India’s AI Moment: Foundational Models, Human Intelligence, and the Future of Work

 

The rapid proliferation of artificial intelligence has turned what were once speculative questions into urgent, everyday conversations. In boardrooms, classrooms, and chai stalls alike, we now ask: Has India missed the foundational model bus? Has AI surpassed human intelligence? And what happens to jobs as machines become smarter than us at most cognitive tasks?

These are not idle musings. They are existential questions for a country of 1.5 billion people, standing at the cusp of a technological revolution. And few voices articulate this moment with as much clarity and conviction as Vishal Sikka, former CEO of Infosys, veteran of SAP and Oracle, and now founder of Vianai Systems. His recent podcast conversation offers a treasure trove of insights, and I’d like to unpack and reflect on them here, in the spirit of strategic curiosity and national urgency.

---

Has AI Surpassed Human Intelligence?

Let’s start with the provocative question: Has AI become smarter than us?

Sikka’s answer is refreshingly grounded. He reminds us that today's large language models (LLMs) are essentially “lookup machines”, brilliant at pattern recognition, but devoid of true understanding. They can generate answers, yes, but they don’t know anything. They lack grounding in the physical world, in causality, in embodied experience. They are not sentient, and they are not superintelligent.

What they are, however, is astonishingly efficient. Consider this: our brain runs on about 20 watts of energy. Training GPT-5, by contrast, consumes energy orders of magnitude higher. somewhere between 10¹² to 10¹⁸ times more. That’s a trillion-fold gap in efficiency. And yet, despite this brute-force power, AI still stumbles on basic reasoning, context, and nuance.

So no, AI hasn’t surpassed human intelligence. But it has become a powerful tool, like a calculator, then Excel, then Google, and now this. The question isn’t whether it’s divine. The question is: What can we build with it?

Has India Lost the Foundational Model Story?

This is where the conversation gets interesting and controversial/.

Sikka is unequivocal: India must build its own foundational models. Not just because we can, but because we must. To be a passive consumer of AI built elsewhere is to surrender our agency in shaping the future. And India, he argues, is large enough, deep enough, and important enough to do it all. build the models, build the applications, and build the services.

We have unique advantages:

• India Stack: A digital infrastructure unmatched globally, offering rich, structured data.
• Linguistic diversity: Hundreds of languages and dialects, ripe for training multilingual models.
• Cultural archives: Manuscripts, documents, and oral traditions that no other country possesses.

And yet, the expertise to build frontier models is shockingly concentrated. According to Sebastian Thrun, only about 3,000 people globally can build such models, and 80% of them are in San Francisco and London. This is not just a talent gap. It’s a geopolitical vulnerability.

India must democratize this capability. Stanford teaches a course on building foundational models. Why shouldn’t IITs, IIITs, and NITs do the same? Why shouldn’t we have open-source frameworks, indigenous datasets, and public-private partnerships to accelerate this journey?

 

The Future of Jobs: Catastrophe or Opportunity?

This is perhaps the most emotionally charged part of the conversation. Sikka doesn’t mince words: Mass unemployment is a real and imminent risk. And paradoxically, it’s the educated class, those trained for certificate-based jobs like database administration or network maintenance, that are most vulnerable.

But here’s the twist: AI could empower artisans more than engineers.

Imagine a village woodworker using AI to design, market, and sell his craft globally. Imagine a weaver translating her product descriptions into 20 languages. Imagine a painter understanding global trends and adapting her style. These are not fantasies. These are real, empowering use cases.

The challenge, then, is not just technological. It’s societal. We must shift from training people to “make a living” to training them to “make a life.” That means teaching them how to use AI to augment their creativity, productivity, and agency, not just to pass certification exams.

And yes, while many jobs will become irrelevant, many new ones will emerge. Transitioning legacy systems and  reimagining business processes for AI enablement of existing enterprises,  managing AI ethics, curating datasets, fine-tuning models, these are all new frontiers. Services companies will play a pivotal role in this transformation, but they must evolve from body-shopping to capability-building.

 

What Should India Do Next?

