Let Evidence, Not Ideology, Settle the AI Debate

Let Evidence, Not Ideology, Settle the AI Debate

Jul 18 , 2026. By Birhanu Beshah (PhD) ( Birhanu Beshah (PhD), (birhanu.beshah@aau.edu.et) is an associate professor in the School of Mechanical & Industrial Engineering of Addis Abeba University (AAU). )

Artificial intelligence (AI) is no longer a distant promise. It is reshaping economies, professions and institutions across the world.

The question facing Ethiopia is not whether AI will transform society, but how the country should govern that transformation. The answer lies not in choosing between artificial intelligence and conventional practice, but in managing the competition between them.

This became clear to me while moderating a recent panel titled "AI and Art: Opportunities and Challenges."

The discussion revealed three broad schools of thought. One celebrated AI's extraordinary pace and saw it as the inevitable future. Another embraced its practical uses while urging responsible adoption. A third questioned its legitimacy altogether, uneasy about what it means for creativity, employment and ethics.

Similar debates are unfolding across education, healthcare, law, software development, finance and public administration. No profession remains untouched.

These competing views are not signs of failure. They are the hallmark of disruptive innovation.

Clayton Christensen argued that disruptive technologies rarely win by immediately outperforming established systems. They begin by serving new needs, improving until they redefine the rules of competition. Established institutions dismiss them because they judge new tools by old standards, while innovators keep experimenting and expanding what the technology can do until the disruption is impossible to ignore.

Ethiopia's AI debate should therefore move past the tally of supporters and opponents. The real issue is the friction between competing paradigms.

Conventional institutions naturally seek to preserve established practice, professional identity and regulatory certainty. AI advocates emphasise speed, experimentation and innovation. Both sides hold legitimate concerns. The trouble starts when either tries to dominate rather than engage.

Disruptive innovation eventually settles into a new equilibrium. Old systems rarely vanish, and new technologies fold into daily practice. The question is where the equilibrium forms.

In technology-producing economies, disruption moves fast because research, investment, entrepreneurship and regulation reinforce one another. Ethiopia's reality differs.

As a developing country that mainly imports advanced digital technologies, it feels the benefits of disruption slowly while institutional resistance lingers. Without deliberate policy intervention, the eventual equilibrium may settle dangerously close to the status quo, limiting innovation and deepening technological dependence.

The government's commitment to digital transformation, seen in initiatives such as Digital Ethiopia and a growing interest in AI, is therefore timely and necessary. Public investment in digital infrastructure, AI research, higher education and innovation ecosystems will be essential if Ethiopia is to become more than a consumer of the world's technologies.

Yet favouring AI outright would carry its own risks. Professionals who feel threatened do not drop their concerns simply because policy leans towards innovation. Resistance grows quieter and more stubborn through bureaucratic delay, passive non-compliance and institutional inertia. Such hidden resistance can slow change more effectively than open criticism ever could.

Policy should therefore not pick winners in advance. It should create an environment where competing paradigms can demonstrate their strengths openly.

Regulatory sandboxes can allow experimentation without compromising public safety. Ethical AI standards can build trust while protecting citizens. Investment in digital skills can prepare workers for changing occupations. Universities should deepen interdisciplinary AI research, and professional associations should help shape standards rather than react to them.

The purpose is not consensus but constructive competition. When traditional approaches and AI-driven ones compete under transparent rules, evidence rather than ideology decides which delivers greater public value. The resulting equilibrium is more likely to be innovative, inclusive, and durable.

Artificial intelligence should be neither romanticised as the answer to every national problem nor feared as a threat to every profession. Ethiopia's real opportunity lies in managing the transition wisely.

The role of government is not to eliminate friction but to channel it productively, so that competing ideas produce better institutions, stronger innovation and sounder, steadier public policy.

If Ethiopia manages to do that, it will not merely adapt to the AI era. It will help define its own place within it.

PUBLISHED ON Jul 18,2026 [ VOL 27 , NO 1368]