क्लिक करेंతెలుగు కోసం క్లిక్ చేయండిಕನ್ನಡಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಕ್ಲಿಕ್ ಮಾಡಿ 



  © Dr. King, Swami Satyapriya 2026 You can borrow audio books directly from the author at https://tinyurl.com/mylibrary1234 at highly affordable prices.

[Preview books]  [Borrow books]  [Pause]    Goldman-Sachs ನಂತಹ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆಗಳು ಅಂದಾಜಿಸಿರುವ ಪ್ರಕಾರ, AI ಜಾಗತಿಕವಾಗಿ ಸುಮಾರು 300 ಮಿಲಿಯನ್ ಪೂರ್ಣಾವಧಿ ಉದ್ಯೋಗಗಳನ್ನು ಆಟೊಮೇಟ್ ಮಾಡಬಹುದು. ಪ್ರಸ್ತುತ ಅಮೇರಿಕಾ ಮತ್ತು ಯುರೋಪ್ನಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಸುಮಾರು ಮೂರನೇ ಎರಡರಷ್ಟು ಉದ್ಯೋಗಗಳು ಒಂದಲ್ಲ ಒಂದು ಮಟ್ಟಿಗೆ AI ಆಟೊಮೇಷನ್ಗೆ ಒಳಪಡುವ ಸಾಧ್ಯತೆ ಇದೆ ಎಂದು ಅವು ಉಲ್ಲೇಖಿಸಿವೆ.

ಇಂಟರ್ನ್ಯಾಷನಲ್ ಲೇಬರ್ ಆರ್ಗನೈಸೇಶನ್ (ILO) ಸ್ವಲ್ಪ ಸಂಪ್ರದಾಯಬದ್ಧ ದೃಷ್ಟಿಕೋನವನ್ನು ಹೊಂದಿದ್ದು, ಜಾಗತಿಕ ಉದ್ಯೋಗದ ಸರಿಸುಮಾರು ಶೇಕಡಾ 2.3 ರಷ್ಟು (ಅಂದರೆ ಸುಮಾರು 75 ಮಿಲಿಯನ್ ಉದ್ಯೋಗಗಳು) ಸಂಪೂರ್ಣ ಆಟೊಮೇಷನ್ನ ಅಪಾಯದಲ್ಲಿದೆ ಎಂದು ಅಂದಾಜಿಸಿದೆ.

ಅದೇ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ, ಕಾರ್ಮಿಕ ಸಂಶೋಧಕರು ಗಮನಿಸಿರುವಂತೆ, ಭಾರಿ ಪ್ರಮಾಣದ ದಿಢೀರ್ ಲೇ-ಆಫ್ಗಳು ಆಗವು. ಬದಲಾಗಿ ಎಂಟ್ರಿ-ಲೆವೆಲ್ ವೈಟ್-ಕಾಲರ್ ಮತ್ತು ಕೇವಲ ದೈಹಿಕ ಶ್ರಮ ಬೇಡುವ "grunt work" ಕೆಲಸಗಾರರ ನೇಮಕಾತಿಗಳು ನಿಧಾನವಾಗಬಹುದು.

ಆದರೂ ಕೆಲವು ದೂಮ್ಸ್ಡೇ ಪ್ರವಾದಿಗಳು ಈಗಾಗಲೇ AI ಅಂತಿಮವಾಗಿ ಮಾನವೀಯತೆಯನ್ನೇ ಹೇಗೆ ಮೆಟ್ಟಿ ನಿಲ್ಲುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದು ಭವಿಷ್ಯ ನುಡಿಯಲು ಪ್ರಾರಂಭಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆ!

AI ಎಂದಾದರೂ ಮಾನವರನ್ನು ಮೀರಿಸಬಲ್ಲದೇ?  ಖಂಡಿತವಾಗಿಯೂ ಕೆಲವು ನಿರ್ದಿಷ್ಟ ಪಾತ್ರಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಹೌದು.

AI ಗಳನ್ನು ಯಾವುದೇ ಮಾನವನು ಏಕಾಂಗಿಯಾಗಿ ಎಂದಿಗೂ ಕರಗತ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಳ್ಳಲು ಸಾಧ್ಯವಾಗದಂತಹ ಬೃಹತ್ ಜ್ಞಾನ ಭಂಡಾರದ ಮೇಲೆ ಟ್ರೇನ್ ಮಾಡಲಾಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ. ಭಾರಿ ಪ್ರಮಾಣದ ಡೇಟಾವನ್ನು ಇಂಜೆಸ್ಟ್ ಮಾಡುವ, ಪ್ರೊಸೆಸ್ ಮಾಡುವ, ಮತ್ತು ಮಾನವರಿಗೆ ಯೋಚಿಸಲೂ ಸಾಧ್ಯವಾಗದ ವೇಗದಲ್ಲಿ ಫಲಿತಾಂಶಗಳನ್ನು ನೀಡುವ ದಣಿವರಿಯದ ಸಾಮರ್ಥ್ಯ ಅವುಗಳಿಗಿದೆ.

ಆದರೆ ಅದು ಅವುಗಳನ್ನು ಮಾನವರಿಗೆ ಸಮಾನವಾಗಿಸುತ್ತದೆಯೇ, ಅಥವಾ ಅವರಿಗಿಂತ ಶ್ರೇಷ್ಠವಾಗಿಸುತ್ತದೆಯೇ?

ನನಗೇನೋ ಹಾಗನಿಸುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಕನಿಷ್ಠ ಪಕ್ಷ ಅವುಗಳ ಪ್ರಸ್ತುತ ರೂಪದಲ್ಲಂತೂ ಇಲ್ಲ. ತಮ್ಮ ಇಂದಿನ ರೂಪದಲ್ಲಿ ಅವು ಅತ್ಯಂತ ಯಾಂತ್ರಿಕವಾಗಿವೆ. ಅವು ಮಾನವರಿಗೆ ಅತ್ಯಂತ ಬೇಸರತರುವ ಅಥವಾ ದಣಿವುಉಂಟುಮಾಡುವ ಕೆಲಸಗಳನ್ನು ಬೃಹತ್ ಕಂಪ್ಯೂಟಿಂಗ್ ಶಕ್ತಿಯನ್ನು ಬಳಸಿ ಯಾವುದೇ ಪ್ರಜ್ಞಾಪೂರ್ವಕ ಗುರಿಯಿಲ್ಲದೆ, ಮಾಡುತ್ತವೆ.

ಇಂದಿನ AI, ಪ್ಯಾಟರ್ನ್ಗಳ ಆಧಾರದ ಮೇಲೆ ಸರಿಯಾದ ಉತ್ತರವನ್ನು ಊಹಿಸುವಲ್ಲಿ ಉತ್ತಮ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡಬಲ್ಲದು. ಆದರೆ ನಾನು ಹಿಂದಿನ ಎಪಿಸೋಡ್ಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಚರ್ಚಿಸಿದಂತೆ, ಅವು ತಾವು ಏನನ್ನು ಇನ್ಫರ್ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿವೆಯೋ ಅದನ್ನು 'ಅರ್ಥಮಾಡಿಕೊಳ್ಳುವ' ಸಾಮರ್ಥ್ಯವನ್ನು ಹೊಂದಿಲ್ಲ, ಅಥವಾ ತಾವು ಮಾಡುವ ಯಾವುದೇ ಕೆಲಸಕ್ಕೆ ಅವುಗಳಿಗೆ ಯಾವುದೇ 'ಮೋಟಿವೇಶನ್' ಕೂಡ ಇರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಅವುಗಳಿಗೆ ಮಾನವರನ್ನು ಮೀರಿಸುವ ಯಾವುದೇ ಉದ್ದೇಶವಿಲ್ಲ. ಅಥವಾ ಪ್ರಸ್ತುತ ಅವುಗಳು ಅದಕ್ಕೆ ಸಜ್ಜಾಗಿಯೂ ಇಲ್ಲ.