Let me offer a strategic synthesis, drawing from Sikka’s wisdom and some of my reflections:

1. Invest in foundational models: Not just one, but many. Across languages, domains, and modalities.
2. Democratize AI education: From elite labs to vocational centers. Teach people how to build on and around it.
3. Empower the informal sector: Use AI to elevate artisans, farmers, and micro-entrepreneurs.
4. Reimagine job training: Move from certificate-based skills to capability-based learning.
5. Build public infrastructure for AI: Open datasets, ethical frameworks, and compute access must be national priorities.

 

Final Thought: The Building Is Not Smarter Than Us

Sikka ends with a beautiful metaphor: the building we’re sitting in is more powerful than us. But we don’t worship it. We use it. We live in it. We shape it.

AI is the same. It’s not God. It’s not superintelligence. It’s a tool. And like all tools, its value lies in what we do with it.

India’s AI moment is here. Let’s not squander it. Let’s build, with clarity, courage, and conviction.

“The true measure of intelligence is not in what we can automate, but in what we choose to preserve.” Anonymous

“AI hasn’t taken over the world yet—but it has taken over my browser tabs, my inbox, and my sleep.”Anonymous

 

Sources:
PM Modi and Vishal Sikka Chat About India's Bright AI Future
Vishal Sikka’s Advice for India on Foundational Models
A Visionary Meeting: Vishal Sikka & PM Modi Discuss AI's Future

Loyalty in Relationships: Navigating the Spectrum Between Convenience, Commitment, and Market Power

Human relationships are complex ecosystems, shaped by emotional bonds, practical needs, and subtle power dynamics. At the heart of why people stay connected lies a fundamental tension between two distinct modes of loyalty: the loyalty of convenience and the loyalty of commitment. These modes reflect not only the emotional depth of a relationship but also the underlying motivations that sustain it. When viewed through the lens of “market power” - a concept that encapsulates the exchange and influence inherent in relationships -we gain a richer understanding of how and why relationships endure, evolve, or dissolve.

Loyalty of Convenience: The Ease of Staying

Loyalty of convenience is a pragmatic form of connection. It’s not driven by deep emotional investment but by situational ease. People remain in relationships because it’s simpler than disrupting the status quo. This type of loyalty is often sustained by external factors, ie; shared environments, mutual acquaintances, or overlapping responsibilities. It’s the kind of loyalty that thrives in low-effort zones.

Characteristics of Convenience-Based Loyalty

• Situational Dependence: These relationships are often tethered to context. Colleagues who remain friendly because they share an office, neighbors who exchange pleasantries but never go deeper, or couples who stay together because of shared leases or children.
• Minimal Emotional Investment: There’s little effort to nurture or grow the relationship. The bond exists, but it’s thin; more like a thread than a rope.
• Routine Over Resonance: The relationship becomes a way of life, a habit rather than a choice. It’s easier to stay than to leave.

Examples

• Friends who continue meeting because of a shared social circle, even though the emotional connection has faded.
• Romantic partners who cohabit for convenience, avoiding the discomfort of separation despite a lack of intimacy or shared vision.

Convenience-based loyalty is not inherently negative. In fact, it can serve as a stabilizing force in certain phases of life. But it lacks the resilience and depth required to weather storms. When external conditions change; say, a job relocation or a shift in social dynamics the relationship often dissolves.

Loyalty of Commitment: The Depth of Staying

In contrast, loyalty of commitment is rooted in emotional investment and mutual respect. It’s a deliberate choice to stay, even when it’s hard. These relationships are built on shared values, trust, and a long-term perspective. They require effort, vulnerability, and a willingness to navigate conflict.

Characteristics of Commitment-Based Loyalty

• Emotional Depth: Time, care, and energy are poured into the relationship. There’s a sense of responsibility and genuine concern for the other’s well-being.
• Resilience Through Challenges: Committed individuals don’t flee at the first sign of trouble. They work through disagreements, misunderstandings, and external pressures.
• Future Orientation: There’s a shared vision of what lies ahead. The relationship is not just about the present; it’s about building something lasting.

Examples

• Lifelong friendships that survive distance, career changes, and personal evolution.
• Couples who support each other through illness, financial hardship, or personal growth, anchored by love and shared purpose.

Commitment-based loyalty is the bedrock of meaningful relationships. It’s what allows people to grow together, to evolve without growing apart. But it’s also demanding. It requires emotional labor, patience, and the courage to confront discomfort.

Market Power: The Hidden Currency of Relationships

To deepen our understanding of these two modes of loyalty, we turn to the concept of “market power” in relationships. This term, borrowed from economics but repurposed for human dynamics, captures the dual forces of exchange and influence that shape every connection.

The Market Element: Exchange in Relationships

Every relationship involves some form of exchange. This could be emotional (love, support), material (money, gifts), social (connections, status), or intellectual (ideas, mentorship). The “market” reminds us that relationships are rarely one-sided. There’s a giver and a taker, and often, both roles are fluid.

The Power Element: Influence and Imbalance

Power in relationships refers to the ability of one party to influence the other. This could stem from personality, resources, position, or emotional leverage. Power dynamics are not inherently toxic, but when unchecked, they can distort the relationship’s equilibrium.

The Two Drivers of Market Power

1. The Person Factor: This is who you are, your character, empathy, integrity, and emotional intelligence. Relationships driven by the Person Factor tend to be more enduring and meaningful.
2. The Possession Factor: This is what you have; money, status, connections, or authority. Relationships driven by the Possession Factor can be influential in the short term but often lack depth and sustainability.

Mapping Market Power to Loyalty Modes

When we overlay the concept of market power onto the loyalty spectrum, a compelling pattern emerges.

Loyalty of Convenience and the Possession Factor

Convenience-based relationships often lean heavily on the Possession Factor. They’re sustained by what one party brings to the table; be it access, resources, or social capital. These relationships can be transactional, and while they may offer short-term benefits, they’re vulnerable to shifts in relevance.

For example, a junior executive may maintain ties with a senior officer because of the latter’s influence. But if the senior officer retires or loses clout, the relationship may fade. Similarly, friendships built around shared perks; like travel, parties, or business deals; may not survive when the perks disappear.

Loyalty of Commitment and the Person Factor

Commitment-based relationships, on the other hand, are anchored in the Person Factor. They thrive on authenticity, shared values, and emotional resonance. These relationships are less dependent on external possessions and more on internal qualities.

A mentor who continues to guide a protégé long after formal ties have ended, or a friend who stands by you during a personal crisis, exemplifies this mode. Even if circumstances change, the relationship endures because it’s built on who you are, not what you have.

The Evolution of Relationships: From Possession to Person

Interestingly, some relationships begin with the Possession Factor and evolve into Person Factor-driven bonds. A business partnership may start as a strategic alliance but deepen into a genuine friendship. A romantic relationship may begin with attraction and shared lifestyle but grow into a committed bond through shared experiences and emotional growth.

This evolution is crucial. It’s what transforms convenience into commitment. But it requires intentionality, self-awareness, and a willingness to invest beyond the surface.

The Risks of Possession-Driven Relationships

While the Possession Factor can offer leverage, it comes with risks:

• Demand Inflation: The more valuable the possession, the higher the expectations. This can lead to imbalance and resentment.
• Exploitation: If one party feels trapped or obligated due to the other’s possessions, the relationship can become manipulative.
• Loss of Authenticity: People may say what you want to hear rather than what you need to hear. Feedback becomes filtered, and growth stagnates.

Senior leaders, for instance, may fall into the trap of expecting loyalty based on their position. They may lose the ability to receive honest feedback or nurture genuine connections. Over time, this erodes trust and isolates them from reality.

Building Balanced Relationships: A Strategic Skill

Recognizing the drivers of loyalty and market power is not just a philosophical exercise; it’s a strategic skill. Whether in personal life or professional settings, the ability to assess and manage relationship dynamics is essential.

Practical Steps

• Audit Your Relationships: Reflect on which relationships are convenience-based and which are commitment-driven. Are you investing where it matters?
• Cultivate the Person Factor: Focus on being a person of value; empathetic, reliable, and authentic. This builds sustainable market power.
• Balance Exchange and Influence: Ensure that your relationships are not overly transactional or power-skewed. Mutual respect is key.
• Welcome Feedback: Create space for honest conversations. This keeps relationships dynamic and prevents stagnation.
• Be Realistic in Expectations: Not every relationship will be deep or lasting. Accept the spectrum and invest accordingly.

Conclusion: Choosing Depth Over Ease

In the end, the choice between loyalty of convenience and loyalty of commitment is a reflection of our values. Convenience offers comfort, but commitment offers meaning. Market power can amplify relationships, but only when grounded in authenticity.

By understanding these dynamics, we become better navigators of human connection. We learn to build relationships that are not just functional but fulfilling. We move from being passive participants to intentional architects of our relational world.

And in doing so, we honor the deepest truth of relationships: that they are not just about what we get, but about who we become through them.

“True power in a relationship is not in being heard, but in being open to hear what wasn’t said.”

AI, Culture & Trust: Why Relationships Still Matter in a Digital World

 

Economic activities all over the world are heavily influenced by profit motive except in case of affirmative actions by government or philanthropy. However, these transactions are stitched together by relationship among the participants. The extent of this  varies across the cultures

• High-context cultures (e.g. China, India, Brazil) rely heavily on personal relationships, where trust and loyalty are built over time and often precede formal agreements.
• Low-context cultures (e.g. U.S., Germany) prioritize efficiency and clarity, where relationships may be helpful but are not prerequisites for business.
• Hybrid cultures (e.g. Japan, UAE, South Africa) blend formal structures with relational depth, often requiring cultural sensitivity and patience.

As the world is moving towards proliferation of AI in more and more domains especially where human interfaces are heavy, the adoption is significantly going to be influenced by the cultural context.  In this context, the leadership driving this need to keep in mind that

• Relational trust can unlock innovation and speed.
• Cultural fluency helps navigate power dynamics without compromising integrity.
• Ethical clarity ensures that influence remains constructive, not corrosive. 

In cultures where personal relationships are central to business, like India, China, Brazil, and much of Africa, the adoption of AI faces unique friction and adaptation curves:

Trust Is Earned, Not Assumed

• AI systems, especially those that automate decisions (e.g. hiring, lending, procurement), may be met with skepticism unless they reflect human-like empathy, transparency, and cultural nuance.
• In high-context cultures, relational trust often trumps algorithmic efficiency. Leaders may hesitate to delegate sensitive decisions to AI unless the system is explainable and aligned with local values.

Adoption Hinges on Relational Gatekeepers

• Influential individuals—mentors, senior executives, family business heads—play a key role in shaping attitudes toward AI. Their endorsement can accelerate trust and uptake.
• In public-private partnerships, relational capital often determines access and influence. AI must be positioned as a complement to human judgment, not a replacement.

AI Must Learn the Language of Relationships

• AI tools that support personalized recommendations, emotionally intelligent communication, and context-aware negotiation are more likely to succeed in relationship-driven environments.
• For example, AI-mediated communication has shown to improve cross-cultural understanding by 31% and negotiation satisfaction by 24% when transparency is built in.

As AI becomes embedded in business workflows, it will inevitably reshape how trust is built and maintained:

From Intuition to Insight

• AI can surface patterns in behavior, preferences, and risk that were previously inferred through intuition. This can enhance trust by making decisions more consistent and data-backed.
• However, it may also erode the informal, emotional cues that underpin trust in many cultures; especially if AI is perceived as cold or opaque.

Hybrid Trust Models Will Emerge

• The future lies in hybrid trust: where AI handles routine tasks and pattern recognition, while humans manage nuance, empathy, and ethical judgment.
• Businesses that blend AI’s precision with human warmth will build deeper loyalty and satisfaction, especially in customer-facing roles.

Transparency Will Be the New Relationship Currency

• AI systems must be designed with explainability, consent, and cultural sensitivity. In relationship-driven contexts, people want to know not just what the AI decided, but why.
• This is especially true in sectors like digital finance, where personalization must be balanced with ethical clarity and data integrity.

In this context we  could:

• Frame AI as a trust amplifier, not a trust substitute.
• Design DPI systems that embed relational logic—e.g. community-driven feedback loops, culturally adaptive interfaces.
• Mentor young leaders to navigate the dual fluency of algorithmic and interpersonal trust. 

