Why the human brain is more important than AI

Javier Milei’s market-absolutist hymn about reining in regulators and not big companies made two incorrect assumptions (By Invitation, January 17th). First, he stated that artificial intelligence will free us “from the constraints of the human brain”. That is exactly backwards. AI doesn’t liberate us from the brain. It makes us more dependent on its health, resilience and judgment.

The human brain is now the scarcest and most valuable form of economic infrastructure. Sure, AI can imitate outputs, but it cannot replace what actually matters: original thought, ethical decision-making, creativity, adaptability and the ability to steer technological power responsibly. Far from being the bottleneck, the brain is the rare asset that increases in value as AI scales.

Second, Mr Milei argued that the government needs to “get out of the way” so that deregulated markets can work whichever way they see fit. That is misguided. Public and private bodies need to work together. AI may be an accelerator, but the human brain is the steering wheel.

What’s needed most now is stronger collaboration between schools and businesses, policymakers and the executive suite, red-tape bureaucrats and chainsaw-wielding politicians.

Dr Harris Eyre
Executive director
Global Brain Economy Initiative
San Francisco

Your leader on the violence in Minneapolis used words decidedly unsuited for such a charged issue (“The ICE test”, January 31st). For example, you described ICE as “the catch-all brand for America’s deportation machine”. On the contrary, ICE stands for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a body created by an act of Congress for the specific purpose of enforcing immigration law.

The fact that ICE’s functions are prescribed by statute renders your suggestion that it is a “paramilitary” force that has “revelled in the wanton use of force” wholly inappropriate. It is true that ICE’s duties have been unpopular in Minneapolis, and that many residents have exercised their right to protest peacefully against its actions. But that does not give people the right to obstruct federal officials.

You were correct in predicting that supporters of Donald Trump will treat the argument that he wants to create a private militia as “wildly overblown”. So should all right-thinking people. There is little to indicate that America’s systems of federalism and the separation of powers cannot continue to function as designed, restraining the president as they have done for centuries.

The United States is a country with a strong rule of law. I am often surprised by the way actions that are routine in other Western countries, in this case deporting irregular migrants, are presented as an assault on civil liberties when undertaken by the Trump administration. To be sure, statements from some Trump officials have been irresponsible, but legitimate criticisms are easily dismissed when they are drowned out by histrionics.

Barack Obama deported 3m people. Where were those protests?

In “Why software stocks are getting pummelled” (February 1st) you claim that for companies, “building software is a distraction from their core business.” That was true when building software meant paying specialists to write arcane code to lay out screens, run workflows and manage databases. As AI automates those tasks, building effective technology solutions increasingly means asking the right questions, setting aligned objectives and defining the proper constraints for AI agents acting on our behalf.

Companies now require technology partners who sell digital labour, not logins. The market is pummelling the incumbents because it knows the difference.

Ryan Nichols
Former chief product officer
Salesforce Service Cloud
Redwood City, California

Your analogy between the car industry and the artificial-intelligence industry was well chosen (“Europe’s DeepSeek moment”, January 24th). Both carmaking and AI development are capital-intensive, demanding substantial investments to launch a serious contender. Yet in both cases the underlying principles are widely known and openly documented. That is why DeepSeek could produce a competitive model so quickly, and why a European firm like Mistral can design systems that rival those of the American giants.

Just as no single carmaker dominates global markets, no AI provider is likely to achieve lasting, worldwide supremacy. Different cars suit different drivers; different models will suit different users. AI, like the automobile, will be shaped less by monopoly than by a shifting competition of strengths, weaknesses and trade-offs. That is if policymakers resist the temptation to pick winners in advance.

Moritz Grosse-Wentrup
University professor
Faculty of computer science
University of Vienna

Your review of Carlo Masala’s thought-provoking book on the possible outcomes of Russia’s conflict with NATO (“What if Putin wins?” January 24th) repeated its weakest part: the implausible and patronising opening scenario, in which Russia seizes the eastern Estonian city of Narva.

In truth Estonia, like its Baltic neighbours, is no pushover. It is super-vigilant, bristling with weapons, and able to mobilise rapidly, with allies able to get there rapidly by air, land and sea. It also has long-range weapons that can strike targets deep inside Russia.

In the same issue you carried an excellent letter from Maris Riekstins, Latvia’s ambassador to NATO, making similar points: the real problem is not in the Baltic states, but farther west.

Perhaps your book reviewers should read the front of the paper too.

Edward Lucas
Director
Baltic International Security Centre
London

Charlemagne (January 24th) mentioned the five stages of grief posited by Elisabeth Kübler-Ross in reference to Europe’s strained relationship with America. Kübler-Ross described well how to deal with the loss of a loved one. “On Death and Dying”, her taboo-breaking book published in 1969, was based on her interviews with people facing their own imminent demise.

I spent a week in a residential workshop with her in Ireland, where she clarified that the five stages were not intended to be linear. More accurately they were clusters of emotions through which people passed forwards and backwards.

One aspect of her work that has not perhaps received sufficient attention is that a sense of hope is held by most grieving people a lot of the time. So the decline in the transatlantic relationship need not be terminal in the Trump era. There is always room for hope.

I enjoyed Bagehot’s column (January 10th) about the redevelopment of the Docklands area in London in the 1980s, one of Margaret Thatcher’s biggest achievements. As a fan of Millwall football club, I can attest that in the late 1970s the neighbourhoods surrounding London’s former docks were a wasteland of decaying and crumbling Victoriana.

Jack Dash, a union leader, resolutely fought against modernisation, with the result that the Surrey, West India, Millwall and vast Victoria docks, some of the biggest in the world, all closed down. Political inertia ruled. Britain under Labour was almost bankrupt. The hapless James Callaghan was in office but had no power, or respect (sound familiar?) A large part of inner London just died.

Then in 1979 Thatcher arrived with a new way of thinking. The formation of the London Docklands Development Corporation (which sponsored Millwall) got things moving. True, to some the arrival of the gleaming steel and glass towers with thousands of highly paid yuppies caused disdain. But the facts speak for themselves.

Without doubt, Canary Wharf and the redevelopment of the Docklands was a stunning achievement. Britain now needs another such social and economic reset, but where is the political zeal for one?

I read Bartleby’s parable of the supermarket self-checkout (January 17th). Whenever I wait in the can’t-manage-checkout-without-help line at my nearest store, I watch the supervisor of the bank of self-checkout machines gaze wistfully at me and the other boomers he is unable to tempt away from human cashiers. I try hiding behind the nearest kiosk to spare his feelings but I am tall and white-haired so it’s no use.

Easily befuddled at my age, I have to protect my fragile hold on sanity. That means avoiding things like automated voices that shout at me to put my items in the bag when they are already in it.

Supermarket tech is a big capital expenditure with an expected payback. What is never known until tech is operational in stores is just how much shrinkage, that is from shoppers failing to pay for goods, then results.

Someone I knew, a former banker, would compare different retailers’ till systems by how much he could shoplift.