ಅವುಗಳ ಜ್ಞಾನ ಎಷ್ಟೇ ಬೃಹತ್ ಆಗಿದ್ದರೂ, ಅದು ಡಾಕ್ಯುಮೆಂಟ್ ರೂಪದಲ್ಲಿ ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕವಾಗಿ ಲಭ್ಯವಿರುವುದಕ್ಕೆ ಮಾತ್ರ ಸೀಮಿತವಾಗಿದೆ. ಇದು ಮಾನವರು ಲಕ್ಷಾಂತರ ವರ್ಷಗಳಲ್ಲಿ, ಅಸಂಖ್ಯಾತ ಭಾಷೆಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಮತ್ತು ವಿಭಿನ್ನ ಜೀವನ ಪರಿಸ್ಥಿತಿಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಒಟ್ಟುಗೂಡಿಸಿರುವುದರ ಒಂದು ಸಣ್ಣ ಭಾಗವಷ್ಟೇ. ಈ ವಿಷಯದಲ್ಲಿ AIಗಳು ಎಂದಿಗೂ ಮಾನವರಿಗೆ ಸಮನಾಗಲು ಸಾಧ್ಯವಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳುವುದು ತಪ್ಪಾಗಲಾರದು.

ಆದ್ದರಿಂದ, AI ಸ್ವತಂತ್ರವಾಗಿ ಮಾನವರನ್ನು ತನ್ನ ನಿಯಂತ್ರಣಕ್ಕೆ ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಳ್ಳುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂಬ ವೈಜ್ಞಾನಿಕ ಕಾದಂಬರಿಗಳಂತಹ ಭಯವು ಕೇವಲ ಒಂದು ಕಾಲ್ಪನಿಕ ಭಯವಷ್ಟೇ.

ಆದರೆ ಹೌದು, ನಾನು ಮೊದಲೇ ಪಟ್ಟಿ ಮಾಡಿದಂತೆ ಸೀಮಿತ ಮಟ್ಟದಲ್ಲಿ ಅಪಾಯಗಳಂತೂ ಇವೆ.

ಕಸ್ಟಮರ್ ಸರ್ವಿಸ್ ರೆಪ್ಸ್, ಡೇಟಾ ಎಂಟ್ರಿ ಕ್ಲರ್ಕ್ಗಳು, ಮೆಡಿಕಲ್ ಟ್ರಾನ್ಸ್ಸ್ಕ್ರಿಪ್ಷನಿಸ್ಟ್ಗಳು, ಜೂನಿಯರ್ ಸಾಫ್ಟ್ವೇರ್ ಡೆವಲಪರ್ಗಳು, ಅಡ್ಮಿನಿಸ್ಟ್ರೇಟಿವ್ ಅಸಿಸ್ಟೆಂಟ್ಗಳು ಮತ್ತು ಬುಕ್ಕೀಪರ್ಗಳು ಇತರರಿಗಿಂತ ಹೆಚ್ಚಾಗಿ ಈ ಅಪಾಯಗಳಿಗೆ ತುತ್ತಾಗುತ್ತಾರೆ.

ಇದರಿಂದ ತೊಂದರೆಗೊಳಗಾಗುವ ಮತ್ತೊಂದು ದೊಡ್ಡ ಸಮುದಾಯವೆಂದರೆ ಅನುವಾದಕರು (translators) ಮತ್ತು ಧ್ವನಿ ಕಲಾವಿದರು (voice actors). ಏಕೆಂದರೆ ಪ್ರಸ್ತುತ AIಗಳು ಟೆಕ್ಸ್ಟ್-ಟು-ಟೆಕ್ಸ್ಟ್ ಮ್ಯಾನಿಪ್ಯುಲೇಷನ್ನಲ್ಲಿ ಅತ್ಯಂತ ಪ್ರವೀಣವಾಗಿವೆ. ಹಾಗಾಗಿ ಪಬ್ಲಿಷರ್ಗಳು AI ಇಂಟಿಗ್ರೇಷನ್ ಗಾಗಿ ತೀವ್ರವಾಗಿ ಒತ್ತುಹಾಕುತ್ತಾರೆ.

ಸೊಸೈಟಿ ಆಫ್ ಆಥರ್ಸ್ ನಡೆಸಿದ ಸರ್ವೆಯ ಪ್ರಕಾರ, ಮೂರನೇ ಒಂದಕ್ಕಿಂತ ಹೆಚ್ಚು ಅನುವಾದಕರು ಈಗಾಗಲೇ ಜನರೇಟಿವ್ AI ಕಾರಣದಿಂದಾಗಿ ಕೆಲಸ ಕಳೆದುಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಅನೇಕ ಸಾಹಿತ್ಯ ಅನುವಾದಕರನ್ನು "Machine Translation Post-Editing" ಕಡೆಗೆ ತಿರುಗಲು ಕೇಳಲಾಗುತ್ತಿದೆ. ಇದು ಕ್ಲಂಕಿ ಆಗಿರುವ AI-ಅನುವಾದಿತ ಪಠ್ಯವನ್ನು ಸರಿಪಡಿಸುವುದನ್ನು ಒಳಗೊಂಡಿರುತ್ತದೆ. ಆದರೆ ಈ ಅನುವಾದಕರು ಮೊದಲು ಗಳಿಸುತ್ತಿದ್ದ ಪರ್-ವರ್ಡ್ ಅನುವಾದದ ದರದ ಅತ್ಯಲ್ಪ ಭಾಗಕ್ಕೆ .

ಅತ್ಯಂತ ನಂಬಲರ್ಹವಾದ, ಭಾವನಾತ್ಮಕವಾಗಿ ಅಭಿವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಗೊಳಿಸುವ ಟೆಕ್ಸ್ಟ್-ಟು-ಸ್ಪೀಚ್ ಮಾಡೆಲ್ಗಳ ಬೆಳವಣಿಗೆಯು ವಾಯ್ಸ್ಓವರ್ ಉದ್ಯಮವನ್ನು ತೀವ್ರವಾಗಿ ಅಸ್ತವ್ಯಸ್ತಗೊಳಿಸಿದೆ. AI ನ ಆವಿಷ್ಕಾರಕ್ಕೆ ಮುಂಚಿತವಾಗಿ, ಇದು ವೃತ್ತಿಪರ ಧ್ವನಿ ಕಲಾವಿದರಿಗೆ ಅತ್ಯಂತ ಲಾಭದಾಯಕ ಕ್ಷೇತ್ರವಾಗಿತ್ತು. ಈ ಧ್ವನಿ ಕಲಾವಿದರು ತಾವು ನಿರ್ಮಿಸುವ ಆಡಿಯೊದ ಪ್ರತಿ ಗಂಟೆಗೆ ನೂರಾರು ಡಾಲರ್ಗಳಷ್ಟು ಭಾರಿ ಮೊತ್ತವನ್ನು ವಿಧಿಸುತ್ತಿದ್ದರು. ಹೆಚ್ಚಿನ ಸಣ್ಣಲೇಖಕರಿಗೆ ಇವರನ್ನು ನೇಮಿಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳಲು ಎಂದಿಗೂ ಸಾಧ್ಯವಾಗುತ್ತಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ. ಅವರಲ್ಲಿ ಕೆಲವರು ತಮ್ಮ ಪುಸ್ತಕಗಳನ್ನು ತಾವೇ ನಿರೂಪಿಸುತ್ತಿದ್ದರು ಅಥವಾ ಅಸಹಾಯಕರಾಗಿ ನೋಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದರು.

