The digital age has given rise to a new kind of continent; one not defined by geography, but by connectivity, imagination, and shared protocols. This “digital continent” is built on the foundational ethos of openness: open standards, open participation, and open innovation. From the World Wide Web to India’s Open Network for Digital Commerce (ONDC), the journey of open networks is reshaping not just commerce, but the very architecture of digital society.

The Power of Open Protocols

The internet’s early success was rooted in open protocols. Tim Berners-Lee’s decision to make the web’s architecture freely available catalyzed a wave of global innovation. Email, powered by SMTP, became a universal mode of communication because it was interoperable, anyone could build on it, use it, and connect through it.

These protocols didn’t just enable technology; they fostered ecosystems. They allowed diverse actors, governments, startups, communities, to participate without permission or gatekeeping. The result was a flourishing digital commons.

Yet, when it came to commerce, the world veered toward proprietary platforms. Amazon, Alibaba, and others built closed ecosystems that centralized control. While efficient, these platforms created silos, limited choice, and concentrated power. The internet of transactions became fragmented.

ONDC: A Reference Model, Not the Destination

India’s ONDC emerged as a bold corrective. Conceived as a public digital infrastructure, ONDC is not a marketplace or app; it’s a protocol layer that enables interoperability across buyer and seller platforms. It allows any seller to be discovered by any buyer interface, provided they speak the same digital language.

ONDC’s early success, spanning groceries, mobility, financial services, and electronics, demonstrates the viability of open commerce. But its true value lies not in its scale, but in its replicability. ONDC is a reference model, not a global monolith. It shows that open networks can work, and that they can be federated across domains and borders.

Beyond Commerce: The Architecture of Open Networks

Open networks are not limited to retail. The same principles, interoperability, decentralization, and inclusivity, can be applied across sectors:

• Agriculture: Farmers, processors, and buyers can transact through open agri-networks, improving market access and price transparency.
• Tourism: Guides, accommodations, and transport providers can be discovered across interoperable platforms, reducing dependency on global aggregators.
• Healthcare: Patients, providers, insurers, and pharmacies can connect through open health networks, improving care coordination and reducing costs.
• Education: Learners, educators, and institutions can share resources and credentials across open learning networks, fostering lifelong learning.

Each domain can build its own network using shared protocols, tailored to local needs but capable of global interoperability. This is the architecture of the digital continent: a mesh of open networks, each sovereign yet connected.

Federation, Not Centralization

The vision is not to create one giant network, but many interoperable ones. Just as the internet connects websites across domains, open networks can connect commerce, health, education, and governance.

Federation allows for diversity. A tourism network in Bhutan can interoperate with a mobility network in Brazil. A farmer in Uganda can be discovered by a buyer in India. Innovation can flourish without centralized control.

This model also respects sovereignty. Countries and communities can define their own rules, data policies, and governance structures, while still participating in a global digital economy.

Inclusion by Design

Open networks are inherently inclusive. They lower barriers to entry by removing the need for proprietary integrations. A small seller, a rural entrepreneur, or a local cooperative can join the network once and be visible everywhere.

This is especially powerful for:

• MSMEs and informal sector players
•  Women entrepreneurs and self-help groups
•  Rural and tribal communities
•  Artisans and creators

By decoupling discovery from dominance, open networks democratize visibility. They allow participants to retain autonomy while accessing scale.

Iteration and Local Customization

Open networks are not static. They evolve through experimentation. ONDC’s early journey involved handholding, incentives, and protocol refinement. Other networks will need similar iterative approaches.

Local customization is key. Buyer apps can curate offerings for specific communities. Protocols can be adapted to local languages, payment systems, and regulatory norms. Feedback loops can drive continuous improvement.

This mirrors the spirit of the web: decentralized, diverse, and user-driven.

The Role of Policy Makers

To build and sustain open networks, policy makers must go beyond regulation. They must become architects of digital public infrastructure. This involves:

•  Investing in foundational layers: identity, payments, data sharing, and consent frameworks.
•  Promoting open standards: ensuring interoperability across platforms and domains.
•  Supporting capacity building: enabling small players to adopt and adapt technology.
•  Preventing proprietary lock-ins: ensuring that public services and subsidies are not tied to closed platforms.

The goal is not just to regulate platforms, but to enable alternatives. To seed ecosystems that are resilient, inclusive, and innovation-friendly.

A Global Movement

ONDC has inspired interest from countries across Asia, Africa, and Latin America. But the movement must go further. It must become a global conversation about digital sovereignty, economic inclusion, and protocol-based collaboration.

