We’re often asked whether AI will replace people. It’s more likely to change the the work required from people, but I think it’s the wrong question.
Here’s a better one: what happens when people can’t do the work anymore — but the need is still there?
Recently, we’ve been supporting a project based in Sudan. The people who created it — brave, capable, determined — are no longer in the roles they once held. They have had to flee, displaced by war. But the service they built mattered. It still does. If anything the need for clarity in the chaos is more valuable.
That’s where we found a genuine case for AI. Not as a replacement for humans. Not as a flashy buzzword-of-the-day innovation. But as a bridge.
We’re helping preserve and adapt their work — training a model to respond in the same careful, grounded way they once did. The tone, the language, the lived experience: not just data points, but the shape of a voice. It’s not perfect and we’re keeping a human in the loop because it doesn’t need to be either. But it’s enough to keep something alive.
I saw on great post on LinkedIn:
“Actual innovation means actually turning off the old stuff. Which is usually harder and much less glamorous.”
This is really provocative, and totally true. It makes perfect sense in a public sector space where legacy systems hold back innovation. That said I think this project might be an exception to that idea. Innovation maybe also mean keeping on the things that otherwise would have to be turned off - but are needed.
In this case, AI didn’t take anyone’s job, we used AI to honoured the work being done. It made something possible that would otherwise be lost. No one is getting rich from this. It’s Not a headline-grabbing story, but a human one.
And those are the ones that matter.