ಈಗ, ಈ AI ಹಸ್ತಕ್ಷೇಪದಿಂದಾಗಿ ಧ್ವನಿ ಕಲಾವಿದರ ಸಮುದಾಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಭಾರಿ ಅಶಾಂತಿ ಉಂಟಾಗಿದೆ. ತಮ್ಮ ಅಸ್ತಿತ್ವಕ್ಕೇ ಧಕ್ಕೆ ಬಂದಿದೆ ಎಂದು ಅವರು ಭಾವಿಸುತ್ತಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ತಮ್ಮ ಫೋರಮ್ಗಳು ಮತ್ತು ಯೂನಿಯನ್ಗಳ ಬೆಂಬಲದೊಂದಿಗೆ, ಈ ಕ್ಷೇತ್ರಕ್ಕೆ AI ಪ್ರವೇಶವನ್ನು ತಡೆಯಲು ಅವರು ಪ್ರಯತ್ನಿಸುತ್ತಿರುವಂತೆ ತೋರುತ್ತಿದೆ.

ಒಬ್ಬ ಲೇಖಕನು ತನ್ನ ಪುಸ್ತಕವೊಂದನ್ನು ಇನ್ನೊಂದು ಭಾಷೆಗೆ ಅನುವಾದಿಸಿ, ನಿರೂಪಿಸಲು ತಿಂಗಳುಗಟ್ಟಲೆ ಕಷ್ಟಪಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದ ಕಾಲವೊಂದಿತ್ತು. ಅದೇ ಕೆಲಸವನ್ನು ಈಗ AI, ಕೇವಲ ಕೆಲವೇ ಗಂಟೆಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಮಾಡುತ್ತದೆ. ಅದೇ AI ಭಯಕ್ಕೆ ಕಾರಣವಾಗಿದೆ.

ಆದರೆ ಅಂತಹ ಧೋರಣೆಯು ಮಾರುಕಟ್ಟೆಯನ್ನು ಕುಂಠಿತಗೊಳಿಸುತ್ತದೆ ಅಷ್ಟೇ. ಇದನ್ನು ಸಮರ್ಥವಾಗಿ ನಿಭಾಯಿಸಿದರೆ, ಕಡಿಮೆ ವೆಚ್ಚದ ಪರ್ಯಾಯಗಳಿಗಾಗಿ ಕಾಯುತ್ತಿದ್ದ ಪುಸ್ತಕ ಪ್ರಕಾಶನ ಉದ್ಯಮದಲ್ಲಿ ಭಾರಿ ಪರಿವರ್ತನೆ ಉಂಟಾಗಬಹುದು.

ಒಮ್ಮೆ ಕಲ್ಪಿಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳಿ, ಒಂದು ಒಳ್ಳೆಯ ಪುಸ್ತಕ ಕೇವಲ ಒಂದೇ ಭಾಷೆಗೆ ಸೀಮಿತವಾಗುವ ಬದಲು, ವಿಭಿನ್ನ ಭಾಷೆಗಳನ್ನು ಮಾತನಾಡುವ ಲಕ್ಷಾಂತರ ಜನರನ್ನು ತಲುಪಲು ಸಾಧ್ಯವಾಗುತ್ತದೆ. ಅದು ಜ್ಞಾನ ಪ್ರಸರಣದಲ್ಲಿ ಒಂದು ಕ್ರಾಂತಿಯಾಗಲಿದೆ.

ಆಡಿಯೊಬುಕ್ ಗಳ ಜನಪ್ರಿಯತೆ ಹೆಚ್ಚುತ್ತಿರುವುದನ್ನು ಗಮನಿಸಿದರೆ, ಆಡಿಯೊಬುಕ್ ಪ್ರೊಡಕ್ಷನ್ ಪೈಪ್ಲೈನ್ಗೆ AI ಪ್ರವೇಶಿಸುತ್ತಿರುವುದು ಒಂದು ದೊಡ್ಡ ವರವಾಗಲಿದೆ. ಅದು ಭಾರಿ ಶುಲ್ಕವನ್ನು ಬೇಡುವ ಕೆಲವೇ ಧ್ವನಿ ಕಲಾವಿದರ ಏಕಸ್ವಾಮ್ಯವನ್ನು ತಪ್ಪಿಸುವುದು ಮಾತ್ರವಲ್ಲದೆ, ಆ ಪುಸ್ತಕಗಳನ್ನು ಹೆಚ್ಚು ವ್ಯಾಪಕವಾದ ಪ್ರೇಕ್ಷಕರಿಗೆ ಲಭ್ಯವಾಗುವಂತೆ ಮಾಡುತ್ತದೆ.

ಹೌದು, ಈ ವೃತ್ತಿಪರರ ಭಯವನ್ನು ನಾನು ಅರ್ಥಮಾಡಿಕೊಳ್ಳಬಲ್ಲೆ. ಆದರೆ AIಗಳು ನಿಜವಾಗಿಯೂ ಅವರ ಸ್ಥಳವನ್ನು ಕಸಿದುಕೊಳ್ಳಬಲ್ಲವೆ?

ಪ್ರಸ್ತುತ AIಗಳು ಎಷ್ಟೇ ಸ್ಮಾರ್ಟ್ ಆಗಿದ್ದರೂ, ಭಾಷಾ ಪರಿಪೂರ್ಣತೆಯಲ್ಲಾಗಲಿ ಅಥವಾ ಭಾವನೆಗಳ ಸೂಕ್ಷ್ಮ ಅಭಿವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಯಲ್ಲಾಗಲಿ ಅವುಗಳಿಗೆ ಮಾನವ ಮಟ್ಟದ ನಿಖರತೆಯನ್ನು ನಿಭಾಯಿಸಲು ಸಾಧ್ಯವಿಲ್ಲ.

ಉನ್ನತ ಮಟ್ಟದ ಧ್ವನಿ ಕಲಾವಿದರಿಗೆ ಎಂದಿಗೂ ಬೇಡಿಕೆ ಇದ್ದೇ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ. ಅವರನ್ನು ಟಾಪ್ ಸೆಲ್ಲರ್ಗಳು ಮತ್ತು ಯಾರು ಭರಿಸಬಲ್ಲರೋ ಅವರು ನೇಮಿಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳುತ್ತಾರೆ.

