Nidhi Pandya: Rethinking AI, Labour, and Indigenous Knowledge in the Age of Algorithms

Between Nature and Code: Exploring AI Bias, Indigenous Knowledge Systems, and Digital Capitalism in Aranya Sahay’s Humans in the Loop

This blog is written as a task assigned by the head of the Department of English (MKBU), Prof. and Dr. Dilip Barad Sir. Here is the link to the professor's Research Article for background reading: Click here.

Title: Humans in the Loop

Director: Aranya Sahay

Release Year: 2024

Country: India

Language: Hindi (with regional/Adivasi linguistic presence)

Genre: Social Realist / Techno-Documentary Fiction

Central Theme: Relationship between Artificial Intelligence and Human Labour

Primary Setting: Jharkhand (Rural Adivasi Region + Digital Workspace)

Plot Summary

The film follows Nehma, an Adivasi woman living in Jharkhand, who becomes employed in an AI data-labelling job. Her work involves annotating digital images and datasets used to train machine learning algorithms. As she continues to perform this labour, she encounters the limitations of computational logic when applied to indigenous ecological knowledge systems.

The narrative unfolds through:

Her domestic life
Cultural rituals and traditions
Interaction with natural landscapes
Repetitive AI training work

Through this, the film exposes the tension between:

Human experiential knowledge
Algorithmic classification systems

Core Themes of the Film

1. Artificial Intelligence & Bias

AI systems are shown as dependent on human data input.
Bias emerges due to exclusion of indigenous knowledge.
Technology reflects dominant socio-cultural assumptions.
Demonstrates that AI is not neutral but culturally situated.

2. Invisible Digital Labour

Highlights hidden labour behind automation.
Data labelling = Repetitive cognitive work.
Workers remain unrecognized despite technological dependence.
Reflects digital capitalism and labour commodification.

3. Indigenous Knowledge Systems

Indigenous ecological knowledge is:

Experiential
Context-based
Relational
AI cannot easily categorize such knowledge.
Creates epistemic conflict between tradition and technology.

4. Epistemic Hierarchies

The film raises the question:

Whose knowledge counts in technological systems?

Scientific knowledge = Valid

Indigenous knowledge = Ignored

This reflects:

Power imbalance
Knowledge politics
Cultural marginalization

5. Politics of Representation

Adivasi communities are shown as:

Contributors to AI
Not decision-makers

Challenges stereotype:

“Tribal = Technologically backward”
Shows them inside global digital economies

Film Language & Cinematic Techniques

🎞 Mise-en-scène

Forest = Freedom, organic knowledge

Workspace = Confinement, algorithmic control

Cinematography:

Natural Spaces Digital Spaces
Warm Lighting Artificial Lighting
Moving Camera Static Frames
Open Environment Confined Interiors

Symbolizes:

Nature vs Technology

Editing:

Repetitive sequences mimic data labelling.
Creates monotony & cognitive fatigue.

Sound Design:

Natural soundscape in village life.
Mechanical silence in digital workspace.
Highlights emotional alienation.

Theoretical Interpretations

Marxist Film Theory:

Labour becomes commodified.
Human effort fuels technological profit.
Workers are alienated from production outcome.

Apparatus Theory

Technology reproduces ideology.
AI systems reflect societal power structures.

Representation Theory (Stuart Hall)

Media shapes perception of marginalized identities.
Film resists dominant narratives.

Film Semiotics (Structuralism)

Nature = Signifier of indigenous knowledge
Computer Interface = Signifier of technological authority

Ethical Questions Raised

Who owns indigenous data?
Can cultural knowledge be digitized?
Is AI extraction a new form of colonialism?
Should marginalized communities benefit economically?

Relevance in Contemporary Digital Culture

The film is important because:

AI is expanding globally
Outsourced labour trains algorithms
Marginalized communities participate invisibly
Ethical AI debates are emerging

Conclusion

Humans in the Loop dismantles the myth of technological autonomy by revealing that AI systems are fundamentally dependent upon human cognition and cultural interpretation. It bridges the gap between indigenous knowledge and computational logic while critiquing the exploitative structures of digital capitalism.

Ultimately, the film reminds us:

"Artificial Intelligence is never truly artificial

It is always shaped by the humans within its loop."

WORKSHEET FILM SCREENING ARANYA SAHAY'S HUMANS IN THE LOOP

TASK 1 : AI, BIAS, & EPISTEMIC REPRESENTATION

1. How does the narrative expose algorithmic bias as culturally situated rather than purely technical?

The narrative of Humans in the Loop (2024) exposes algorithmic bias as culturally situated by demonstrating that artificial intelligence systems rely heavily on human-generated data for training and classification. Through Nehma’s role as a data-labeller, the film shows how AI platforms require her to categorize images and contextual information based on predefined computational labels. However, these standardized categories often fail to accommodate indigenous ecological knowledge rooted in lived experience and cultural practices. This mismatch forces Nehma to translate complex environmental understanding into simplified algorithmic terms. Such moments reveal that AI bias is not merely a technical flaw but a reflection of dominant cultural assumptions embedded within technological systems. The narrative illustrates that algorithmic decisions are shaped by the socio-cultural frameworks that determine how knowledge is interpreted, thereby exposing the ideological dimensions underlying machine learning processes.

