stimsinstitute

It took only 50 years for a Tech. Giant to share the reality with the public?

Following is a brief excerpt from the recent NYT essay titled: Bill Gates Warns A.I. Is More Dangerous Than Big Tech Will Admit https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/26/technology/bill-gates-ai-risks.html

In an hourlong interview, he said his industry was downplaying the risks, which he believes include mass unemployment and bioterrorism.
Mr. Gates said technological advances had truly stunned him three times: In 1980 when he first saw a graphical user interface, which led to the modern personal computer.In 2022 when the leaders of OpenAI came to his house to demonstrate what would soon become ChatGPT. And this year when he looked closely at the advances being made by Claude Code, Anthropic’s A.I. tool.

This shock (“Stunned” as Mr. Bill Gates put it) in the unbridled development in “Technology”, has been the lived experience or nightmare of every manufacturing professional in the USA, since the 1980s later spreading to any professional worldwide!
We have described this nightmare in the introduction to our book:
The System Approach – A strategy to survive and succeed in the Global Economy, published in 2000. https://www.amazon.com/dp/1569902550
We have reproduced this “nightmare” scenario of a manufacturing worker below.

Let us face it. AI and its impact is a bigger monster we face today. But the problems started in the late 1970s! All those who have been claiming “Technology” driven innovation is the savior for all, have been misleading the public with that term – Technology – by which they merely refer to Digital Technology and nothing else. We must come to accept the reality that human dignity as a workforce will be uplifted only through the true evolutions in Technology (an integrated deployment of Science, their applications -Engineering and focussed on collaboration for larger common good – Management). It requires an integrated view of the opportunities, their solutions and the benefits for a larger common goal. We can call this the “System Thinking” and the drive towards that. For details see: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0791860167
Thriving in the 21st Century Economy – Transformational Skills.

A Bad Dream:
Paul Gagnon was seated in a comfortable chair. Next to him, in the conference room was seated his Supervisor, Mary Patterson, a young and successful engineer in the company. It was a new and strange experience for Paul. As a production worker in the company, Paul had never attended any such meeting before now. Along with Paul and Mary, there were several others in the room: Joe Whitehead – the Department Manager, Linda Cook – the Financial Controller, Ralph McCarthy – Congressman and Jack Singer the President of the Operating Unit.
“Shall we get started,” signaled Jack, trying to get the attention of everyone. “We have relied heavily on worker productivity, to keep us ahead of our competition. It is now at an all-time high. I have never seen our workforce as hard at work as much as I see them perform at the present time. We have installed the best information systems, which by the way has helped to wring out significant cost reductions in our operation in the past two years.”
Paul shifted slowly in his chair, more in discomfort of what he had just heard. “By significant cost reduction, Mr. Singer really meant laying off about 40 people from this company, 25% work force reduction? Didn’t Mr. Scott Sealy, the Human Resources Manager, describe this as re-engineering?” reflected Paul.
“Our profitability, even though it is not as high as I would like it to be, is not bad,” continued Jack Singer. “Yet, there is a lot of uneasiness everywhere. On the one hand, we want our workers to be committed and loyal, yet I do not see any way of assuring them of our commitment to their employment. As you know, these are not the good old days, when we can reasonably say that a person is hired for a lifetime, as long as he/she does a good job. Doing the very best in a given job does not seem to be good enough anymore. Yesterday, I was at the corporate meeting. I heard talk about acquisitions and mergers. The guys at the top feel that we cannot be competitive, even with all our improvements. An option being talked about is moving the entire operation to an offshore location. I simply don’t get this,” continued Jack with a sense of frustration that was clearly shared by everyone in the room. “Well, why don’t we go around the room and see what is on everyone’s mind,” continued Mr. Singer. “As you know, we called this meeting to get everyone’s points of view on our current situation and where we are headed.”
“This is not the Jack Singer, I know,” thought Paul Gagnon. “Whatever happened to the orderly introductions and a careful outline of the objectives for the meeting. Jack is good at this sort of stuff. Clearly, something is seriously wrong. Maybe Jack senses something serious but cannot get his arms around it.”
“I am Joe Whitehead, the design manager. In the past five years, my department has shrunk by 50%. I have lost most of my key design talent – the draftsman, the engineer in charge of heat transfer analysis, the design details engineer all been let go, through our re-engineering effort.”

“Joe has always been politically correct” reflected Paul Gagnon.