ಹೆಚ್ಚಿನ ಲೇಖಕರು ಅವರನ್ನು ನೇಮಿಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳಲು ಎಂದಿಗೂ ಧೈರ್ಯ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ, ಅವರ ಅತಿಯಾದ ದರಗಳು, ಮತ್ತು ಸಬ್ಸ್ಕ್ರಿಪ್ಷನ್ ಆಧಾರಿತ ಸ್ಟೋರ್ಗಳು ಈ ಲೇಖಕರಿಗೆ ಪಾವತಿಸುವ ಅತ್ಯಲ್ಪ 'ಪೂಲ್ ಶೇರ್'ಗಳು ಅಂತಹ ಸಾಹಸಕ್ಕೆ ಅನುವುಮಾಡುತ್ತಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ.

ಈ ಲೇಖಕರು ಈಗ AIಗಳ ಕಡೆಗೆ ತಿರುಗಬಹುದು ಮತ್ತು ತಮ್ಮ ಜೀವನೋಪಾಯವನ್ನು ಕಂಡುಕೊಳ್ಳಬಹುದು. ಅಂತಿಮವಾಗಿ, ಬದುಕಬೇಕಾಗಿರುವುದು ಕೇವಲ ಧ್ವನಿ ಕಲಾವಿದರಷ್ಟೇ ಅಲ್ಲ, ಈ ಧ್ವನಿ ಕಲಾವಿದರ ದುಬಾರಿ ಶುಲ್ಕಗಳನ್ನು ಪಾವತಿಸುವುದನ್ನು ಬಿಟ್ಟು ಬೇರೆ ಆಯ್ಕೆಯಿಲ್ಲದ ಈ ಲೇಖಕರು ಕೂಡ ಬದುಕಬೇಕಾಗಿದೆ.

ಆಡಿಯೋಬುಕ್ ಉದ್ಯಮವು ಅಭಿವೃದ್ಧಿ ಹೊಂದಿದಂತೆ ಒಳ್ಳೆಯ ಧ್ವನಿ ಕಲಾವಿದರಿಗೆ ಹೆಚ್ಚಿನ ಅವಕಾಶಗಳು ಸಿಕ್ಕೇ ಸಿಗುತ್ತವೆ. ಮತ್ತು ದೀರ್ಘಾವಧಿಯಲ್ಲಿ, ಅವರು ತಾವು ಅಪಾಯದಲ್ಲಿದ್ದೇವೆ ಎಂದು ಭಾವಿಸಲು ಯಾವುದೇ ಕಾರಣವಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.

ಸಾಮಾನ್ಯವಾಗಿ ಅನುವಾದ ವೃತ್ತಿಪರರು AI ಯಿಂದ ತೀವ್ರವಾಗಿ ತೊಂದರೆಗೊಳಗಾಗಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಎಂಬ ದೂರೂ ಇದೆ. ಇವರಲ್ಲಿ ಅನೇಕರನ್ನು ಕೇವಲ ಪ್ರೂಫ್ ರೀಡಿಂಗ್ ನಂತಹ ಕೆಲಸಗಳಿಗೆ ಸೀಮಿತಗೊಳಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಲಾಗುತ್ತದೆ, ಏಕೆಂದರೆ AI ಗಳು ಪ್ರಮುಖ ಅನುವಾದದ ಕೆಲಸವನ್ನು ಮಾಡುತ್ತವೆ. ಸ್ವಾಭಾವಿಕವಾಗಿ, ಅವರಿಗೆ ಈ ಹಿಂದೆ ಸಿಗುತ್ತಿದ್ದ ಹಣಕ್ಕೆ ಹೋಲಿಸಿದರೆ ಕಡಿಮೆ ಪಾವತಿಸಲಾಗುತ್ತದೆ.

ಆದರೆ AIಗಳು ಹೆಚ್ಚಿನ ಪುಸ್ತಕಗಳನ್ನು ಅನುವಾದಿಸಿದಂತೆ, ಈ ಪ್ರೂಫ್ ರೀಡರ್ಗಳಿಗೂ ಹೆಚ್ಚಿನ ಕೆಲಸಗಳು ಸಿಗುತ್ತವೆ. ಕೆಲಸದ ಪ್ರಮಾಣ ಖಂಡಿತವಾಗಿಯೂ ಮುಖ್ಯವಾಗುತ್ತದೆ. ಲೇಖಕರು ಮತ್ತು ಓದುಗರು ಇಬ್ಬರೂ ಇದರಿಂದ ಲಾಭ ಪಡೆಯಲಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಎಂದು ಪ್ರತ್ಯೇಕವಾಗಿ ಹೇಳಬೇಕಾಗಿಲ್ಲ.

ಆದ್ದರಿಂದ, ಅಪರಿಹಾರ್ಯವಾಗಿರುವ ಒಂದು ವಿದ್ಯಮಾನದ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ಹೋರಾಡುವ ಬದಲು, ತಂತ್ರಜ್ಞಾನದ ಅತ್ಯುತ್ತಮ ಬಳಕೆಯನ್ನು ಮಾಡಿಕೊಳ್ಳುವುದು ಉತ್ತಮ. ಅದು ದೀರ್ಘಾವಧಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಎಲ್ಲರಿಗೂ ಸಹಾಯ ಮಾಡುತ್ತದೆ.

ನಾನು ಹೇಳುವುದೇನೆಂದರೆ, AI ಯ ತಕ್ಷಣದ ಪರಿಣಾಮಗಳ ಮೇಲೆ ಹೆಚ್ಚು ಗಮನಹರಿಸುವ ಬದಲು, AI, ಕೆಲವೇ ಸ್ವಾರ್ಥಪರರ ಕೈಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಸೃಷ್ಟಿಸಬಹುದಾದ ದೀರ್ಘಕಾಲೀನ ದುರಂತಗಳನ್ನು ನಾವು ಗಮನಿಸಬೇಕು. ನಿಜವಾದ ಅಪಾಯವಿರುವುದು ತಂತ್ರಜ್ಞಾನದಿಂದಲ್ಲ. ಬದಲಿಗೆ. ಮಾನವರು ಮಾಡುವ ಇದರ ದುರುಪಯೋಗದಿಂದ.

ಅದು ಕಮ್ಯುನಿಕೇಶನ್ ಆಗಿರಲಿ, ಎನರ್ಜಿ ಸಪ್ಲೈ ಚೈನ್ ಆಗಿರಲಿ, ಅತ್ಯಗತ್ಯ ಸೇವೆಗಳಾಗಿರಲಿ, ಹೆಚ್ಚಿನ ಕ್ಷೇತ್ರಗಳಲ್ಲಿ AI ಯ ಕ್ಷಿಪ್ರ ಪ್ರವೇಶವು ತಪ್ಪು ಕೈಗಳಿಗೆ ಸೇರಿದರೆ ನಿಜವಾದ ಅಪಾಯವಾಗಬಹುದು.