2. In what ways does the film highlight epistemic hierarchies that is, whose knowledge counts in technological systems?

The film highlights epistemic hierarchies by illustrating the unequal valuation of different knowledge systems within AI training environments. Indigenous knowledge possessed by Nehma derived from her interactions with local ecosystems is portrayed as context-sensitive and experiential. However, the AI interface prioritizes standardized, data-driven knowledge aligned with scientific rationality. This creates a hierarchy in which indigenous ways of knowing are marginalized or rendered illegible within technological frameworks. By requiring Nehma to adapt her cultural understanding to fit algorithmic categories, the system privileges dominant epistemologies while excluding alternative perspectives. The film thereby underscores how technological infrastructures reproduce existing power relations by determining whose knowledge is recognized as valid within digital environments.

3. Support your answer with film studies concepts such as representation, ideology, and power relations.

From the perspective of film studies, the representation of AI systems in Humans in the Loop functions as an ideological construct that reflects broader socio-political power relations. The film portrays technology not as neutral but as embedded within structures of dominance that shape knowledge production. Through Nehma’s engagement with digital labour, the narrative reveals how marginalized communities contribute to technological development while lacking control over how their knowledge is represented or utilized. This aligns with ideological critiques that emphasize how media texts reproduce hierarchies by privileging certain cultural perspectives over others. Consequently, the film uses cinematic representation to critique the power dynamics inherent in AI systems and to question the legitimacy of technological objectivity.

TASK 2: LABOUR & THE POLITICS OF CINEMATIC VISIBILITY

1. How does the film’s visual language represent labelling work and the emotional experience of labour?

The film visualizes invisible labour through repetitive visual sequences that depict Nehma engaged in data-labelling tasks within digitally mediated workspaces. The use of static camera framing, close-up shots of computer interfaces, and minimal movement in these scenes reflects the monotonous and mechanical nature of digital labour. Editing patterns that emphasize repetition further reinforce the cyclical and routine aspects of labelling work. In contrast to the dynamic visuals of Nehma’s life within her natural environment, the AI workspace appears confined and technologically sterile. This visual juxtaposition communicates the emotional detachment and cognitive exhaustion associated with such labour. Sound design, often subdued during these sequences, contributes to the sense of isolation experienced by workers engaged in repetitive digital tasks.

2. What does this suggest about cultural valuation of marginalised work?

The representation of data-labelling work suggests that labour performed by marginalized communities remains culturally undervalued despite being essential to the functioning of advanced technological systems. While artificial intelligence is widely perceived as autonomous and innovative, the film reveals its dependence on manual cognitive input from individuals like Nehma. From a Marxist theoretical perspective, this reflects the commodification of human labour within digital capitalism, where intellectual and emotional effort is transformed into economic value without adequate recognition or compensation. The invisibility of such work within dominant narratives of technological progress underscores how contributions from marginalized populations are systematically obscured. This dynamic highlights broader socio-economic inequalities embedded within global digital infrastructures.

3. Does the film invite empathy, critique, or transformation in how labour is perceived?

The film invites both empathy and critical reflection by foregrounding the lived experiences of workers engaged in AI-related labour. Through its focus on Nehma’s emotional and social realities, the narrative encourages viewers to recognize the human effort underlying automated technologies. Simultaneously, the cinematic portrayal critiques dominant assumptions that frame technological systems as self-sustaining or independent of human intervention. By representing marginalized individuals as active contributors to digital economies, the film challenges viewers to reconsider prevailing perceptions of labour and technological agency. This representation has the potential to transform how audiences perceive digital work, prompting greater awareness of ethical issues related to worker rights, fair compensation, and technological accountability.

TASK 3 : FILM FORM, STRUCTURE & DIGITAL CULTURE

1. How does the interplay of natural imagery versus digital spaces communicate broader thematic concerns?

The film uses the visual contrast between natural landscapes and digitally mediated workspaces to communicate the philosophical tension between indigenous ecological knowledge and algorithmic rationality. Scenes set within forests, domestic spaces, and community rituals are depicted with fluid camera movement and organic lighting, reflecting a holistic and relational understanding of the environment. In contrast, digital workspaces are framed through static compositions, artificial lighting, and confined spatial arrangements that signify technological rigidity. This interplay functions as a visual code within a semiotic framework, representing the conflict between experiential knowledge systems and computational logic. The juxtaposition highlights the broader thematic concern of how digital culture attempts to standardize and categorize complex human experiences that are inherently contextual and culturally embedded.

2. How do aesthetic choices shape the viewer’s experience of labour, identity, and technology?

Aesthetic choices such as editing patterns, sound design, and camera techniques shape the viewer’s perception of labour by emphasizing the repetitive and monotonous nature of data-labelling tasks. Sequential editing that mirrors the cyclical structure of digital work creates a sensory experience of routine and cognitive fatigue. The subdued soundscape within AI workspaces contributes to the emotional detachment associated with technologically mediated labour. From a Formalist perspective, these cinematic devices function to construct meaning by aligning the viewer’s sensory experience with Nehma’s lived reality. The representation of identity is shaped through visual contrasts between cultural practices and digital interfaces, illustrating how technological environments influence perceptions of belonging and agency. Consequently, the film’s formal structure mediates the relationship between labour, identity, and technology within contemporary digital culture.

Here is Infograph Upon the Movie: