I appreciate the makers of Claude for being so thoughtful and responsible to have built ‘work-life balance’ into it. And neatly optimized it for the $20 subscription - it allows the right amount of usage that exhausts - not too soon, not too late - then making you wait to watch reels, until you can resume using intelligence - the artificial one.
Originally posted on LinkedIn on 25 May 2026.
Originally posted on LinkedIn on 12 May 2026
Is AI taking away the beauty from research? My response on a group chat of fellow research scholars when this topic came up - “… we must understand what research truly is - a pursuit of reality, in bits and pieces at a time… tools se processing ya synthesis ko research maan lo to hamara stata ya R use karna also takes away the beauty of doing it on reams of paper… who among us has any clue of the math that went in to create some of the models we so liberally apply without the least bit of understanding… we’ve already gone past levels of beauty many beholders would be ashamed to see humans bypass”. The fear, I guess, is the complete redundancy of the myriad capabilities we develop as we learn to do ‘research’ within conventional and widely accepted frameworks, formats and methodologies. This pushes us to think beyond even with regard to those paradigms. Genuine research is constant search for novelty. We should be excited to be equipped with a capability that allows us to venture father and deeper, and unearth the true nature of reality.
Having said that, we can’t deny that research as a profession is going to get deeply and adversely affected, as most researchers will struggle to adapt and evolve with the emerging transformation.Wind turbines became popular and underwent rapid evolution during the 1990s and early 2000s, fueled by climate change concerns that motivated exploration into alternate, clean sources of energy. Governments recognized it and incentivized investments. The technology had existed before, but had potential for massive upgrade to achieve much higher efficiencies. Engineering and R&D in this area got a boost. Every couple of years companies started launching new turbines with higher MW ratings.
For a wind turbine to generate maximum energy, it has to be placed on a site with good wind conditions. In that, all places are not equal. For example, in India, there are places where wind profiles are strong, and others where they are weak. Also, wind turbines need to be in relatively uninhabited places because they generate sounds at frequencies that are not healthy. They need to be spaced apart adequately so that they don't interfere with each other. They are massive, and are installed in large numbers to develop what are called 'wind farms'. They must stay put and be operational for 20+ years for the investments to make sense.
Now you want to place your best machines in the best places. But the best machine is best only at a point in time. While the best place is always the best. And this is where the most logical approach is also a bit silly. The best places are taken up pretty early with machines that were best at that time. However, in an emerging technology-intensive industry that is getting a lot of attention, there's constant race to develop better machines. And each upgrade makes the earlier one seem like a toy. But the irony is that the toy got the better playground. Since the best wind sites are taken, the new, better machines have to settle for poor sites.
The industry tried to mitigate this in two ways. (1) Move offshore, to find great wind conditions - but offshore has its own challenges, (2) Develop turbines for poor wind conditions - which is like developing cars for poor roads as the highways are inaccessible.
As the industry matures, the turbines in great sites get old and up for replacement. And at that point, you can put your new ones in the best places again.
It's a wave, and there's little you can do to beat it, especially in a fiercely competitive market.
Now draw parallels and think about investments in AI based solutions. In a scramble to get onboard are companies investing too much too soon? Are companies creating legacy issues for themselves by jumping to adopt while the technology and its capabilities are evolving too fast? Is it FOMO or smart investing for efficiency and value? May be the truth lies in between.
Most AI startup ideas I came across a couple of years ago based on the shape of LLM's back then are obsolete now. It's probably how any new tech waves emerge and then gradually stabilize - short and quick early on, long and slow as they wane.
Originally posted on LinkedIn on 30 April 2026
My father worked as a stenographer and typist in the Indian Railways, and he was exceptionally good at it. He doesn't type anymore, except on his mobile phone. Growing up, I saw firsthand how typing was supposed to be done - when it's directly on paper and 'backspace' is not an option - on a heavy contraption called the 'typewriter'. The act had the beauty of playing a musical instrument with all fingers playing their part, where the artist played with eyes closed and mind lost in rhythm and melody.