AI ಒಂದು ಹರಿತವಾದ ಚೂರಿಯಿದ್ದಂತೆ. ಒಂದು ಹರಿತವಾದ ಚೂರಿ ಒಬ್ಬ ಸಮರ್ಥ ಸರ್ಜನ್ ಕೈಯಲ್ಲಿದ್ದರೆ, ಜೀವಗಳನ್ನು ಉಳಿಸಬಲ್ಲದು. ಉನ್ನತ ಮಟ್ಟದ ಪಾಕಪ್ರವೀಣನ ಕೈಯಲ್ಲಿದ್ದರೆ, ರುಚಿಕರವಾದ ಖಾದ್ಯಗಳನ್ನು ಸೃಷ್ಟಿಸಬಲ್ಲದು, ಅಥವಾ ಒಬ್ಬ ಶ್ರೇಷ್ಠ ಕೆತ್ತನೆಗಾರನ ಕೈಯಲ್ಲಿದ್ದರೆ ಅತ್ಯುತ್ತಮ ಕಲಾಕೃತಿಗೆ ಕಾರಣವಾಗಬಲ್ಲದು.

ಆದರೆ ತಪ್ಪು ಕೈಸೇರಿದರೆ, ಅದು ವಿನಾಶವನ್ನೇ ಉಂಟುಮಾಡಬಹುದು. ಅದರ ಬಗ್ಗೆಯೇ ನಾವು ಹೆಚ್ಚು ಚಿಂತಿಸಬೇಕಾಗಿದೆ.  --------------------------------------------------------------------
ಇದು ನಿಮಗೆ ಇಷ್ಟವಾಗಿದ್ದರೆ, ನನ್ನ ಸಾಪ್ತಾಹಿಕ ಓದುಗರೊಂದಿಗೆ ಸೇರಲು ನಾನು ನಿಮ್ಮನ್ನು ಹೃತ್ಪೂರ್ವಕವಾಗಿ ಆಹ್ವಾನಿಸುತ್ತೇನೆ. ಪ್ರತಿ ಶನಿವಾರ, ಮೇಲ್ಮೈಯನ್ನು ಮೀರಿದ ಮತ್ತು ನಿಜವಾಗಿಯೂ ಮುಖ್ಯವಾದ ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆಗಳನ್ನು ಪರಿಹರಿಸುವ ಆಳವಾದ ವಿಶ್ಲೇಷಣೆಯನ್ನು ನಾನು ಪ್ರಕಟಿಸುತ್ತೇನೆ. ಪೇವಾಲ್‌ಗಳಿಲ್ಲ, ಕ್ಲಿಕ್‌ಬೈಟ್ ಇಲ್ಲ - ಕೇವಲ ನೇರ ವಿನಿಮಯ: ನನ್ನ ಮನಸ್ಸಿನಿಂದ ನಿಮ್ಮದಕ್ಕೆ. ಚಂದಾದಾರರಾಗಲು ಇಲ್ಲಿ ಕ್ಲಿಕ್ ಮಾಡಿ.    © Dr. King, Swami Satyapriya 2026 You can borrow audio books directly from the author at https://tinyurl.com/mylibrary1234 at highly affordable prices.

[Preview books]  [Borrow books]  [Pause]      Goldman-Sachs వంటి సంస్థల అంచనాల ప్రకారం, AI ప్రపంచవ్యాప్తంగా సుమారు 300 మిలియన్ పూర్తి-కాల ఉద్యోగాలను ఆటోమేట్ చేయగలదు. ప్రస్తుతం అమెరికా మరియు యూరప్లో ఉన్న ఉద్యోగాలలో దాదాపు మూడింట రెండొంతులు ఏదో ఒక స్థాయిలో AI ఆటోమేషన్ ప్రభావానికి లోనయ్యే అవకాశం ఉందని అవి పేర్కొన్నాయి.

ఇంటర్నేషనల్ లేబర్ ఆర్గనైజేషన్ (ILO) కొంత సంప్రదాయబద్ధమైన దృక్కోణాన్ని కలిగి ఉంది. దాని అంచనా ప్రకారం ప్రపంచ ఉపాధిలో సుమారు 2.3 శాతం, అంటే దాదాపు 75 మిలియన్ ఉద్యోగాలు, పూర్తి ఆటోమేషన్ ప్రమాదంలో ఉన్నాయి.

అదే సమయంలో, కార్మిక పరిశోధకులు గమనించినట్లుగా, భారీ స్థాయిలో ఆకస్మిక లే-ఆఫ్లు జరిగే అవకాశం తక్కువ. దానికి బదులుగా ఎంట్రీ-లెవెల్ వైట్-కాలర్ ఉద్యోగులు మరియు కేవలం శారీరక శ్రమ ఆధారంగా పనిచేసే "grunt work" కార్మికుల నియామకాలు మందగించవచ్చు.

అయినప్పటికీ, కొందరు డూమ్స్డే ప్రవక్తలు ఇప్పటికే AI చివరికి మానవాళినే ఎలా అధిగమిస్తుందో ఊహాగానాలు చేయడం ప్రారంభించారు!

AI ఎప్పుడైనా మానవులను అధిగమించగలదా?  కొన్ని నిర్దిష్ట పాత్రలలో మాత్రం ఖచ్చితంగా అవును.

AI వ్యవస్థలు ఏ ఒక్క మనిషి కూడా ఒంటరిగా పూర్తిగా నేర్చుకోలేని విస్తారమైన జ్ఞానభాండాగారాలపై శిక్షణ పొందుతాయి. అవి అపారమైన డేటాను సేకరించి, ప్రాసెస్ చేసి, మనుషులు ఊహించలేని వేగంతో ఫలితాలను అందించే అలసటలేని సామర్థ్యాన్ని కలిగి ఉంటాయి.

కానీ దానివల్ల అవి మనుషులతో సమానమవుతాయా? లేదా వారికంటే శ్రేష్ఠమవుతాయా?

నాకు అలా అనిపించదు. కనీసం వాటి ప్రస్తుత రూపంలో అయితే అసలు కాదు.

ప్రస్తుతం అవి అత్యంత యాంత్రికమైనవి. మనుషులకు విసుగును లేదా అలసటను కలిగించే పనులను అవి అపారమైన కంప్యూటింగ్ శక్తిని ఉపయోగించి, ఎటువంటి చైతన్యపూర్వక లక్ష్యం లేకుండానే నిర్వహిస్తాయి.

నేటి AI నమూనాల ఆధారంగా సరైన సమాధానాన్ని అంచనా వేయడంలో చాలా నైపుణ్యాన్ని చూపగలదు. కానీ నేను గత ఎపిసోడ్లలో చర్చించినట్లుగా, తాను ఏ విషయాన్ని నిర్ధారిస్తోందో దానిని నిజంగా "అర్థం చేసుకునే" సామర్థ్యం దానికి లేదు. అలాగే అది చేసే పనులకు ఎటువంటి స్వంత "ప్రేరణ" కూడా ఉండదు. మనుషులను అధిగమించాలనే ఉద్దేశం దానికి లేదు. ప్రస్తుతం అందుకు అది సిద్ధంగా కూడా లేదు.

దాని జ్ఞానం ఎంత విస్తారంగా కనిపించినా, అది ప్రజలకు అందుబాటులో ఉన్న పత్రబద్ధమైన సమాచారానికే పరిమితమై ఉంటుంది. మానవులు లక్షల సంవత్సరాలుగా, అనేక భాషలలో, విభిన్న జీవన పరిస్థితులలో కూడబెట్టుకున్న జ్ఞానంలో ఇది కేవలం ఒక చిన్న భాగం మాత్రమే. ఈ విషయంలో AI ఎప్పటికీ మానవులతో సమానంగా మారలేదని చెప్పడం తప్పు కాదు.

