Nikesh Mistry, Sector Head, Industrial Automation and Test & Measurement, GAMBICA, challenges the current AI narrative of replacement as progress.
The most interesting ideas in manufacturing rarely come from conference stages or glossy technical discussions, they come from the people who keep factories running when the stakes are highest. My views are shaped by those true conversations, when industry struggles and the Industrial Automation members of GAMBICA discuss how they’ve tackled pressure, dealt with constraints and proved themselves resilient, not through theoretical measures but through decisions that have had consequences. That’s why I’m unconvinced by the media narrative that manufacturing’s next leap will come from replacing people with intelligent agents. It’s a clean story, but it doesn’t match history or the lived reality of operations.
For decades, productivity and employment rose in parallel. As we progressed through different revolutions, manufacturers invested in better tools, more efficient processes, and refined skills but these gains were still delivered by the people. It was then that automation and offshoring started to become standard practice for many and productivity began rapidly increasing; however, it was halted when the belief that automation could replace human judgment rather than amplify it became “talk of the town”.
The biggest shortages are still in skilled roles such as process engineers, maintenance technicians, electricians, robotics specialists. These are exactly the people the World Economic Forum identifies as critical to industrial resilience. Yet we keep assuming each role can absorb every new technological wave, as if a process engineer should also be a data scientist and a plant manager a robotics programmer. This becomes more wishful thinking rather than reality. Yes, upskilling is necessary, however, technology only delivers productivity when it aligns with how work is done, and this is usually dictated by a human making the decisions and judgments when time is critical.
AI and Generative AI has the ability to transform manufacturing, but only if it’s founded in real data, real workflows, and human accountability. AI should help people move faster and see more clearly, not replace their judgment.
The future isn’t fully autonomous factories; it’s orchestrated operations with open, composable systems that adapt as technologies evolve, keeping humans in the loop while giving them more influence. If AI doesn’t make frontline work more skilled, more respected, and more impactful, then it hasn’t solved the real problem. Manufacturing’s future must be written by people, but with AI amplifying what they can do, not replacing them.
Just as other technologies have done in the past, AI will also create new roles, roles we haven’t named yet. As systems become more capable, the demand for people who can interpret, validate, adapt and orchestrate them will grow. Every major technological shift in manufacturing has expanded the scope of human work, not reduced it. We should expect the same here.
The real opportunity isn’t replacing people, but giving them more leverage. If we forget the power of human judgment, creativity and problem solving, we’ll miss the very thing that makes AI valuable in the first place.