 As we move forward, let’s deepen our understanding of how relationships shape power, influence, and trust. I explored this in an earlier reflection on “Market Power & Relationships”—still relevant today:

📖 Read the blog post

“The measure of intelligence is the ability to change.”Albert Einstein

(I had posted a summariesed version of this as a lined in post. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/koshy89_market-power-relationships-activity-7374399657952628736-_-2t?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAAHWSYQBQXp5IHBAbmYtmy0QTDr2QMLjsi8)

Friends and Then There are Friends

 Leadership Reflections from the Edges of Trust

In the landscape of leadership, where transformation is often the goal and collaboration the vehicle, the journey is shaped as much by people as by ideas. Over time, you come to appreciate that some individuals bring clarity, courage, and commitment to the missio while some others bring complexity. And within this complexity lies the most delicate thread in leadership: trust.

In my own journey, through large-scale initiatives and system shaping collaborations, I’ve had the privilege of working alongside many capable, passionate individuals. Some inspired me through their quiet excellence, others through their bold conviction. Yet what’s stayed with me most are not just the accomplishments, but the relational dynamics that informed them.

We often speak of leadership as if it's a solo act. In reality, it’s more a relay that is passing batons, ideas, responsibilities, and vision to those who come next. That handover moment is pivotal. It tests not just our planning, but our perception of the people we entrust.

At times, it’s exhilarating. You watch someone rise, bring fresh energy, and take the mission forward in ways you couldn't have imagined. Other times, it’s sobering. The initial warmth starts to feel performative. Support flows freely when incentives align—but when they don’t, you notice the subtle distance. Advice once sought becomes an afterthought. And ideas you offered (some hesitantly received, some outright rejected) later resurface, confidently repurposed, yet curiously detached from their origin.

Is it betrayal? Not always. Sometimes, it’s just a different style. An ambition that's impatient, a recognition that remains unspoken. But in leadership, silence too is a signal.

These moments taught me that trust isn’t binary. It exists in degrees, and it evolves. Respect may be immediate, but trust requires time, consistency, and reciprocity. One can admire someone’s competence yet remain cautious about their integrity. And that’s okay.

Especially in transformational projects, where stakes are high and vision runs deep, the emotional cost of misalignment can be significant. You don’t just feel let down; you fear for the potential of the work itself. You’ve seeded something with care, nurtured it into possibility, and then watched as its trajectory bends; sometimes away from purpose, sometimes toward personal optics.

Yet even in such moments, bitterness helps no one. I've come to view these experiences not as indictments of character, but as invitations for reflection. On leadership maturity. On alignment. On how we prepare those we trust to carry forward what we've built.

Here are some principles that have helped me navigate these transitions—calmly, constructively, and without losing heart:

---

🔹 Trust is contextual.

Don't assume alignment just because you share objectives. Probe deeper: into motivations, methods, and mindsets. True alignment includes shared values; not just shared goals.

🔹 Be generous, but not naive.

Support people fully, but remain observant. Enthusiasm isn't always sincerity. Neither is politeness. Time reveals true intent.

🔹 Let ideas go, but honour their roots.

Innovation thrives on building over what came before. But integrity means acknowledging origins. Credit isn’t vanity but, it’s continuity.

🔹 Transitions need care, not just process.

It’s easy to document handovers. Much harder to shape culture in the process. Leadership continuity needs emotional intelligence, not just operational readiness.

🔹 Protect potential, not just plans.

If the vision matters, so does how it's carried forward. Sometimes safeguarding it means challenging ego, entitlement, or misdirection = gently, but firmly.

🔹 Legacy is relational.

What remains after your tenure isn’t just the systems you built. It’s how people felt under your guidance. And how they choose to continue what you began.

As we build systems, scale platforms, and strive for lasting impact, we must remember: leadership isn’t about control; it’s about coherence. It’s about trusting others wisely, framing succession thoughtfully, and always choosing the mission over the moment.

Friendships in leadership can be deeply nourishing. But when ambition outpaces humility, they can become transactional. The key isn’t to retreat, but to recalibrate with grace.