International organizations, development banks, and philanthropic institutions can play a catalytic role. They can fund pilots, convene stakeholders, and support capacity building. They can help create a global commons of open protocols—available to all, owned by none.

The Internet of Transactions

We are entering a new phase of the internet, not just as a network of information, but as a network of transactions. This “Internet of Transactions” will be:

•  Interoperable: connecting diverse actors across domains and borders.
•  Inclusive: enabling participation without gatekeeping.
•  Iterative: evolving through feedback and experimentation.
•  Infrastructure-led: built on public digital rails, not private silos.

It will offer choice without coercion, scale without centralization, and innovation without inhibition.

Conclusion: Building the Digital Continent

The digital continent is not a metaphor—it is a blueprint. It is a call to reimagine digital ecosystems as open, federated, and inclusive. ONDC is one landmark on this journey, but the path stretches far beyond.

As countries and communities build their own networks, they contribute to a global mesh of opportunity. They reclaim agency, foster innovation, and create resilient digital economies.

The future is not platform versus platform. It is network of networks. It is openness as infrastructure. And it is ours to build together.

 

Artificial Super Intelligence and the Humble Human Part 1

 

“Science fiction warned us about machines that think; it never warned us how ordinary that moment would feel.”

For centuries, intelligence was the one domain humans assumed would remain uniquely ours. Strength could be mechanized, memory could be stored, speed could be amplified, but thinking felt different. Today, that assumption is quietly dissolving. Artificial Intelligence is advancing not in steady steps, but in accelerating leaps, challenging our definitions of reasoning, creativity, and even understanding itself. And yet, when we look closely, the distance between computation and humanity remains both profound and revealing.

Artificial Intelligence is progressing in leaps and bounds, practically on a day-to-day basis. In many areas, it already outperforms humans by a wide margin. To evaluate how close AI comes to genuine human reasoning, we rely on benchmarks such as ARC, which attempts to measure AI performance in comparison to humans.

ARC (Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus) is a benchmark created by François Chollet to measure general fluid intelligence in AI—the ability to learn new skills and reason abstractly without prior domain-specific training. It has evolved into multiple levels: ARC-AGI-1, ARC-AGI-2, and ARC-AGI-3 (preview). Current leading AI models perform far below human level on the hardest levels: humans solve nearly 100% of tasks, while even the best AI models struggle to reach 50% on ARC-AGI-2 and under 20% on ARC-AGI v2.

The current performance landscape looks like this:

• Humans vs AI: Humans consistently solve 100% of ARC tasks, highlighting the massive gap in reasoning ability.
• AI Progress: While ARC-AGI-1 was nearly “solved” by large models, ARC-AGI-2 exposed their limitations—brute force and scale are insufficient.
• Breakthroughs: GPT-5.2’s ~53% on ARC-AGI-2 is a major leap, but still far from human-level reasoning.
• Future: ARC-AGI-3 will test interactive reasoning, pushing AI beyond static puzzles into dynamic environments.

In summary, ARC is the North Star benchmark for AGI, measuring whether AI can truly think, generalize, and adapt like humans. Despite significant progress, leading models remain far from human-level performance, especially on ARC-AGI-2 and beyond.

While researching this topic, I was reminded of Data, the humanoid android from Star Trek: The Next Generation. Curious, I asked Microsoft Copilot how Data might score by comparison. This was its response:

ARC-AGI-1 (basic abstract reasoning puzzles)
Humans: ~100% | AI: ~75–87% | Data: Effortless.
Data routinely demonstrates the ability to infer rules, patterns, and transformations far beyond simple grid puzzles. He would solve these instantly, likely faster than humans.

ARC-AGI-2 (harder, resistant to brute force, requiring deep abstraction)
Humans: ~100% | AI: ~53% (best models) | Data: Near-perfect.
Data shows fluid intelligence: he learns new games (like poker or strategy simulations) without prior training, adapts to alien logic systems, and reasons abstractly across domains. He would likely match or exceed human-level performance here.

ARC-AGI v2 (leaderboard variant, where top AI scores are <20%)
Humans: ~100% | AI: ~15% (best) | Data: Essentially flawless.
Data’s ability to generalize across unfamiliar contexts—whether deciphering alien languages, solving engineering crises, or improvising in diplomacy—suggests he would achieve near-100% here, like humans.

ARC-AGI-3 (interactive reasoning, dynamic environments)
Humans: ~100% | AI: Not yet tested | Data: Beyond benchmark.
Data thrives in interactive, real-world reasoning: commanding starships, negotiating with adversaries, and adapting in real time. He embodies the kind of general, embodied intelligence ARC-AGI-3 aims to test.

