[🇧🇩] Artificial Intelligence-----It's challenges and Prospects in Bangladesh

[🇧🇩] Artificial Intelligence-----It's challenges and Prospects in Bangladesh
154
7K
More threads by Saif

G Bangladesh Defense

How to find a good startup idea in the age of AI


1793317814130.webp



Ask ChatGPT or Gemini for 50 startup ideas for Bangladesh and the list arrives in seconds, which feels like magic until you realise thousands of young founders from Mirpur to Moulvibazar are typing the same prompt and getting almost the same answers. The blank page has given way to abundance, and abundance raises a harder question: if a machine can brainstorm the idea, research the market and write most of the code, what is left for the founder to do?

The question matters more here than almost anywhere, because AI companies drew about 74 per cent of a record US$ 510 billion raised worldwide in the first half of 2026, as this newspaper has reported, while Bangladeshi startups raised just US$ 6.0 million, a 95 per cent fall year on year, according to LightCastle Partners, so no investor is coming to rescue a weak idea.

Much of a founder's traditional groundwork has already been handed to machines and the websites built around them. StartupIdeasDB.com lists more than 8,800 problems gathered from Reddit, Hacker News and GitHub, each with an AI opportunity score and a 2,000-word roadmap, while Y Combinator's Requests for Startups, Product Hunt and Indie Hackers reveal what investors want and what earns revenue. Building is cheap too, since Y Combinator's Jared Friedman said a quarter of its Winter 2025 startups had codebases 95 per cent written by AI.

This abundance hides a trap that researchers have measured: in a 2024 Science Advances study, Anil Doshi and Oliver Hauser found that writers given AI-generated ideas produced stories rated as more novel but those stories were roughly ten per cent more alike than ones written without help. Startup ideas are unlikely to escape that pull, which means an idea a chatbot hands you is, almost by definition, also being handed to your competitors.

This is where Bangladesh holds an advantage that is easy to miss from behind a laptop. AI models know a great deal about a dentist in Ohio and very little about a pharmacy owner in Bogura, partly because Bangla, despite about 237 million native speakers, is underserved in their training data, and somewhat because roughly 84 per cent of our workforce is informal, by BBS and ILO estimates, trading through khata, cash and phone call no web crawler will ever index. The founder who sits in the shop and listens to the wholesaler holds the one asset AI cannot generate: first-hand knowledge of problems nobody has written down.

Knowing the problem is only half the work because building has become the easy part and the real contest has moved to distribution and dependence. When a competent clone can appear within weeks, what matters is whether people find your product, use it every week and would feel lost without it. Growth marketer Sean Ellis's survey captures that feeling, since startups where at least 40 per cent of users say they would be "very disappointed" to lose the product tend to find real traction.

Four layers can make an idea defensible, and the strongest Bangladeshi companies stack several of them. The first is a service angle wrapped around the product, from onboarding done for the customer to a person who answers the phone in Bangla, because a rival can copy code within weeks but not relationships built over years. The second is deep local innovation, which separates a lazy copy of a Western model from a Bangladeshi original: Pathao bet on motorbikes and cash, Darazleaned on cash on delivery and empowering local sellers, and bKash turned more than 350,000 agents into human cash machines for over 83 million registered customers.

The third is a brand, personal or corporate, because when products look alike people choose the name they trust. Ayman Sadiq has said 10 Minute School found brand-market fit long before product-market fit, and his Facebook following of about 5.4 million in 2022 brought reach that, he argued, rivals would need heavy advertising to match. The fourth and deepest is community and network: groups, referrals and peer help that make a product more valuable with every new user, the way bKash became more useful as relatives, shops and employers joined. With about 64 million Bangladeshis reachable on Facebook, communities here form long before apps do, and a founder who builds one owns a distribution channel no clone can download.

Each kind of business leans on these layers differently: a pure service firm sees AI erode its cheap-labour margins first and survives by selling outcomes and accountability rather than hours, while a marketplace like Pathao or Daraz must match supply and demand at the same moment, which no algorithm can do without real riders and stocked warehouses. Infrastructure like bKash is the hardest to copy because it rests on a regulatory licence and hard-won trust, and its initial approval for a digital bank in 2026, with plans to judge borrowers by transaction histories, points to the biggest AI-era prize: turning invisible economic activity into reliable data.

Product companies offer Bangladeshi founders the clearest route to dollar revenue on a taka cost base. EzyCourse, a rival to Kajabi and Teachable, serves customers in more than 100 countries, Ollyo sells Tutor LMS worldwide, and Startise, the group behind WPDeveloper, Storeware and easy.jobs, reports more than six million WordPress users, over 26,000 Shopify stores and 28,000 businesses on its AI hiring platform. Their moat was never just code, which rivals can rebuild in weeks, but distribution inside WordPress and Shopify, loyal user communities and years of earned trust.