The other skill he had was writing in something called 'shorthand'. The bosses those days gave 'dictations', which the stenographer noted very quickly in this coded script, that was later converted to regular well typed documents in English. While typing is something everyone does now, albeit without regard to correctness of style or efficiency of it, shorthand definitely is a skill that's non-existent today, if not lost forever. In the late 90s, all organizations were on a rapid computerization spree. So a few years before his retirement, my father was forced to learn working with a computer - the Windows 95/98 desktops. Since his job was drafting documents, he pretty much always worked on MS Word - the software that was as reliable in its infancy as it is now for word processing. The typewriter was replaced by relatively sleek keyboards, still QWERTY, yet with soft buttons. He beat those keys like he was used to on his heavy typewriter. But it was a treat to watch him type - extremely fast, and without using 'backspace' once. He did that till his retirement in 2004. But it was clear as the new breed of computer-literate officers started taking over, that a lot of his work would be done by the bosses themselves. Gradually, everyone knew how to type on a computer. It was not a skill any more. Everyone just did, and did, and got used to it. Life has probably come full circle, as I watch mine and older generations adopting AI based tools, learning to write prompts, doing courses, and telling each other to learn or perish. 😊
Originally posted on LinkedIn on 28 April 2026.
One of the major challenges in developing a truly rational and coherent opinion about anything, that a significant majority of people shares, is that the contemporary sources push different kinds or different versions of information to each person. It's carefully filtered, increasingly customized, and artfully moulded such that it is most engaging, pleasing, entertaining, even enchanting to the person consuming it. In a recent podcast with Trevor Noah, Ian Bremmer mentioned about this as the major constraint to bringing about any ideological or political revolution that is truly constructive and has mass support, or that's intended to take out a corrupt system which uses its power to control information - both the nature and access of it.
While we generally tout diversity of opinions as a strength, when opinions are not rooted in critical and holistic analysis of topics or issues, they become biases. And when biases achieve a level of deep-rootedness through constant reinforcement, you just can't get people to agree on anything, in spite of the vast and deep level of passion that they have, and the conviction and apparent chain of logic, often quite persuasive, with which they all seem to argue.A version of "Humans in the Loop" indeed. Seen that movie?
Research, the way I understand, is to uncover the nature of reality. Irrespective of what I believe, what I think and what seems to be, research is finding a path to establish the true shape of reality - whether it’s the physical world, sociological phenomena or the metaphysical. It has to be an honest endeavour grounded in right and correct data, robust analysis and transparent presentation of results. It needs humility to acknowledge its limitations - known and unknown. Our understanding and explanations of the nature of reality - the theories - help us make sense of this world, yet can never claim to have fully solved the puzzle. But to get closer and closer to developing an understanding we build on prior research and add incremental blocks to construct better explanations. It’s therefore the responsibility of each and every researcher to be uncompromising in his/her data, approach, results and interpretation - so that future research finds a stronger base to build on and past studies get the honour and respect they deserve.
Originally posted on LinkedIn on 24 March 2026
Managers are expected to be almost perfect - clear communicators, good with people, sharp with data, and composed in how they present themselves. There is a visible checklist, and they are constantly measured against it. If they fall short, it shows quickly.
Leaders, on the other hand, seem to operate under a different lens. They can be unconventional, intense, sometimes even a bit irrational, and yet, this is often read as vision or conviction rather than a flaw. Part of this difference comes from where expectations sit. Managers are expected by others to meet a standard. Leaders, in many ways, shape the standard themselves, and the rest of us adjust to it.
This difference becomes sharper when you step outside firms and think about countries. In firms, you can choose, or at least attempt to choose, the leader you want to work with by moving to another firm. But you rarely get to choose the leader directly. In a country, you live with the leader, whatever the process that brought them there. In a democracy, sometimes the leader reflects your choice, but often they don’t. You don’t really opt out - you adapt, engage, or endure.