At this point, I listened again to a discussion between Data, Geordi (Chief Engineer), and Dr. Pulaski (Chief Medical Officer), which reminds us how far away even the fictional android is from being human.

The context is that Data and Geordi enter the Holodeck to play Sherlock Holmes adventures. Since Data knows all the stories, he keeps jumping the gun and spoiling the fun. Geordie got frustrated and abandoned the game. They both came to the café and discussing the frustration about playing with Data and Dr Polaski was listening to this conversation.

“What we were doing You are wasting your breath ,lieutenant. saying that to data is asking a computer not to compute” Said Dr Polaski.

“Am I so different from your doctor.” Asked Data

“Are you able to cease speaking on command. In medicine I am often faced with puzzles that I do not know the answer.” Said Doc

“She's right there. you always know the answer. to feel the thrill of victory there has to be the possibility of failure and where's the Victory in winning a battle you can't possibly lose.” Georgie observed

“Are you suggesting there is some value in losing” Data asked

“ Yes yes that's the great teacher . we humans learn more often from a failure or a mistakes than we do from an easy success . not you. you learn by rote. to you all is memorization recitation .” Said Doc

‘I don't know about all that. Deductive reasoning is one of data strengths” Georgie commented

“Yes and Holmes is too. But Holmes understood the human soul; the dark flecks that drive and turn the innocent into the evil, that understanding is beyond data.” Said Pulaski

“Now you're just being unfair doctor” Quipped Georgie

“I don’t think so lieutenant. Your artificial friend doesn't have a prayer of solving a Holmes mystery that he hasn't read’

Being a Star Trek aficionado, I then asked Copilot to compare Data with another Next Generation–era AI: the Emergency Medical Hologram from Star Trek: Voyager.

Data would consistently outperform the Doctor in abstract, cross-domain reasoning.
The Doctor would rival or surpass Data in medical problem-solving and human interaction. His emotional growth gives him an edge in empathy-driven reasoning, which ARC-AGI-3 (interactive tasks) is designed to capture.

In short, Data is the embodiment of general intelligence; the Doctor is the embodiment of specialized intelligence evolving toward generality. Together, they illustrate two pathways AI could take. one built for universality, the other for depth and human connection.

AI may bring super intelligence soon, not a normal human being. And will this super intelligence empower the human or annihilate the human is the question.

The idea behind this post is not to be judgmental, but to invite you to join me on a quest on what more is to being human- better human. Atma with a link to Paramatma ?

“Intelligence may be measured in problems solved, but humanity is revealed in the problems we struggle with.”

Open Network, Open Beyond Commerce, Open Beyond Borders: A Vision for the Digital Continent

 

The digital age has given rise to a new kind of continent; one not defined by geography, but by connectivity, imagination, and shared protocols. This “digital continent” is built on the foundational ethos of openness: open standards, open participation, and open innovation. From the World Wide Web to India’s Open Network for Digital Commerce (ONDC), the journey of open networks is reshaping not just commerce, but the very architecture of digital society.

The Power of Open Protocols

The internet’s early success was rooted in open protocols. Tim Berners-Lee’s decision to make the web’s architecture freely available catalyzed a wave of global innovation. Email, powered by SMTP, became a universal mode of communication because it was interoperable, anyone could build on it, use it, and connect through it.

These protocols didn’t just enable technology; they fostered ecosystems. They allowed diverse actors, governments, startups, communities, to participate without permission or gatekeeping. The result was a flourishing digital commons.

Yet, when it came to commerce, the world veered toward proprietary platforms. Amazon, Alibaba, and others built closed ecosystems that centralized control. While efficient, these platforms created silos, limited choice, and concentrated power. The internet of transactions became fragmented.

ONDC: A Reference Model, Not the Destination

India’s ONDC emerged as a bold corrective. Conceived as a public digital infrastructure, ONDC is not a marketplace or app; it’s a protocol layer that enables interoperability across buyer and seller platforms. It allows any seller to be discovered by any buyer interface, provided they speak the same digital language.

ONDC’s early success, spanning groceries, mobility, financial services, and electronics, demonstrates the viability of open commerce. But its true value lies not in its scale, but in its replicability. ONDC is a reference model, not a global monolith. It shows that open networks can work, and that they can be federated across domains and borders.