Before committing your savings, ask what you know that the model does not, and whether the business grows stronger or weaker each time the models improve, since anything one ChatGPT update could swallow is a feature, not a company. AI has also collapsed the cost of being wrong, so a founder can test several ideas through landing pages and pre-orders for what one prototype once cost, turning the scarce skill from guessing correctly into learning quickly.

What is left for the human founder is presence where problems live, the judgement to choose one idea from a thousand, the taste that a human experience can bring, the trust that persuades a shopkeeper to share his records, the accountability of someone who answers when things go wrong, and the patience to build a community one conversation at a time. Fifteen years ago, the cheap mobile phone was not itself Bangladesh's great opportunity but the ground on which bKash was built, and AI is this decade's cheap phone, so the winners among Bangladesh's 1,200-plus active startups will be those who go where the models cannot see.​
 

Skilled workforce emphasised to harness AI potential in tourism

Staff Correspondent . Dhaka

Bangladesh must develop a skilled workforce, improve service quality, and adopt artificial intelligence to realise its tourism potential, National Skills Development Authority executive chairman Nazneen Kawshar Chowdhury said on Thursday.

‘Without competency-based training, there will be no skilled workforce, because completion certificates produce an unskilled one,’ she said at the inauguration of the Bangladesh Travel and Tourism Fair 2026 in Dhaka.

The three-day fair, organised by the Tour Operators Association of Bangladesh under the theme‘AI Powered Tourism, Sustainable Destination’ , was inaugurated by Civil Aviation and Tourism secretary Nurun Nahar Chowdhury as chief guest at the Bangladesh-China Friendship Conference Centre in Agargaon.

Representatives from 20 countries are participating in the fair, which features more than 200 booths and stalls, over 220 exhibitors, over 250 qualified buyers, over 2,500 trade visitors, and more than 60,000 expected visitors.

Chairman of Bangladesh Parjatan Corporation Md Shamimuzzaman, CEO of Bangladesh Tourism Board Mutasim Billah Faruqui, Ambassador of the Philippines to Bangladesh Nina P Coinolet, Ambassador of Nepal to Bangladesh Ghanshyam Bhandari, and president of TOAB Mohammed Hanif, among others, attended the event.

Nazneen said the government had prioritised competency-based training to equip workers with practical skills required by the labour market.

She urged private training institutions, hotels, resorts, travel agencies and tour operators to help identify industry needs and develop appropriate curricula.

According to NSDA data up to September 30, 19 competency-based curricula had been developed for tourism and hospitality, with 252 registered training institutions.

Nazneen said Bangladesh’s tourism attractions, including the Sundarbans, Cox’s Bazar, hill regions and Sylhet’s tea gardens, required skilled workers, quality services, modern technology and tourist safety.

She highlighted AI’s potential in travel planning, bookings and marketing, stressing digital, communication and language skills.

The NSDA has taken initiatives to introduce eight foreign-language programmes, five of which have already been approved as competency-based programmes, including English for Work, German, Arabic, Korean and Chinese.

Tourism Secretary Nurun Nahar said integrating technology and artificial intelligence could help position Bangladesh’s tourism sector internationally while promoting environmentally friendly tourism.

Mohammed Hanif said the fair would showcase domestic tourism internationally and strengthen commercial relationships with global stakeholders.

The fair will remain open from 11:00am to 8:00pm until October 31.​
 

AI dilemmas
Obaidul Hamid

1793406533415.webp

Representational image. | New Age/AI

I CAN’T sufficiently explain my relationship with generative artificial intelligence. As a moderate user, I utilise it mainly for instrumental purposes. I am neither overenthusiastic nor overly sceptical about this advanced technology. It is nowhere near a love-hate relationship.

Recently, I engaged with GenAI somewhat more substantially than is my customary practice. I was working with a co-author on a journal article for a themed issue on AI in language policy and planning. We set out to examine the role of AI as a potential language policy actor and to theorise its agency. Agency is a foundational concept in this field and is generally understood as the capacity that drives an actor to seek changes in languages and language behaviours and to make a difference in the world.

We thought it would be worthwhile to engage various GenAI models, such as ChatGPT, for the article. Using AI as a research participant is, for me, one of the boldest uses of the technology beyond typical tasks such as editing, summarising, answering queries, and locating information. This specific research application may raise integrity questions, but we cannot generalise about it. It depends on how we engage the tool, use its output, and for what purposes. We ended up interacting with three widely used GenAI models and critically analysing the resulting data to pursue our research goals.

As we completed the first full draft of the article, we wanted to use AI to edit it. Our draft exceeded 9,000 words and had issues of clarity and coherence. As we know, GenAI is good at editing, and it can improve not only clarity but also the strength of arguments.

However, this editing process became a source of uncomfortable dilemmas. Many other writers may be facing similar quandaries as they use AI as an editor. Therefore, the story is worth telling.

The algorithmic editor cut one-third of the original draft, producing a sanitised version of just over 6,000 words. It performed what we would call a ‘caesarean section’ on the text.