Which makes you wonder what exactly we are preparing people for. Much of management education seems designed to produce well-rounded, reliable managers - people who meet defined expectations. But leadership doesn’t quite emerge from checklists. It comes with ambiguity, intensity, and a willingness to push beyond what is already defined.
Can management education add a stronger ingredient of true leadership into its recipe, so that the ability to handle ambiguity and difficult situations is matched by equally strong wisdom, analytical depth, and grounded judgment? So that we see fewer leaders driven by impulse, and more who combine conviction with clarity. Work-ex seems to be a bad teacher when it comes to leadership.
Originally posted on LinkedIn on 26 March 2026
We expect that opinions based on data and facts would be reliable, although not indisputable. Since these are still "opinions" they are bound to contain giver bias that would spring from intuition, experience, judgement or quirks. It's human, and we understand the mechanism.
When it comes to AI, though, it gets troubling when we get opposite opinions from different tools. Being "tools" and driven by "computing", we are inclined to trust what they say, not as "opinions" but as some version or degree of "truth". But what if after consuming all the data, ChatGPT suggests, even encourages, that you do something, while Claude tells you that it's stupid, even suicidal, and you shouldn't do that ever. The data is the same. Are the tools acquiring "personality"? They are expected to, given the effort to mimic human faculties. But with humans, we have a way of figuring out. With AI, we have a totally different kind of quagmire to deal with that's neither unique, nor consistent, nor revealing in the way humans are. And in the background, it's being built, taught, designed, tweaked and tinkered - all by humans. And worst of all, it's not allowed to say "NO".We keep hearing that attention spans of people have come down, especially the younger folks can’t seem to focus on any one thing for long. It’s usually blamed on addiction to short sized content like tweets, reels, shorts and bites. In his recent podcast, Trevor Noah had a different perspective on this. He said it’s not the attention span that has come down. It’s actually the availability of many alternatives at any moment that are competing for our mental resources, and the availability and access to choices makes us want to switch when something seems not so great. Our tolerance for anything not so captivating at any moment has become low because of infinite range of alternatives we can easily divert our minds to. Something truly mesmerising can still tie us down for a long time, but such things would need us to be in an isolated setting so that we don’t get distracted with other equally good or better options, unless the thing is really unique, exceptional, out of the world and without a close and easily accessible match.
Glorification of fail-fast and iterative approaches in business have misled many leaders into believing it applies in every context. Ability to adapt is subject to prior conditioning that must have involved failure and calibration. A true leader has to be confused on where he/she stands, yet mask the confusion with sincerity of effort. This is at the root of a genuine leader's chosen strategy.
Strategy can, and has to, emerge, but it's important to have a sense of 'by how much'. One can't endlessly trust 'learn as we go'. Most projects in the world, especially those with the highest stakes, are waterfall, rather than agile. The real agility, in fact, is required in the leader's mind - yet only to a certain degree.
Most leaders fit their favorite approaches in every context. And to back them there's always some leadership gyaan and a school of thought. However, competing schools of thought exist for a reason - not every approach applies everywhere and every time. Like a chef, a leader must know his/her recipe well - the ingredients, their proportion and the process - based on who's eating. Some times it needs careful balance, even variants, based on different tastes and preferences. But unlike with a chef, a leader must also understand that the volume of the dish changes the recipe as well.
One can't afford to experiment if the stakes are too high. Yet a leader must choose. How? The system typically offers 2 options:
Trust his/her gut? - that's a function of conditioning and may be corrupt.
Take calculated risk? - follow the process, decide action plan, identify risks and have a mitigation strategy.
The former is noisy, has a casino-like charm and has high rate of failure. The latter, done repeatedly, leads to stronger and more sustainable outcomes.
Originally posted on LinkedIn on 12 Mar 2026
I realized my usage of the word "we" squarely implies that I'm putting myself on the master side. 'We' practiced slavery. 'We' put an end to it. 'We' embraced all as equal. 'They' are human too! It's funny - I speak the language of the master, yet by feelings I resonate with the slaves. Ways of the world...