Beyond Commerce: The Architecture of Open Networks

Open networks are not limited to retail. The same principles, interoperability, decentralization, and inclusivity, can be applied across sectors:

• Agriculture: Farmers, processors, and buyers can transact through open agri-networks, improving market access and price transparency.
• Tourism: Guides, accommodations, and transport providers can be discovered across interoperable platforms, reducing dependency on global aggregators.
• Healthcare: Patients, providers, insurers, and pharmacies can connect through open health networks, improving care coordination and reducing costs.
• Education: Learners, educators, and institutions can share resources and credentials across open learning networks, fostering lifelong learning.

Each domain can build its own network using shared protocols, tailored to local needs but capable of global interoperability. This is the architecture of the digital continent: a mesh of open networks, each sovereign yet connected.

Federation, Not Centralization

The vision is not to create one giant network, but many interoperable ones. Just as the internet connects websites across domains, open networks can connect commerce, health, education, and governance.

Federation allows for diversity. A tourism network in Bhutan can interoperate with a mobility network in Brazil. A farmer in Uganda can be discovered by a buyer in India. Innovation can flourish without centralized control.

This model also respects sovereignty. Countries and communities can define their own rules, data policies, and governance structures, while still participating in a global digital economy.

Inclusion by Design

Open networks are inherently inclusive. They lower barriers to entry by removing the need for proprietary integrations. A small seller, a rural entrepreneur, or a local cooperative can join the network once and be visible everywhere.

This is especially powerful for:

• MSMEs and informal sector players
•  Women entrepreneurs and self-help groups
•  Rural and tribal communities
•  Artisans and creators

By decoupling discovery from dominance, open networks democratize visibility. They allow participants to retain autonomy while accessing scale.

Iteration and Local Customization

Open networks are not static. They evolve through experimentation. ONDC’s early journey involved handholding, incentives, and protocol refinement. Other networks will need similar iterative approaches.

Local customization is key. Buyer apps can curate offerings for specific communities. Protocols can be adapted to local languages, payment systems, and regulatory norms. Feedback loops can drive continuous improvement.

This mirrors the spirit of the web: decentralized, diverse, and user-driven.

The Role of Policy Makers

To build and sustain open networks, policy makers must go beyond regulation. They must become architects of digital public infrastructure. This involves:

•  Investing in foundational layers: identity, payments, data sharing, and consent frameworks.
•  Promoting open standards: ensuring interoperability across platforms and domains.
•  Supporting capacity building: enabling small players to adopt and adapt technology.
•  Preventing proprietary lock-ins: ensuring that public services and subsidies are not tied to closed platforms.

The goal is not just to regulate platforms, but to enable alternatives. To seed ecosystems that are resilient, inclusive, and innovation-friendly.

A Global Movement

ONDC has inspired interest from countries across Asia, Africa, and Latin America. But the movement must go further. It must become a global conversation about digital sovereignty, economic inclusion, and protocol-based collaboration.

International organizations, development banks, and philanthropic institutions can play a catalytic role. They can fund pilots, convene stakeholders, and support capacity building. They can help create a global commons of open protocols—available to all, owned by none.

The Internet of Transactions

We are entering a new phase of the internet, not just as a network of information, but as a network of transactions. This “Internet of Transactions” will be:

•  Interoperable: connecting diverse actors across domains and borders.
•  Inclusive: enabling participation without gatekeeping.
•  Iterative: evolving through feedback and experimentation.
•  Infrastructure-led: built on public digital rails, not private silos.

It will offer choice without coercion, scale without centralization, and innovation without inhibition.

Conclusion: Building the Digital Continent

The digital continent is not a metaphor, it is a blueprint. It is a call to reimagine digital ecosystems as open, federated, and inclusive. ONDC is one landmark on this journey, but the path stretches far beyond.

As countries and communities build their own networks, they contribute to a global mesh of opportunity. They reclaim agency, foster innovation, and create resilient digital economies.

The future is not platform versus platform. It is network of networks. It is openness as infrastructure. And it is ours to build together.

 “Openness is not the absence of control—it is the redistribution of power.”

“The Matrix Isn’t Coming - We’re Building It.”

 

In 2011, my blog post titled “Looking for ‘the One’? A Cynic’s Fantasy” invoked The Matrix as a metaphor for our world ; where most people are treated as mere resources, while a powerful few extract wealth and power, often using distraction and control to keep the masses docile.

Today, as we stand amid the rapid rise of generative AI, autonomous systems, and mass-data platforms, I find that old metaphor eerily prescient , but the villain need not be the technology itself. The real danger lies in how it is exploited, and in our collective failure as society to resist that exploitation.

