AI adoption in government could cut costs but exposes public sector inefficiency
Peter Bruce’s most recent column (“SA’s AI future clouded by poor government oversight”, April 30) refers.
Imagine the budget savings and service delivery improvements that could be made if the government adopted AI agents to add more value and lower the headcount and public sector wage bill. (I would not put Solly Malatsi — or anyone from his team — in charge of that project: it doesn’t have the necessary diligence or work ethic.)
Put more bluntly, the incompetence and laziness in government has been exposed again. This time it comes from the leading light in the government of national unity, showing how widespread it is.
I long for the day when all public sector staff earn their keep by adding more value than they take out of the system. (The same can be said for corporate bureaucrats.) AI has the potential to redistribute their ill-gotten gains.
AI reduces production costs for many services and will revolutionise many industries. In the same way that the internet has made information more freely available and search engines made it easier to search, AI is making information even easier to access and action.
Many blame calculators for killing mental arithmetic skills. Online translators and subtitles have reduced the need for translators and second languages while improving access to alternative viewpoints. Large language models can now do research, synthesise large amounts of data and information, and compose reports.
Work-shy humans will add AI agents to their group projects and they won’t even complain!
Greg Becker
Via email
Rising anti-Semitism and unchecked hate speech fuel global violence
Nearly every time I put pen to paper to talk about the rise of anti-Semitism I find myself in a race against the clock to report on the latest example before it is outdated by three or four new incidents of anti-Jewish hatred.
Case in point: in the week since I began formulating my response to James Cunningham’s reckless letter I have had to update my references, virtually in real time, to deal with the onslaught of incidents. (“Israel lobbying stifles Trump’s Middle East hopes”, April 20).
Among these was the scrapping of a benefit concert for the victims of December’s terror attack at Bondi Beach because the star attraction, a Greek choir, refused to perform with Jews and, of course, the latest violent anti-Semitic attack in the UK, the stabbing of two visibly Jewish men outside a synagogue in London.
However shocking these incidents are in and of themselves, perhaps even more shocking is the widespread acceptance of anti-Jewish hate speech that fuels, if not outright causes, these acts of violence and unashamed bigotry. Cunningham’s letter basically boiled down to accusing Jews of controlling America, setting up “kill zones” in Lebanon, and preventing any sort of peace in the Middle East by constantly attacking those poor peace-loving saints of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
These accusations are so blatantly conspiratorial in nature and so woefully wrong in fact that they don’t even deserve the dignity of a direct response. They undermine any valid point Cunningham may have been trying to make about the worrying rise of Jewish extremism in a tiny but not insignificant part of Israeli society.
Thank God, actual anti-Semitic attacks remain relatively rare in South Africa, but that can change in an instant. As has been proven time and time again during this bona fide epidemic of violent anti-Semitism in cities like London, Sydney and Washington, the leap from incendiary language to incendiary action is very short indeed.
Ilan Preskovsky
Via email
Debate over Iran’s nuclear ambitions highlights broader Middle East tensions
Stuart Meyer’s letter (“US was spot on: Iran admitted to being a nuclear threat”, April 28) needs a response. His statement that Iran taunted the US envoys by stating that it had enough material to produce six nuclear warheads is untrue.
What is correct is, as the Jerusalem Post reported, “The International Atomic Energy Agency has found that Tehran has enough 60%-enriched uranium — which could be quickly converted to the 90% weaponised level — to make six nuclear weapons if it decided to do so.”
I would be more worried about Israel using its estimated 80-100 nuclear weapons, since it has shown that it is the aggressor in the Middle East. Israel’s ally, America, has a president who is clearly deranged, yet is in control of about 3,700 nuclear warheads.
We should worry about these two countries starting a nuclear war or using nuclear weapons to achieve their aims, rather than Iran.
Ockert Fourie
Via email
JOIN THE DISCUSSION: Send us an email with your comments to letters@businessday.co.za. Letters of more than 200 words may be edited for length. Anonymous correspondence will not be published. Writers should include a daytime telephone number.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.