I learnt from Spartacus that there is honour and pride ascribed to being a gladiator, which is meant to offer a semblance of meaning to their assigned purpose - of fighting to survive in the arena, while spectators get entertained by the sight of blood and the act of killing. It masks the sheer stupidity of what they are made to do while their masters - the domini - seek power and make money - coin - at their expense.
Slaves are branded with marks on their bodies - like "B" for those belonging to the House of Batiatus - a ludus for training gladiators. They are supposed to feel proud about it, as the house looks after them, nurtures them with food and place to stay, trains them, and gives them opportunities to fight, earn fame and recognition for their valour. The best fighters get rewarded with titles - the undefeated Gaul, the bringer of rain, and so on. If the dominus is generous enough, he may reward a gladiator with freedom. But such a freedom is fragile and can be taken away at any moment. Such freedom is still better than trying to break free from the master, coz then the gladiator deserves to be punished by being killed, brutally, in front of all the other slaves, so that nobody else dares to even bear the thought of escaping.
And yet, craving for freedom is deep in all humans. So are emotions - love, pain, hate and revenge - especially in that order, they can make any human take on the mightiest.
Gladiators are seen to exemplify true human fighting spirit involving exceptional courage, endurance, fearlessness in front of near-certain death, along with hope, passion and brotherhood - ingrained by conditioning and shared pain. Yet it's an irony that this spirit is evoked under hopeless enslavement leading only to brutal death in a constant cycle of kill-or-get-killed - games that are recreation for most, adrenaline-rush for some, and patriotism for a few. The free masters claim all the comforts yet commit to no such values, while keeping slaves tied down by duty, honour, hope and hopelessness... and God! It's all God's will, isn't it?
Times changed. Power and access to resources no longer necessitate their seekers to physically enslave people. Control changed from physical to mental. The chain of control doesn't have an ultimate top or bottom here. It's a chain that's endless on either side. It's not circular, but it does have various loops. Ways changed. Sight of blood became less exciting (for most but not all, it appears now). Everyone lives, mostly. Yet, on different levels still, aren't we all playing Spartacus?
Aspirin, to be effective, needs to first dissolve in water. So does Strategy. You are unlikely to achieve your visions by throwing plans and roadmaps at your workforce. Strategy has to be understood, respected, shared and imbibed across for it to truly drive organizations. Under the pressure and in the busyness of delivering short-term outcomes, leaders often fail to recognize that they are not truly leading, but are just filling positions that satisfice. Employee engagement has become more about making employees feel “happy”, while making them “motivated” and “proud to be part” has taken a back seat. In fact, if you “ask” these employees, they’ll “tell” you. But most leaders don’t care enough. Without adequate importance given to strategic alignment within, organizations just fool themselves and their shareholders with vision statements and fancy roadmaps never to be walked upon.
Originally posted on LinkedIn on 14th January 2026
Oh, the joy of hitting seemingly arbitrary targets! An average of 10 km of cycling a day meant 3650 km a year, which seemed like a nice goal with a good stretch, considering two successive years of 3Ks earlier. Commitment breeds consistency, both essential to keep you on track - you outperform vis-Ã -vis your goals sometimes, and need to push harder to cover deficits more often.
2025 was eventful with lots of travel, learning, and unprecedented experiences. And the rains took their own sweet time to retreat. With everything going on, I had a constant tug-of-war with my daily and monthly milestones, but glad I eventually pulled it off, and then did some more!
Thanks Shruti Rao for gifting me this beautiful bike 4 years back. Each year, cycling teaches me a lot about staying committed and being consistent. Hope 2026 brings more of it, along with all the excitement the world is ushering in!
Happy New Year.
Originally posted on LinkedIn on 1st Jan 2025
The constant urge to post on social media, driven by wanting to be visible and relevant all the time, has become the defining characteristic...