Consider these parallels:

• AI-driven recommendation engines can personalize content to the point of manipulation , redirecting our attention, shaping our world-views, and nudging behavior, much like the virtual reality in The Matrix.
• Advanced automation could optimize efficiency .  but if left unchecked, it risks reducing people to cogs in a system focused solely on profit and power.
• Powerful actors (big tech, corporations, political players) may lean on technology to amplify influence, extract value, and suppress dissent  not unlike the ruling class in the original metaphor.

But here’s the thing: technology is not the enemy. The problem is how we allow it to be used , or abused,  and the choices we make (or don’t) when we see injustice.

🔹 What if, instead of waiting for a “saviour” (a Neo or “the One”), each of us made small, conscious choices  championing transparency, demanding accountability, and supporting those who use technology for public good rather than private gain?
🔹 What if we recognized that real change comes from collective resolve, not isolated heroics? That means encouraging ethical AI, pushing for fair policies, holding companies accountable, and refusing to be pacified by convenience or fear.

In short: let’s not demonize AI,  let’s stay vigilant about how we use it, and who holds the levers of control. Because if we remain passive, we risk ending up in a very real-world version of The Matrix.

#AI #Ethics #TechForGood #Society #Responsibility #MatrixMetaphor #Leadership

 

Related Article  Looking for “the One”? A Cynic’s Fantasyl

The Paradox of Growth: When "Doing it Right" Kills "Getting it Right"

 

Every enterprise begins with the spark of entrepreneurial energy, the founder’s drive, ambition, vision. As the venture builds momentum, scales up, adds people, processes and systems, it injects stability, but also risk. Because without the right balance, what once felt alive can become weighed down.

A modern-day parable is Apple. Born of Jobs’ entrepreneurial fire, it soared. Then came the “establishment.” Jobs was ousted. The soul left the building. Apple drifted. Until the prodigal founder returned, not just to revive the company, but to re-infuse it with purpose. The rest is history.

Here’s what I’ve observed:
When you’re building, you’re agile. You do things. You experiment. You learn by doing. You focus on purpose, on outcome, on value created. You are a “Doer” in the truest sense of the word. In the words of my recent post, a Doer is someone who makes things happen, who cares about what’s good for the organisation and beyond, who takes responsibility and deliver.

Then as scale arrives, processes creep in. Structures to govern. Systems to measure. Beans to count. That’s not inherently bad, stability matters. But when the emphasis tilts too far toward process and loses sight of the raison d’être; the driving engine stalls. The “Passenger” emerges: someone more invested in the machinery, the compliance, the credits, the own agenda, rather than the outcome or the impact.

And here is the fatal tension:

• If you stay purely in “Doer” mode without systems, chaos reigns, decisions get missed, growth becomes fragile.
• If you over-systematise and let the “bean counters” dominate, you become rigid, unresponsive, blinded by process rather than purpose.
• Most organisations toggle somewhere in between. But the danger: the passengers gain ascendancy. They’re comfortable with status quo, minimal risk, personal gain—and often end up driving the ship. Meanwhile your true “Doers” drift away, disengage or leave. The outcome? The system survives for a while. but the life drains out of the enterprise.

So what’s the distilled wisdom?

• Keep founders’ spirit alive: Remind yourselves of the outcome, the customer-impact, the value you set out to create.
• Embed systems, yes; but don’t let them become the mission: Systems exist to enable, not to replace action or purpose.
• Promote Doer-thinking: Celebrate those who pick up the ball, who care deeply about the work, who challenge “this is how we’ve always done it”.
• Be alert to passengers: The ones who prioritise process over purpose, comfort over change, credit over contribution—they’re not the fatal enemy alone; the problem is when the governance structure rewards them.
• Balance is dynamic: The cycle will shift—start-up to scale to maturity. What you need is conscious recalibration: when you scale, build enough muscle to keep doing, keep adapting, keep delivering.

If you ask me, the real question is: Will your enterprise choose to be right, or will it continue to do right? Will it chase compliance, status, structure and miss the reason you started? Or will it hold fast to the why, even as it puts the what and how in place?

You may not disappear into the mythology of “passenger vs doer” in black-and-white. We all move along the continuum. What matters is the direction. If we respect ourselves as those who build, create, deliver, not just manage. we will pay the price for the choices we make. But more importantly, we’ll build something that lasts, that matters, beyond the next quarterly cycle.

Here’s to being a Doer. And to building enterprises that don’t just run , but roar.

“Systems should be the stagehands.
The moment they start demanding the spotlight, the show begins to fail.”

#entrepreneurship #leadership #growth #culture #systems #purpose

Related Article

To be or not to be - Part 8 'GET it Right or DO it Right ?'

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