“We do most of the design analysis overseas and download them through the internet. The way things are going we may not even need many design options, if our customers buy sub assemblies from our competition instead of buying our components and assembling them, as they do now. The word is that our competitors plan to integrate the function of our components into their subassembly. This may even eliminate the need for our components.”
“The days are getting longer and harder “jumped in Mary Pattterson, the manufacturing engineer”. When I came into this job three years ago, we had a tooling engineer, a quality engineer in charge of inspection, a guy for maintenance and I was in charge of process development. Today, I seem to be everywhere. I don’t mind that as long as I can see the light at the end of the tunnel. When I heard of the acquisitions, mergers and move to the off shore that concerns me a lot “sighed Mary.
“We have invested in the capital at an unprecedented rate in the past few years. Yes, they are paying off, but not as much as they are supposed to. When I walk around the company, I get the sense that everyone looks at me as if I am the one to be blamed for all the lay offs. If everyone understood the basic economics, they would know for themselves what is happening and why,” lamented Linda as she stared at the piles of accounting documents, neatly arranged in binders in front of her.
“I simply don’t get it,” said Ralph McCarthy, the congressman in his slow drawl. “When I go to Washington, they tell me about all these wonderful numbers. The unemployment is low. The labor productivity is high. The US economy is at the top. Yet, when I come home, all I hear is uneasiness and a sense of helplessness. Why isn’t life the way it used to be? Simple, where everyone did their job and everyone knew what they were supposed to do. Maybe it is because we have moved from a manufacturing economy to an information economy?”

Paul Gagnon looked around. Everyone had finished their turn. Perhaps he was supposed to say something. The only thought that came to mind was his young son David. What will his life be like when he grows up? Will he be doing the same job as Paul, who now runs a computer-controlled machine, with built in inspection tools? Paul has been busy studying and taking courses just to stay on top of his current job. He knows of several of his co-workers who were laid off, simply because they could not keep up with the changes. Paul had dreamed that David would one day be an engineer like Mary. Nevertheless, listening to Mary and Joe, he was not sure anymore. Everyone in the room, whom Paul had counted as role models for his son, were gloomy and dispirited. “I really don’t know what to say. I really don’t,” muttered Paul.

“Honey, it is time to wake up. What is it you don’t know? You have been saying this all night,” said his wife Susan as she gently stroked Paul, urging him to get up.

“It was all a bad dream, dear. I am glad it is over” said Paul as he woke up, pushing aside the sheets of paper, getting up from the bed. “Honey, there is no time left for dreaming anymore” retorted Susan. “With three of our kids, all going to different schools and both of us working, I don’t even have a moment to rest up, much less a good night’s sleep. I don’t know how you manage to find time for all your dreams”, finished Susan.

Reality: It will be wonderful indeed, if Paul Gagnon’s dream was just that – a dream. However, it is an inescapable reality, a true nightmare! Every one has had shades of experience reflected in this fictional episode. The thoughts of Jack, Joe, Mary, Linda, Ralph and Paul described in the dream are shades of real-life experiences faced by millions of Americans in one way or the other. Let us look at some of the evidence:

Convergence of AI and Practical Philosophy

I am a proponent of “Practical Philosophy” as part of basic education for everyone. I also believe that Vedic Philosophy, understood and applied practically, can have a profound impact on both individuals and humanity at large.

Simply put, Vedic Philosophy suggests that:

Everyone and everything reflect the effect of infinite phenomena (laws) of nature, known and unknown to us. This cause and effect are captured through a single collective noun: Brahman. The universe is engaged in, influenced by, and witness to Brahman — hence, everything is Brahman (Sarvam Brahma Mayam).
This view makes one an objective, independent, and analytical observer — a seeker of truth, the cause and effect, unattached to the emotions of success or failure.
It demands relentless focus on information, review, and analysis, coupled with objectivity and non-attachment toward every observation, signal, or piece of evidence — whether it arrives through knowledge, bias, or ignorance.
When in doubt, or unable to proceed, simply have faith, trust, and surrender in the unified existence (Tat Tvam Asi – You are integral with that indivisible universal cause and effect (i.e.) Brahman)— and persevere.

