Tag: Higher Education

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?

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/

Opportunities that should not be lost in the current Presidential Election Cycle?

The uniqueness of any democracy is the discussion and debate on policy issues in the public square. Every election cycle provides a unique opportunity for such debate. The result is an emerging consensus often treated as the “mandate” for further actions and programs implemented through the congress and the elected officials. America stands as the beacon of hope for such public policy development and actions that serve the larger interests of its people. As the single super power the leadership from US also serves the needs of the citizens of all nations across the globe.

Let us see how these hopes and aspirations of the middle class in the USA and the people across the globe are served or not during this current election cycle?

Turning to the Democrats the promise from Bernie Sanders’ campaign is tuition free education in all public colleges and universities. The Hillary Clinton campaign offers an alternative – debt free college education for all. Assuming either or both policies are implemented what comes next? Where will the high wage jobs come from? Do we really need college education for the many jobs to be created through infrastructure investments? If not then what? Aren’t the middle class starved of good paying jobs and wage stagnation also likely to be left with more number of well-educated un-employed youth to care for?

Affordable higher education is certainly a laudable goal. But the total silence on the nature of higher education and how it must be reformed to create graduates who can create and sustain new job and career opportunities is astonishing indeed.

Are the graduates coming out of colleges today fully employed? If the answer is No, then is it merely a case of lack of adequate number of jobs? Or is it a case that the higher education today is insufficient or incapable of meeting the needs of the jobs available today? What is the required education? Are the educators of today capable of offering such modified education? Writing a blank check to the higher education industry with an open ended expectation may serve no one’s best interests.

Better funding for basic research is claimed as one of the needs to recover more well-paying jobs. Assuming that organizations such as NIST, NSF and NIH and others are funded ten times more than their current budgets, are they capable of creating outcomes which in turn can result in adequate number of well-paying jobs in US to accommodate all the future graduates? Does their track record justify such expectations in the future? Educators and intellectuals need to step in and fill this policy vacuum. There may be no time better than now for such debate and consensus building.

Turning to the Republicans, their leading candidate Donald Trump promises to make “America great again”, by bringing back the manufacturing from China to USA. Let us take a closer look at this proposal.

The role and impact of labor cost is gradually declining in most manufacturing activities. With the rapidly declining cost for information processing and increasing competencies through programmable automation (robots, CNC, AGV, drones, etc.) the need for human labor in manufacturing sector is substantially lower today than any time before. Hence large segments of manufacturing may return to US on their own accord. But it is unlikely that they will bring back the large number of jobs lost in the manufacturing sector.

It will not be the Chinese or Mexicans stealing the future US manufacturing jobs. It will be the shrewd rich investors and the few technology workers who implement their modern operations in the US. They will also be the beneficiaries of any manufacturing renaissance in the USA. This being the case, one wonders what is it that Trump supporters are voting for? When their expectations go unfulfilled, will their anger find further new scape goats? Is that in the best interest of any one?

The reality is that in the 21st century Binary Economy no one is immune from the forces of globalization. One needs to produce outcomes better than anyone else across the globe to command high wage jobs. That is a tall order. Unfortunately it is also the reality. All others – who produce outcomes that can be replicated by someone else – will be forced into low wage jobs with stagnant wages. Being born in any country – including the USA – is not an automatic pathway for better wage jobs.

A nation with a collection of unique skills, capabilities and products and services that cannot be easily replicated by some other nation has a better chance to serve the needs of its citizens. It will require an innovation spirit which becomes the nation’s way of life. This cannot happen through isolation, building walls or pitting one group against another.

Republicans may be lost in their internal political fractures, with little time to spare for larger policy discussions. But they need to consider that governing is not just a matter of smaller government and personal responsibility but how such philosophy is put into practice. The crisis in Flint, MI is a clear case of task oriented actions – being penny wise and pound foolish. It is a matter of not looking at the problems as a whole, as a system. It is a matter of taking responsibility at all levels – being transformational – and not merely for one task (short term cost reduction) at a time.

The Democrats will be no better off if they do not propose and foster a common language that facilitates the innovation spirit as the new way of life. An education at all levels that promotes System Thinking and Transformational Skills will be required for such way of life. This may need challenging the teachers and labor and their unions to think differently and act differently from their well established procedures and practices.

Dr. Subramanian, President, STIMS Institute presented the key note lecture at the international seminar on Innovation and Higher Education

 

BBDIT Invitation

Invited Speakers

Key note lecture BBDIT 10 26 13 (FINAL)(1)

The international seminar on Innovation and Higher Education held on Oct. 26th at BBDIT highlighted the following points. Every speaker seemed to converge on similar themes:

  • Education must promote skills for thinking (i.e.) challenge the status quo and ask the question “Why?” relentlessly.
  • Any education has to also promote an ability to apply the knowledge acquired to some useful end purpose.
  • Education has to be linked to some target industry or user. This makes the students work force ready.
  • Education has to be project oriented. Such project and their execution is a measure of the problem solving skills of the students.

The Key Note lecture also acknowledged the above points. In addition the following additional points were offered for Innovation and Higher Education.

  • At this time – in the 21st century – we live in a Binary Economy: A high skills work force creating and exploiting a stream of New Solutions (Economy1) as a parallel and distinct from a low skills – low wage work force (in larger numbers) employed to carry out well defined tasks to Replicate known solutions (Economy 2).

https://stimsinstitute.com/2013/07/17/learn-to-swim-against-the-tide-of-binary-economy/

  • All educational efforts to meet the work force needs of Economy 1, have to make the student (and later the engineer) more comprehensive in his/her outlook as a professional, who can identify, develop and deploy/implement a stream of New Solutions.  This requires System Thinking and Transformational Skills.
  • Such education on ST and TS has to be formal, structured and results oriented. Such formal education on ST and TS is a MUST,  in order for all the academic education and industry oriented training to become effective and useful and achieve the end result of value to all: the students, the company and the industry.
  • Such education for students with effectiveness will also be the differentiating advantage for the colleges (academic institutions) in the long run.