అందువల్ల AI స్వతంత్రంగా మానవాళిపై నియంత్రణ సాధిస్తుందనే సైన్స్ ఫిక్షన్ కథలలో కనిపించే భయం కేవలం ఒక కల్పిత భయం మాత్రమే.

అయితే అవును, నేను ముందే పేర్కొన్నట్లుగా కొన్ని పరిమిత ప్రమాదాలు మాత్రం ఉన్నాయి.

కస్టమర్ సర్వీస్ ప్రతినిధులు, డేటా ఎంట్రీ క్లర్కులు, మెడికల్ ట్రాన్స్క్రిప్షనిస్టులు, జూనియర్ సాఫ్ట్వేర్ డెవలపర్లు, అడ్మినిస్ట్రేటివ్ అసిస్టెంట్లు మరియు బుక్కీపర్లు ఇతరుల కంటే ఎక్కువగా ఈ ప్రమాదాలకు గురయ్యే అవకాశం ఉంది.

దీనివల్ల ప్రభావితమవుతున్న మరో పెద్ద వర్గం అనువాదకులు మరియు వాయిస్ ఆర్టిస్టులు. ఎందుకంటే ప్రస్తుత AI వ్యవస్థలు టెక్స్ట్-టు-టెక్స్ట్ మానిప్యులేషన్లో అత్యంత నైపుణ్యాన్ని కలిగి ఉన్నాయి. అందువల్ల ప్రచురణకర్తలు AI సమీకరణపై తీవ్రంగా దృష్టి పెడుతున్నారు.

సొసైటీ ఆఫ్ ఆథర్స్ నిర్వహించిన సర్వే ప్రకారం, మూడవ వంతుకంటే ఎక్కువ మంది అనువాదకులు ఇప్పటికే జనరేటివ్ AI కారణంగా పని కోల్పోయారు. అనేక మంది సాహిత్య అనువాదకులను ఇప్పుడు "Machine Translation Post-Editing" వైపు మళ్లిస్తున్నారు. అంటే AI అనువదించిన అసహజమైన లేదా క్లిష్టమైన పాఠ్యాన్ని సవరించడం. అయితే అందుకు వారికి గతంలో లభించిన ప్రతి పదానికి చెల్లించే పారితోషికంలో చాలా చిన్న భాగమే లభిస్తోంది.

అత్యంత విశ్వసనీయమైన మరియు భావోద్వేగాలను వ్యక్తపరచగల టెక్స్ట్-టు-స్పీచ్ నమూనాల అభివృద్ధి వాయిస్ఓవర్ పరిశ్రమను తీవ్రంగా కుదిపేసింది. AI ఆవిర్భావానికి ముందు ఇది వృత్తిపరమైన వాయిస్ కళాకారులకు అత్యంత లాభదాయకమైన రంగం. వారు తయారుచేసిన ప్రతి గంట ఆడియోకు వందల డాలర్ల వరకు భారీ పారితోషికం వసూలు చేసేవారు. చిన్న రచయితలలో చాలా మందికి వారిని నియమించుకోవడం అసాధ్యం. కొందరు తమ పుస్తకాలను తామే వాచనం చేసేవారు. మరికొందరు నిస్సహాయంగా చూస్తూ ఉండిపోయేవారు.

ఇప్పుడు AI జోక్యం కారణంగా వాయిస్ కళాకారుల సమాజంలో తీవ్రమైన ఆందోళన నెలకొంది. తమ ఉనికికే ముప్పు వాటిల్లిందని వారు భావిస్తున్నారు. తమ ఫోరమ్లు మరియు యూనియన్ల మద్దతుతో, ఈ రంగంలో AI ప్రవేశాన్ని అడ్డుకునేందుకు వారు ప్రయత్నిస్తున్నట్లు కనిపిస్తోంది.

ఒకప్పుడు ఒక రచయిత తన పుస్తకాన్ని మరో భాషలోకి అనువదించి, దానికి వాచనం సిద్ధం చేయడానికి నెలల తరబడి కష్టపడాల్సి వచ్చేది. అదే పనిని ఇప్పుడు AI కేవలం కొన్ని గంటల్లో పూర్తిచేస్తోంది. అదే AI పట్ల భయానికి ప్రధాన కారణం.

అయితే అలాంటి ధోరణి మార్కెట్ను పరిమితం చేయడమే చేస్తుంది. దీనిని సరైన విధంగా నిర్వహిస్తే, తక్కువ ఖర్చుతో కూడిన ప్రత్యామ్నాయాల కోసం ఎదురు చూస్తున్న ప్రచురణ రంగంలో గొప్ప మార్పు రావచ్చు.

ఒక్కసారి ఊహించండి. ఒక మంచి పుస్తకం ఒకే భాషకు పరిమితం కాకుండా, వివిధ భాషలు మాట్లాడే లక్షలాది మందిని చేరుకోగలదు. అది జ్ఞాన వ్యాప్తిలో ఒక విప్లవంగా మారుతుంది.

ఆడియోబుక్ల ప్రజాదరణ పెరుగుతున్న నేపథ్యంలో, ఆడియోబుక్ ఉత్పత్తి ప్రక్రియలో AI ప్రవేశించడం ఒక గొప్ప వరంగా మారవచ్చు. అది అధిక పారితోషికాలు తీసుకునే కొద్దిమంది వాయిస్ కళాకారుల ఆధిపత్యాన్ని తగ్గించడమే కాకుండా, పుస్తకాలను మరింత విస్తృత ప్రేక్షకులకు అందుబాటులోకి తీసుకురాగలదు.

అవును, ఈ నిపుణుల భయాన్ని నేను అర్థం చేసుకోగలను. కానీ AI నిజంగానే వారి స్థానాన్ని భర్తీ చేయగలదా?

ప్రస్తుత AI వ్యవస్థలు ఎంత తెలివైనవిగా కనిపించినా, భాషాపరమైన పరిపూర్ణతలో గానీ, భావోద్వేగాల సూక్ష్మ వ్యక్తీకరణలో గానీ మానవ స్థాయి ఖచ్చితత్వాన్ని ఇంకా చేరుకోలేకపోయాయి.

అత్యున్నత స్థాయి వాయిస్ కళాకారులకు ఎప్పటికీ డిమాండ్ ఉంటుంది. అత్యధికంగా అమ్ముడయ్యే రచయితలు మరియు వాటి ఖర్చును భరించగలవారు వారిని నియమించుకుంటూనే ఉంటారు.

చాలా మంది రచయితలు వారి అధిక పారితోషికాల కారణంగా వారిని నియమించుకోవడానికి సాహసించలేకపోయేవారు. అంతేకాకుండా, సబ్స్క్రిప్షన్ ఆధారిత స్టోర్లు రచయితలకు చెల్లించే అతి తక్కువ వాటా కూడా అటువంటి ప్రయత్నాన్ని ఆర్థికంగా సాధ్యంకాకుండా చేసేది.

ఇప్పుడు ఈ రచయితలు AI వైపు మొగ్గుచూపి తమ జీవనోపాధికి కొత్త మార్గాలను కనుగొనవచ్చు. చివరికి జీవించాల్సింది కేవలం వాయిస్ కళాకారులే కాదు. వారి ఖరీదైన సేవలకు చెల్లించక తప్పని పరిస్థితిలో ఉన్న రచయితలు కూడా జీవించాల్సిందే.

ఆడియోబుక్ పరిశ్రమ అభివృద్ధి చెందుతున్న కొద్దీ, మంచి వాయిస్ కళాకారులకు మరిన్ని అవకాశాలు లభిస్తాయి. దీర్ఘకాలంలో వారు తమను ప్రమాదంలో ఉన్నామని భావించడానికి పెద్దగా కారణం లేదు.

అనువాద రంగానికి చెందిన నిపుణులు AI వల్ల తీవ్రంగా ప్రభావితమయ్యారని కూడా తరచుగా వినిపిస్తుంది. వారిలో చాలామంది ప్రూఫ్ రీడింగ్ వంటి పనులకే పరిమితమయ్యారని చెబుతారు, ఎందుకంటే ప్రధాన అనువాద పనిని AI నిర్వహిస్తోంది. సహజంగానే, వారికి గతంతో పోలిస్తే తక్కువ పారితోషికం లభిస్తోంది.

అయితే AI మరిన్ని పుస్తకాలను అనువదించిన కొద్దీ, ఈ ప్రూఫ్ రీడర్లకు కూడా మరింత పని లభిస్తుంది. మొత్తం పనిపరిమాణం కూడా ముఖ్యమే. రచయితలు మరియు పాఠకులు ఇద్దరూ దీనివల్ల లాభపడతారనేది ప్రత్యేకంగా చెప్పాల్సిన అవసరం లేదు.

కాబట్టి, తప్పనిసరిగా జరుగబోయే ఒక పరిణామానికి వ్యతిరేకంగా పోరాడటంకన్నా, సాంకేతికతను అత్యుత్తమంగా ఉపయోగించుకోవడం మంచిది. దీర్ఘకాలంలో అది అందరికీ సహాయపడుతుంది.

నా అభిప్రాయం ఏమిటంటే, AI యొక్క తక్షణ ప్రభావాలపై మాత్రమే దృష్టి పెట్టడం బదులు, కొద్దిమంది స్వార్థపరుల చేతుల్లో AI సృష్టించగల దీర్ఘకాలిక ప్రమాదాలపై మనం ఎక్కువ దృష్టి పెట్టాలి.

నిజమైన ప్రమాదం సాంకేతికతలో లేదు. దానిని మనుషులు దుర్వినియోగం చేసే విధానంలో ఉంది.

అది కమ్యూనికేషన్ కావచ్చు, ఇంధన సరఫరా గొలుసులు కావచ్చు, అత్యవసర సేవలు కావచ్చు, లేదా మరే ఇతర ముఖ్య రంగమైనా కావచ్చు — AI యొక్క వేగవంతమైన ప్రవేశం తప్పు చేతుల్లో పడితే అది నిజమైన ప్రమాదంగా మారవచ్చు.

AI ఒక పదునైన కత్తిలాంటిది.

ఒక నైపుణ్యం కలిగిన శస్త్రచికిత్స నిపుణుడి చేతిలో పదునైన కత్తి ప్రాణాలను కాపాడగలదు. ఒక గొప్ప వంటకారుడి చేతిలో అది రుచికరమైన వంటకాలను సృష్టించగలదు. ఒక గొప్ప శిల్పి చేతిలో అది అద్భుతమైన కళాఖండాల సృష్టికి దోహదపడగలదు.

కానీ అది తప్పు చేతుల్లో పడితే విధ్వంసానికి కారణమవుతుంది.

మనము నిజంగా ఎక్కువగా ఆందోళన చెందాల్సింది అదే.  --------------------------------------------------------------------

ఇది మీకు నచ్చినట్లయితే, నా వారపు పాఠకులలో చేరమని మిమ్మల్ని సాదరంగా ఆహ్వానిస్తున్నాను. ప్రతి శనివారం, నేను ఉపరితలానికి అతీతంగా, నిజంగా ముఖ్యమైన ప్రశ్నలను పరిష్కరించే ఒక లోతైన విశ్లేషణను ప్రచురిస్తాను. ఎలాంటి పేవాల్స్ లేవు, క్లిక్‌బైట్ లేదు—కేవలం ఒక ప్రత్యక్ష భావప్రసారం: నా మనసు నుండి మీ మనసుకు. సబ్‌స్క్రయిబ్ చేసుకోవడానికి ఇక్కడ క్లిక్ చేయండి.


  © Dr. King, Swami Satyapriya 2026 You can borrow audio books directly from the author at https://tinyurl.com/mylibrary1234 at highly affordable prices.

[Preview books]  [Borrow books]  [Pause]    Nach Schätzungen von Organisationen wie Goldman-Sachs könnte KI weltweit rund 300 Millionen Vollzeit-Arbeitsplätze automatisieren. Diese Organisationen weisen darauf hin, dass etwa zwei Drittel der derzeitigen Arbeitsplätze in Amerika und Europa in irgendeinem Ausmaß von KI-Automatisierung betroffen sein könnten.

Die Internationale Arbeitsorganisation (ILO) vertritt eine etwas konservativere Sichtweise und schätzt, dass ungefähr 2,3 Prozent der weltweiten Beschäftigung, also rund 75 Millionen Arbeitsplätze, dem Risiko einer vollständigen Automatisierung ausgesetzt sind.

Gleichzeitig haben Arbeitsmarktforscher festgestellt, dass groß angelegte plötzliche Entlassungen eher unwahrscheinlich sind. Stattdessen könnte sich die Einstellung von Berufseinsteigern im Bürobereich sowie von Arbeitskräften, die hauptsächlich einfache körperliche Routinetätigkeiten ausführen, verlangsamen.

Trotzdem haben einige Untergangspropheten bereits begonnen vorherzusagen, wie KI letztlich die gesamte Menschheit übertreffen wird.

Kann KI den Menschen jemals überlegen werden?  In bestimmten Bereichen ganz eindeutig ja.

KI-Systeme werden auf gewaltigen Wissensmengen trainiert, die kein einzelner Mensch jemals vollständig beherrschen könnte. Sie besitzen die unermüdliche Fähigkeit, riesige Datenmengen aufzunehmen, zu verarbeiten und Ergebnisse mit einer Geschwindigkeit zu liefern, die für Menschen kaum vorstellbar ist.

Aber macht sie das den Menschen ebenbürtig oder sogar überlegen?

Meiner Meinung nach nicht. Zumindest nicht in ihrer gegenwärtigen Form.

In ihrem heutigen Zustand sind sie äußerst mechanisch. Sie erledigen Aufgaben, die für Menschen extrem langweilig oder ermüdend sind, und nutzen dabei enorme Rechenleistung, ohne irgendein bewusstes Ziel zu verfolgen.

Die heutige KI kann sehr gut die richtige Antwort anhand von Mustern vorhersagen. Aber wie ich bereits in früheren Episoden erläutert habe, besitzt sie nicht die Fähigkeit wirklich zu „verstehen", was sie gerade schlussfolgert. Ebenso fehlt ihr jede eigene Motivation für das, was sie tut. Sie hat keinerlei Absicht, Menschen zu übertreffen. Und gegenwärtig ist sie dafür auch nicht ausgerüstet.

So gewaltig ihr Wissen auch erscheinen mag, es beschränkt sich auf Informationen, die öffentlich in dokumentierter Form verfügbar sind. Das stellt nur einen kleinen Bruchteil dessen dar, was die Menschheit über Millionen von Jahren hinweg, in unzähligen Sprachen und unter unterschiedlichsten Lebensbedingungen angesammelt hat. In dieser Hinsicht wird KI den Menschen vermutlich niemals wirklich gleichkommen.

Daher ist die Angst, KI könnte unabhängig die Kontrolle über die Menschheit übernehmen, wie man es aus Science-Fiction-Romanen kennt, letztlich nur eine fiktive Befürchtung.

Dennoch gibt es, wie bereits erwähnt, durchaus begrenzte Risiken.

Mitarbeiter im Kundendienst, Datenerfassungs-Kräfte, medizinische Transkriptions-Fachkräfte, Junior-Softwareentwickler, Verwaltungsassistenten und Buchhalter gehören zu den Berufsgruppen, die stärker gefährdet sind als andere.

Eine weitere große Gruppe, die davon betroffen ist, sind Übersetzer und Sprecher. Der Grund dafür ist, dass heutige KI-Systeme bei der Text-zu-Text-Verarbeitung außerordentlich leistungsfähig sind. Deshalb treiben Verlage die Integration von KI besonders stark voran.

Einer Umfrage der Society of Authors zufolge haben bereits mehr als ein Drittel der Übersetzer aufgrund generativer KI Arbeit verloren. Viele literarische Übersetzer werden aufgefordert, sich auf „Machine Translation Post-Editing" zu verlagern. Dabei geht es darum, unbeholfene oder unnatürliche KI-Übersetzungen nachzubearbeiten. Allerdings erhalten diese Übersetzer dafür oft nur einen kleinen Bruchteil der Vergütung, die sie früher pro Wort bekamen.

Die Entwicklung hochzuverlässiger und emotional ausdrucksstarker Text-zu-Sprache-Modelle hat die Voice-over-Branche massiv verändert. Vor dem Aufkommen von KI war dies ein äußerst lukratives Tätigkeitsfeld für professionelle Sprecher. Sie verlangten häufig Hunderte Dollar pro fertig produzierter Audiostunde. Für die meisten kleineren Autoren war es praktisch unmöglich, solche Sprecher zu engagieren. Manche lasen ihre Bücher selbst ein, während andere hilflos zusehen mussten.

Heute herrscht innerhalb der Sprechergemeinschaft erhebliche Unruhe. Viele haben das Gefühl, dass ihre berufliche Existenz bedroht ist. Mit Unterstützung ihrer Foren und Gewerkschaften versuchen sie offenbar, den Einsatz von KI in diesem Bereich einzuschränken.

Es gab eine Zeit, in der ein Autor monatelang arbeiten musste, um ein Buch in eine andere Sprache übersetzen und vertonen zu lassen. Heute kann KI dieselbe Aufgabe innerhalb weniger Stunden erledigen. Genau das ist die Ursache vieler Ängste gegenüber KI.

Eine solche Haltung beschränkt jedoch lediglich den Markt. Wenn dieser Wandel sinnvoll gestaltet wird, könnte er in der Verlagsbranche, die schon lange auf kostengünstigere Alternativen wartet, einen tiefgreifenden Umbruch auslösen.

Stellen Sie sich einmal vor: Ein gutes Buch wäre nicht mehr auf eine einzige Sprache beschränkt, sondern könnte Millionen Menschen erreichen, die unterschiedliche Sprachen sprechen. Das wäre eine Revolution in der Verbreitung von Wissen.

Angesichts der wachsenden Beliebtheit von Hörbüchern könnte der Einzug von KI in die Hörbuch-Produktion ein großer Segen sein. Sie würde nicht nur das Quasi-Monopol einiger weniger Sprecher mit sehr hohen Honoraren aufbrechen, sondern Bücher auch einem wesentlich größeren Publikum zugänglich machen.

Ja, ich kann die Sorgen dieser Fachleute verstehen. Aber kann KI sie tatsächlich ersetzen?

So intelligent heutige KI-Systeme auch wirken mögen, sie können weder bei sprachlicher Perfektion noch bei der feinen Darstellung menschlicher Emotionen menschliche Präzision erreichen.

Für Spitzen-Sprecher wird es immer Nachfrage geben. Bestseller-Autoren und diejenigen, die es sich leisten können, werden sie weiterhin engagieren.

Die meisten Autoren konnten sich solche Sprecher jedoch nie leisten, da deren Honorare sehr hoch waren und abonnementsbasierte Plattformen oft nur sehr geringe Ausschüttungen an Autoren zahlen.

Diese Autoren können nun auf KI zurückgreifen und dadurch neue Möglichkeiten finden, ihren Lebensunterhalt zu sichern. Schließlich müssen nicht nur Sprecher ihren Lebensunterhalt verdienen. Auch Autoren müssen leben können, die bislang keine andere Wahl hatten, als hohe Sprecherhonorare zu bezahlen.

Je stärker die Hörbuchbranche wächst, desto mehr Möglichkeiten werden sich auch für gute Sprecher ergeben. Langfristig gibt es daher wenig Grund für sie, sich ernsthaft bedroht zu fühlen.

Oft wird außerdem beklagt, dass Übersetzungs-Fachkräfte stark unter den Auswirkungen von KI leiden. Viele seien auf Aufgaben wie Korrekturlesen reduziert worden, während die eigentliche Übersetzungsarbeit von KI übernommen werde. Natürlich erhalten sie dafür weniger Bezahlung als früher.

Doch je mehr Bücher von KI übersetzt werden, desto mehr Arbeit wird es auch für diese Korrekturleser geben. Das Gesamtvolumen der Arbeit spielt schließlich ebenfalls eine wichtige Rolle. Es versteht sich von selbst, dass sowohl Autoren als auch Leser davon profitieren werden.

Deshalb ist es besser, die Technologie möglichst sinnvoll zu nutzen, anstatt gegen eine Entwicklung anzukämpfen, die vermutlich ohnehin unvermeidlich ist. Langfristig wird das allen zugutekommen.

Meiner Ansicht nach sollten wir uns weniger auf die unmittelbaren Auswirkungen von KI konzentrieren und stattdessen stärker auf die langfristigen Gefahren achten, die entstehen können, wenn KI in die Hände einiger weniger eigennütziger Personen gerät.

Die eigentliche Gefahr geht nicht von der Technologie selbst aus. Sie entsteht vielmehr durch den Missbrauch dieser Technologie durch Menschen.

Ob Kommunikation, Energieversorgung, kritische Dienstleistungen oder zahlreiche andere Bereiche – die rasche Ausbreitung von KI kann zu einer echten Gefahr werden, wenn sie in die falschen Hände gerät.

KI ist wie ein scharfes Messer.

In den Händen eines fähigen Chirurgen kann ein scharfes Messer Leben retten. In den Händen eines Meisterkochs kann es köstliche Gerichte hervorbringen. Und in den Händen eines großen Bildhauers kann es zur Entstehung großartiger Kunstwerke beitragen.

Gerät es jedoch in die falschen Hände, kann es Zerstörung anrichten.

Genau darüber sollten wir uns wesentlich mehr Gedanken machen.  --------------------------------------------------------------------

Falls dies bei Ihnen Anklang gefunden hat, lade ich Sie herzlich ein, sich meinen wöchentlichen Lesern anzuschließen. Jeden Samstag veröffentliche ich eine tiefgehende Analyse, die über die Oberf