The draft had repetitions and inconsistencies, no doubt. Yet the editing did not stop at those undesirable features. It also removed many other elements from the text that the editor apparently considered unnecessary or misaligned with dominant native-speaker norms of English.

The edited version was much cleaner and tidier, ensuring greater flow and readability. This was because the machine editing ironed out idiosyncrasies, contextual details, and non-native excesses. Many readers would probably prefer the edited version if they had the opportunity to read the original draft as well. Reading became faster and easier, reducing the cognitive burden on readers.

From an academic integrity standpoint, there might have been no problem in submitting the edited version to the journal. Editing is a widely accepted use of AI. It is generally assumed that AI edits texts for accuracy and clarity without substantially altering their content or ideas. In this respect, it is comparable to translation, which renders material into another language while preserving its original meaning. We would, of course, have needed to disclose the use of AI, as is now required by most journals.

Should we have submitted the edited paper to the journal? Different authors would likely answer this question differently. However, we could not proceed with that version.

It is the responsibility of authors to make their writing clear and comprehensible so that readers can appreciate its value and contribution. Editing helps achieve this outcome. This form of language engineering is particularly useful for writers who are non-native speakers of English. Indeed, editing has emerged as a global industry largely serving this clientele.

Even though AI is now everywhere, it is not the only editor in town. We have human editors, including professionals, teachers, research supervisors, journal editors, and copy-editors, as well as technologies such as Microsoft Word, Grammarly, and many others. Why, then, would we reject AI editing when we have no objections to other forms of editing? Are we prejudiced against AI?

Not really, but there are good reasons for hesitation. The first concerns ownership of the edited text. Even if the article’s content remains largely unchanged, can non-native writers still claim that the language is theirs? I am not sure how many users of English from countries belonging to the Outer and Expanding Circles would comfortably embrace language generated by an algorithmic editor. My own dilemma is even more acute. I have been advocating what I call ‘Southern English’, a reconfiguration of its Northern, native counterpart. AI placed me in a situation where I had to choose between conflicting options.

Yet even claiming ownership of the edited English does not resolve the problem. As some researchers have noted, once non-native users of English embrace AI-generated English, they may need to maintain that standard for the rest of their lives, relegating their own version of English to the margins. Sustaining such a dual linguistic existence may be difficult: displaying algorithmically nativised English on some occasions while reverting on others to an earlier version marked by idiosyncrasies, local flavours, and signs of non-nativeness. AI may not provide the linguistic security it promises to those who need it most. What appears to be security may simultaneously become a source of insecurity. How should we reconcile this with the popular discourses of empowerment and democratisation associated with AI?

Once non-native English speakers embrace AI English, they may become dependent on it to save face. From one perspective, this means becoming a permanent customer of AI and contributing to techno-capitalism. From another, it resembles the Doctor Faustus syndrome: selling one’s linguistic soul to Mephistopheles. Once the bargain is struck, there is no easy escape. Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o might have called it the ‘colonisation of the mind’. What appears to be linguistic empowerment then becomes a form of algorithmic imprisonment, paradoxical as that may sound.

But there are other dimensions to the AI English story. One fundamental question concerns the nature of human writing, or indeed any human activity. The dominant tradition of humanism has encouraged us to embrace human supremacy, exceptionalism, and agency. We have tended to regard our autonomy as unquestioned and unconditional. Yet the reality may be more complex. As posthumanist scholars argue, humans and nonhumans are interdependent rather than separate or independent. Human-nonhuman reciprocity is evident in nearly every aspect of life. From a posthumanist perspective, humans are never the sole authors of anything. We rely on tools in every action involving physical, intellectual, or creative labour. Writing itself may not be exclusively human if it is mediated by tools, whether the pen, the typewriter, the dictionary, or AI. A piece of writing may therefore already be a product of human-tool co-authorship, regardless of whether AI or another editor is involved later.

Beyond these external influences, there is also something within humans themselves as authors of texts and creators of other works. Our thinking is shaped by learning and socialisation in schools, communities, workplaces, and societies. Can we really regard the thinking that underpins writing and creativity as entirely subjective? Can I describe this piece of writing as single-authored when so many external influences are traceable within my thinking and productivity?

While posthumanism invites us to think beyond the human, AI policies at national, institutional, and intergovernmental levels continue to emphasise human control and oversight. The argument that humans should remain in the driver’s seat in the AI era appears almost unassailable. Underlying this position may be an assumption that human agency faces existential threats from AI.

At the same time, some researchers have stressed the dehumanising potential of AI and have called for greater humanisation and human oversight as remedies.

Many people are likely to find themselves in a maze, uncertain whether the way out lies in humanism, posthumanism, both, or neither. Whatever the answer may be, GenAI has prompted us to search for deeper truths about human life, agency, creativity, and what it means to function as human beings.

Obaidul Hamid is an associate professor at the University of Queensland in Australia. He researches language, education, and society in the developing world. He is a coeditor of Current Issues in Language Planning.​
 
Back
Top