Rather than AI..we can say that only certain sections of society are utilising it more efficiently.

For example - IT industry, Pharma, Medical, Entertainment, Finances etc.,- these industries have more visibility, wider audience so they are getting more & more favoured by AI development.

Another example is Agriculture...where AI can be utilised more like Crop yield, Crop predictions, many other aspects. But it is not so much extensively utilised as compared above mentioned. Again the reason here is audience, their ability, societal norms, educational & financial status, etc.,

Ideally AI favours any region / ideologies as per its usage. It depends on which section of society is making it more usable.

NOTE: The above observations are only my views as per the observations I have been making from past few years. However, it is subject to change from region, people, etc..

Sagarika Thalanki

Thank you for sharing your thoughtful observations. I agree that the extent to which AI is adopted and its benefits realized vary significantly across industries and societal sectors. As you rightly pointed out, fields such as IT, finance, and healthcare have been at the forefront due to their digital infrastructure and resource availability.

Your example of agriculture is particularly important. It highlights a domain where AI has immense potential, yet faces barriers to adoption due to socioeconomic, educational, and infrastructural factors. This disparity reminds us that AI is not inherently biased toward any one sector, but its benefits are contingent upon accessibility, readiness, and contextual relevance.

I appreciate your nuanced perspective—it's a valuable reminder that AI's true inclusivity depends on equitable development and deployment strategies tailored to diverse societal needs.

Sandhya Palaniappan

Thank you for your articulate and well-structured response — I deeply appreciate the clarity with which you’ve outlined the distinction between intelligence and consciousness. I fully agree that simulating intelligent behaviour is not equivalent to possessing subjective awareness, and your emphasis on internal experience, self-recognition, and intentionality resonates with current philosophical and cognitive science debates.

Your framing — that consciousness is not defined by what something can do but by whether it has an inner world — is particularly poignant. It reminds us that behavioural output, no matter how impressive, does not necessarily imply phenomenological depth.

I’m exploring how ontological instability might influence not only epistemological boundaries but also our criteria for recognizing emergent forms of selfhood or proto-subjectivity in artificial systems. Your response adds valuable depth to that line of thought. Thanks again for your insight — it’s conversations like these that push the field forward.