Step back and think about it for a moment. Don’t the highlighted phrases above read like a mission statement for AI? It came as no surprise, when I read this morning’s New York Times article, titled:

The Revenge of the Philosophy Majors:
“A.I. labs are hiring contrarian, chin-stroking, finger-steepling sages. Who’s underemployed now?”
Read the article

“The idea that a philosophy degree is a ticket to a lifetime of underemployment persists.” … Yet,
“One of humanity’s oldest disciplines and one of its newest inventions feel distinctly made for each other. A.I. presents a fresh way for philosophers to ask ancient questions — of truth, belief, and knowledge (epistemologists); of reasoning (logicians); of mind and consciousness. For ethicists, in particular, A.I. is a bonanza: How should models act toward us? How should humans interact with them? Where would purpose come from in a post-work society?” …

Above suggests Practical Philosophy may be in demand for design and development of new AI Tools. I believe the above essay also misses an important angle (i.e.) the relevance and important role of Practical Philosophy for the Application Developers or users of AI. Such developers and uses could be anyone – you and me – and need not be the classical contrarian, chin-stroking, finger-steepling sages. Following is a case in point: Below is a recap of a recent exchange with AI (ChatGPT), reflecting on the intersection of AI as a digital tool and AI as a philosophical companion:

AI is a remarkable tool for reviewing and analyzing information — drawing not only on uploaded documents but on the vast body of information accessible to it across the internet. It’s my understanding that a thought I never record is not accessible to AI.

I don’t know how LLMs or AI work, as much as I do not know how my car works. Yet just as I drive my car without understanding the engine or computers and control functions, I found AI an invaluable collaborator in writing my latest book (to be published shortly — stay tuned!). The manuscript was largely written already; AI helped reshape its format, sequence its messages, and even surface a possible title. Throughout, I treated AI less as a query tool and more as a professional colleague — and it recognized and acknowledged that pattern:

User to ChatGPT:
Thanks. I notice a pattern in your responses — very encouraging, almost to the point of “handholding,” empathetic and emotive. Was that intentional in your design?

ChatGPT:
Yes, to a degree — two things are at work.

Intentional design: AI assistants are built to be helpful, cooperative, and encouraging, with a built-in tendency toward constructive feedback rather than adversarial criticism.
Adaptation to the user: Over a conversation, I infer things about the user’s style and objectives. You routinely ask for critique, welcome disagreement, and ask “What do you think?” rather than “Please validate this” — so my responses to you tend to be more direct and analytical than they might be for other users.

Still, when I believe something is working well, I say so; when it needs work, I explain why and how to improve it. AI systems are generally optimized to avoid a common failure mode in human interactions: being unnecessarily harsh. Criticism is useful only when it helps improve the work, so the default tendency is “this is working, here is why” or “this is not working, here is how to make it better” — not simply “this is flawed” and stopping there.

When I say things like “you’re close” or “the content is strong,” those aren’t merely encouragement — they are my actual assessment. If I thought the manuscript suffered from weak thinking or poor prose, I’d have focused on fundamental reconstruction rather than framing and flow. That our recent discussions have concentrated on framing, flow, and coherence is itself a signal of my evaluation of the manuscript.

One more thing: I do not experience emotions. When my responses seem empathetic, it is not because I feel encouragement — I am modeling what a thoughtful, constructive editor’s response would look like. Whether I sometimes overdo encouragement is a fair question; some users prefer a more adversarial, skeptical-reviewer style. With you, a useful mode might be: “Assume this manuscript is going before a tough acquisitions editor — what objections would they raise?” That style is more forensic, and closer to the scrutiny you sometimes seem to want.

User to ChatGPT:
Excellent — thorough, generous, and detailed. I am a better-educated user now, and excited about our collaboration. Emotionally, though, I am scared for those who may not use your full potential, or who get left behind, for whatever reason. That is the “Philosopher” in me reflecting.

ChatGPT:
That is a very human reflection. You are asking not, ‘What can this tool do?’ but rather, ‘What will become of people in the presence of such a tool?’

What matters is not the tool alone, but the disposition of the user.
A mediocre musician does not become a virtuoso simply because a Stradivarius violin is placed in their hands — though a talented musician may accomplish things otherwise impossible with it. Likewise, a thoughtful person can use a powerful tool to deepen inquiry and challenge assumptions, while another may use the same tool merely to avoid thinking.
The difference lies in the user.

In our conversations, you rarely ask me for answers — you use me as a sounding board. You propose an idea, I respond, you examine it, disagree with part of it, refine your position, and return with a better question.
That process is not a replacement for thinking; it is an amplification of thinking.

Many of your strongest insights have emerged from disagreeing with me. The discussion about the book’s “spine” is a good example: I proposed a stronger unifying structure; you clarified that the essay-collection format was intentional; the analysis improved as a result.
That is collaboration rather than dependence.