We all play different roles at different times. Advisor, collaborator, challenger, successor. What matters is that in each role, we remain honest with others, and with ourselves.

And if you're ever in doubt about how to lead when you're no longer in charge, remember: integrity echoes louder in absence than in presence.

 “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.” — Abraham Lincoln

Friends, and Then There Are Friends

 

Leadership Reflections from the Edges of Trust

In the landscape of leadership, where transformation is often the goal and collaboration the vehicle, the journey is shaped as much by people as by ideas. Over time, you come to appreciate that some individuals bring clarity, courage, and commitment to the mission while some others bring complexity. And within this complexity lies the most delicate thread in leadership: trust.

In my own journey, through large-scale initiatives and system shaping collaborations, I’ve had the privilege of working alongside many capable, passionate individuals. Some inspired me through their quiet excellence, others through their bold conviction. Yet what’s stayed with me most are not just the accomplishments, but the relational dynamics that informed them.

We often speak of leadership as if it's a solo act. In reality, it’s more a relay that is passing batons, ideas, responsibilities, and vision to those who come next. That handover moment is pivotal. It tests not just our planning, but our perception of the people we entrust.

At times, it’s exhilarating. You watch someone rise, bring fresh energy, and take the mission forward in ways you couldn't have imagined. Other times, it’s sobering. The initial warmth starts to feel performative. Support flows freely when incentives align—but when they don’t, you notice the subtle distance. Advice once sought becomes an afterthought. And ideas you offered (some hesitantly received, some outright rejected) later resurface, confidently repurposed, yet curiously detached from their origin.

Is it betrayal? Not always. Sometimes, it’s just a different style. An ambition that's impatient, a recognition that remains unspoken. But in leadership, silence too is a signal.

These moments taught me that trust isn’t binary. It exists in degrees, and it evolves. Respect may be immediate, but trust requires time, consistency, and reciprocity. One can admire someone’s competence yet remain cautious about their integrity. And that’s okay.

Especially in transformational projects, where stakes are high and vision runs deep, the emotional cost of misalignment can be significant. You don’t just feel let down; you fear for the potential of the work itself. You’ve seeded something with care, nurtured it into possibility, and then watched as its trajectory bends; sometimes away from purpose, sometimes toward personal optics.

Yet even in such moments, bitterness helps no one. I've come to view these experiences not as indictments of character, but as invitations for reflection. On leadership maturity. On alignment. On how we prepare those we trust to carry forward what we've built.

Here are some principles that have helped me navigate these transitions—calmly, constructively, and without losing heart:

---

🔹 Trust is contextual.

Don't assume alignment just because you share objectives. Probe deeper: into motivations, methods, and mindsets. True alignment includes shared values; not just shared goals.

🔹 Be generous, but not naive.

Support people fully, but remain observant. Enthusiasm isn't always sincerity. Neither is politeness. Time reveals true intent.

🔹 Let ideas go, but honour their roots.

Innovation thrives on building over what came before. But integrity means acknowledging origins. Credit isn’t vanity but, it’s continuity.

🔹 Transitions need care, not just process.

It’s easy to document handovers. Much harder to shape culture in the process. Leadership continuity needs emotional intelligence, not just operational readiness.

🔹 Protect potential, not just plans.

If the vision matters, so does how it's carried forward. Sometimes safeguarding it means challenging ego, entitlement, or misdirection = gently, but firmly.

🔹 Legacy is relational.

What remains after your tenure isn’t just the systems you built. It’s how people felt under your guidance. And how they choose to continue what you began.

As we build systems, scale platforms, and strive for lasting impact, we must remember: leadership isn’t about control; it’s about coherence. It’s about trusting others wisely, framing succession thoughtfully, and always choosing the mission over the moment.

Friendships in leadership can be deeply nourishing. But when ambition outpaces humility, they can become transactional. The key isn’t to retreat, but to recalibrate with grace.

We all play different roles at different times. Advisor, collaborator, challenger, successor. What matters is that in each role, we remain honest with others, and with ourselves.

And if you're ever in doubt about how to lead when you're no longer in charge, remember: integrity echoes louder in absence than in presence.

 “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.”

— Abraham Lincoln