AI Won't Replace Deep Learning, Official Says

Regarding the ability to remain relevant in the AI era, Yanovsky Dagan says it's still too early to know whether companies will pursue mass layoffs or leverage human capabilities to enhance AI systems. He predicts the tech world will generate new professions, but issues a warning: "Artificial intelligence will not replace us in studying philosophy, English, mathematics, and so on."

On other professions, he offers an interesting perspective. All fields will be affected by AI, he notes, but not necessarily replaced. "A doctor or psychologist who uses artificial intelligence will be able to be much better," he explains.

One of the interview's most intriguing points concerns the depth of human learning that no language model can substitute. He shares an experience from a visit to China, where he encountered a surprising perspective on the Jewish people: "I heard a lecture by a Chinese mathematician about Israel," he recounts. "He said that in his view, what made Israel so successful was the culture of 'disagreement for the sake of heaven' that was born in Talmudic study. He clearly connected the world of technology to that sharpening of minds that happens when two people study Talmud together."

Historical experience shows, he argues, that technology doesn't extinguish the spark of spirit and depth. "When we study and delve deeply into some Talmudic issue, the whole world benefits from it," he emphasizes. "No computer in the world will blur the experience we have when we study."

He compares current concerns to past worries: "Just as people once feared that the transition from memorizing the Mishnah orally to writing it down would be 'the end of the road,' so too today, humanity will prove that there is still value in learning, in debate, and in clarifying issues."

A less-discussed aspect of the technological revolution is its socioeconomic impact. He shatters the illusion that technology will automatically solve inequality problems.

"I have an unfortunate message: artificial intelligence is beneficial, but it doesn't reduce gaps," he warns. "It may even widen gaps if we don't address the issue deliberately. Statistics show that as digital learning advances, the strong actually get stronger and the weak get weaker."

The government official calls on decision-makers to actively direct technological tools toward benefiting disadvantaged populations. As an example, he cites government applications and initiatives that ensure automatic fulfillment of civil rights, rather than waiting for citizens to know about and pursue them independently.

"We need to understand that technology is a tool," he explains. "If we don't consciously direct it toward reducing gaps, it will do exactly the opposite. This is the responsibility of decision-makers, not of the technology itself."

Toward the end of the interview, he warns against investing resources in internal conflicts and international disputes while technology transforms reality.

"Humanity dedicates too much effort to internal disagreements and wars between nations," he argues. "In retrospect, when we look back at this period in history, we won't understand how people didn't unite forces against the threats and opportunities that the new world brings."

"We have an enormous opportunity in our hands alongside a serious threat, and we're not behaving as if we understand the magnitude of the moment," he adds with concern.

Finally, he advises for the next generation: "Don't go study something you don't love just because someone said it's the next big thing. First and foremost, follow your passion, whether it's medicine, law, or engineering, and from there integrate technological tools to fulfill your mission in the best and most human way possible."