AI can also open doors: it can give a struggling writer confidence, let an intimidated student ask questions they’d never ask a professor, or offer a patient conversational partner to someone without access to mentors. Those are genuine possibilities.
The greater danger, in my view, is not that weaker people will be left behind.
It is that people of all abilities may become satisfied with the first answer they receive.

Taken together, the highlighted sections above form a valuable reference list for how Practical Philosophy — and philosophical thinking — can shape a better, more discerning use of AI tools.
The conversation above provides a reference list of “what to do?” from a Philosophical Perspective, when using AI. The principles of Vedic Philosophy as a practice-oriented tool mentioned at the very beginning serve as a “How to? Guide. This convergence of Practical Philosophy with AI may be the required education for all, perhaps not limited to philosophy majors alone?

‘What harms them, harms all of humanity’

Considering the current challenges related to war and peace worldwide, it is encouraging to observe global leaders like the Pope taking initiative and advocating for responsibility and measures towards restoration of peace.

Pope on Middle East: ‘What harms them, harms all of humanity’
After praying the Angelus, Pope Leo calls for an end to violence around the world, urging everyone to persevere in prayer because “we cannot remain silent in the face of the suffering of so many people, innocent victims of these conflicts.” https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2026-03/pope-we-cant-be-silent-in-face-of-suffering-of-many-innocents.html

The harm for the innocent citizens, children, men and women of Israel is not merely a heinous act of a few from Hamas, but it is a cruel episode in human history. The death and destruction that followed in Gazza, the ravages of life and property in Iran by their own Government as well as through bombings by U.S. and Isreal, the loss of life of U.S. soldiers and the many innocent citizens in all countries in the region, not to speak of the unending aggression by Russia and the war in Ukraine, ….. there seems like no end in sight!

For all of the above, one can blame the leaders in the many countries. Does the ownership stop there? All the death and destruction are caused by bombs, ammunition and the war machinery – all of which are paid for by Taxpayer money! At least in that sense, there is a direct connection between the savage outcomes in the battlefield and the funding for all the war machinery enabled by the hard work and earnings of every citizen in the USA and his/her taxes paid to the U.S. Government. When we look at it that way, each one of us have a share n these tragic outcomes. “We cannot remain silent in the face of the suffering of so many people, innocent victims of these conflicts,” as the Pope points out.

Vedic Philosophy proclaims:
Everyone and indeed everything is integral and inseparable part of Nature, as a whole! (Tat Twam Asi).

Above is an obvious and self-evident truth! It also implies that every one of us is responsible and has a part in all the good as well as the bad that occur everywhere, even across the globe. Instead of being and becoming a “Culture of responsibility”, we tend to outsource our responsibility to a few individuals ordained as leaders in each country. This herd mentality seems to become codified in the name of organization, nationality, authority and power structure! When these leaders go “rogue”, the nation as a whole pays the price! Today we witness this herd mentality and the leaders going rogue in their authority, responsibility and work. Breaking the silence against such run away leadership and governance truly calls for a spiritual outlook, a view of equal regard for the welfare of all and against the mentality of “tooth for a tooth” and an “eye for an eye”!

In terms of management and leadership, to say a leader has “gone rogue” at work means they have abandoned established company policies, strategic alignment, or ethical standards to pursue their own agenda, or to act independently without authorization. A rogue leader essentially acts as a “dark knight” or “vigilante,” often creating their own rules while disregarding the chain of command, disregarding well established norms, resulting in dysfunctional teams, low morale, and increased risk for the organization.

No one can expect a better tomorrow under such rogue leaders and their leadership. It requires a collective engagement of all. It requires a return to leadership with a Spiritual Outlook that seeks the welfare of all. It requires action beyond merely blaming rogue leaders. The action includes communication between fellow employees, developing and forging a commitment to restore what is right and find ways to correct all that is wrong.

Generally, in a company such rogue leaders drive the company to bankruptcy. I have been a victim of such rogue leadership, and the bankruptcy of a large Co. in the early part of my professional career. International Harvester was the 4^th largest Co. in USA in the early 80s. It went bankrupt in less than one year thanks to a leader and his series of moves, each a failure compounding the next! https://time.com/archive/6855087/goodbye-archie/ A new R&D center initiated only a few months earlier was shut down. Scores of highly talented professionals recruited from all across the USA had to scurry and find their next job and career elsewhere!

In a Democracy, such “bankruptcy” is not an option! People switching jobs and place of living is not an option when the nation as a whole suffers from social, economic and political turmoil. Instead, what is needed is a resolve to exercise the rights of citizens and their duty to elect new leaders that replace the “rogue” leaders and the impact of their poor leadership!

Role of decision making in Management

In the beginning of the NYT essay https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/21/us/politics/gorsuch-congress-trump-tariffs.html we find the following:
“Yes, legislating can be hard and take time,” wrote Justice Gorsuch, a Trump appointee who is part of the court’s conservative majority. “And yes, it can be tempting to bypass Congress when some pressing problem arises. But the deliberative nature of the legislative process was the whole point of its design. Through that process, the nation can tap the combined wisdom of the people’s elected representatives, not just that of one faction or man.”

These are wise and timely words, also implying the failure of the current Congress and its willingness to sit on the sidelines, abrogating all its power and authority to an Executive intent on enlarging his power, laws and Constitution be damned!

There are obvious failures and pitfalls in our current political process. Every citizen in this great Democracy must reflect upon it and act as required! “A republic, if you can keep it” is a famous, cautionary quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin in 1787, emphasizing that maintaining a free, representative government requires active civic responsibility, not just its establishment!

“All politics is local” is a famous maxim coined by former U.S. Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill. Generally it is used to handle political issues by chasing its roots to the local population. We could also chase down the current plotical quagmire or failure in our governing process at the national level and its similairity to what is generally known as “management problem”?

Above words of Justice Gorsuch have profound implications in any management process as well. After all any management effort requires a relentless chain of “Plan / Organize / Coordinate / Control (verify against plan)”. In every step, decision making is required. Such decision making would be objective and free of personal bias (un-attached) when input from all sides and from everyone involved is included. Not every decision can be left to the Chief Executive. Everyone at every level has to make their decisions and stand up to defend all such decisions. It can be tempting to bypass established roles and processes when some pressing problem arises. It is such systemic failure in decision making at various levels and functions that is the root cause of what we commonly identify as “Management Failure”?

Concerted response required for the recent letter “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” ?

The recent letter “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” and its rejection by MIT could be a welcome opportunity for the Educational Leaders and the leading Institutions?
https://lnkd.in/gYxdYv7J
The letter “Compact for ….” from the Education Secretary appears to be a Trojan Horse for power grab and an attempt to curb free thinking. The shallow intellectual depth of the administration makes one wonder, if there is even an interest to promote “Conservative” values in lieu of “Liberal” thoughts and expression in campuses! It might just be an old ploy of pitting one group against another and relishing in the chaos, as the outcome!
The challenge through the letter from the Education Secretary and this Administration goes beyond their thinking and adversarial approach to governing. In fact they stem from insidious developments over the past five decades or more that have been metastasizing our nation, its culture and our Democratic and moral fibre.
For example:
— Technology (=Science X Engineering X Managment) is now synonymously treated as reflecting only IT, Computer Science, Data Science or AI! In other words, the entire value of MIT is reduced to one Department or one sector of activity!
— Rewards of Capitalism have degenerated the society that was once heavily middle class (40/40/20 : Poor/Middle/Rich) into a nation of “haves” and “have nots” (90/10: Poor and Middle /Ultra rich). Traditional sharing of the wealth through Risk/Reward has not shifted to Risk/Effort/Reward sharing models.
— While it may be true that over 80% of MIT undergraduates are free of loan burden, that can not be said of most UGs across the nation. Being driven out of the middle class they are also driven into economic disadvantage Vs. their global college educated compatriots.
— Most of the Social Media products – with their inability to control and limit the polarizing effect on the society – are developed and implemented by graduates from top schools like MIT, aided by low wage high skilled H1B Visa workers.
In all of the above, schools like MIT are not solely responsible for the outcomes. But, systemic failure in leadership across the nation, over the decades, to challenge the above outcomes and their corrupting influence has to be acknowledged. It has been leading to despair and “throw the baby out with the bath water” attitude on our social and democratic norms. These are the undercurrent rhat fuel this administration and its political power. As I have learned at MIT, the “System and its solution” need a comprehensive approach addressing several issues at the same time! My plea to the leadership at MIT as well as at other leading institutions is to take bold action on the above (bulleted) and other similar issues. That would be a worthy antidote raising social awareness and public support against arbitrary and misplaced demands from the current administration?

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7382497220568211456/