- Don’t carry entitlement: Beerud’s biggest piece of advice was, “IIT entitlement is all bogus”. When students excel in academics in premier institutes they start carrying an entitlement mindset regarding jobs, salaries, and life in general. “You are not entitled to anything… There are no guarantees,” said Beerud. He experienced this firsthand when he started Elance in 1999. By then he had excelled at IIT (class-topper), MIT, and in his job at Wall Street. He and his co-founders raised money initially from friends and family and subsequently through Series A. However, within a few months dotcom bust happened. Elance had to let go of half the engineers. And situation remained tough not for months, but for years after that. Beerud suggested that the sooner we get rid of this entitlement mindset the better. Otherwise, it may create a significant psychological burden.
- Be close to where the action is: If the first takeaway highlighted what not to do, the second one suggested what to do – be close to where the action is and do something interesting, and value-adding. Beerud highlighted one particular action that he chose to be close to – a paradigm shift or a platform shift. In the 90s when Beerud was thinking about starting a venture, the Internet was the paradigm shift. And the action was in Silicon Valley – that is where Beerud chose to be. Netscape, Yahoo, Amazon, eBay – those were the hot names. A lot of interesting opportunities get created around a paradigm shift. In contrast, India was a terrible place as far as action related to the Internet shift was concerned in the early to mid-90s. Of course, things have changed since then and now there is action in India, especially in Bombay, Bangalore, and Delhi.
- Conversational Internet will be big: If you think of a chatbot as a new website and messaging app like WhatsApp as a browser, then you can see this as a new kind of Internet, says Beerud. And we have seen how big the web got. And Beerud feels that the movie is being played all over again. Billions of websites and trillion-dollar companies were created out of it. So this new Internet will also create multiple services and multiple companies. All of this got a big boost last year with the rise of LLMs. Instead of structured interactions, you have AI-powered natural language interactions. We have seen the keyboard-and-mouse of the PC revolution and the touch screen of the mobile revolution and now, we are seeing the conversational interface of the current AI revolution. This bridges the digital divide as the grandma and people in remote rural villages can access the Internet through conversation in a natural language. This is what a platform shift looks like. Now, everything you know about the Internet has to be rebuilt and reinvented around the conversational AI ecosystem. The use cases will remain the same, entertainment, shopping, learning, etc. But AI agents will be the key players in this game doing the iterative conversational interaction showing multiple options while shopping. We will have an AI shopkeeper, an AI bank manager, an AI educator, a therapist, a travel guide, etc. And it will be multimodal – text, images, audio, video, metaverse with AR/VR, etc. This is where Beerud’s company Gupshup is betting big on.
Sunday, September 1, 2024
Insights from a serial entrepreneur – Gupshup CEO, Beerud Sheth’s perspective
Saturday, April 6, 2024
My favourite quotes from Daniel Kahneman
One of my heroes, Daniel Kahneman, passed away last month at the age of 90. Ever since I heard his talk on YouTube on “Marvels and flaws of human intuition” sometime in 2009, I became his fan. I listened to the talk like how people listen to a music album again and again. A couple of years later, his book “Thinking, fast and slow” was published and soon he became a celebrity. I continued to listen to his interviews. I ended up using the biased-agent model rather than the rational-agent model in all my work related to innovation capacity & culture building, design thinking, and mindfulness. In this article, I would like to present four of my favourite quotes from Kahneman.
Rational agent model is a non-starter: I remember
hearing this from Kahneman in multiple interviews over the past decade and it
created a deep impression in my mind. He said in this
interview last year (April 14, 2023): “Consistency of beliefs and
preferences, which are the essence of rationality in that model — it's
important to see what it implies. It's not the same thing as reasoning
correctly, that is, of saying two things that are consistent with each other in
the same conversation. It's that your beliefs, the whole system, your beliefs
and preferences, taken one at a time, make up a consistent system. And that is
psychologically a non-starter. That's simply because our beliefs and our
preferences are so context-dependent and the context is highly specific and
momentary, that this type of consistency is not conceivable.” So beautifully
put.
Cognitive biases act like optical illusions: I mentioned
this quote along with the cartoon below three years ago while presenting a
working definition of mindfulness. In “Thinking, fast and slow” he says “Cognitive
illusions can be more stubborn than visual illusions”. Kahneman is not
suggesting that we don’t change our mind. He says, “To
a good first approximation, people simply don't change their minds about
anything that matters." And, he elaborates this with, “I think I'm
actually known for changing my mind. This is one of the traits that all my
collaborators complain about, because I keep changing my mind. But I keep
changing my mind about small things. Then what I discovered actually, in part
while preparing that talk on adversarial collaboration, there are things on
which I just won't change my mind. Some of these I've believed since I was 17
or 18, so certainly are not going to change now.” We could be deeply
attached to a religion, national identity, political ideologies, and even
scientific theories. My guess is that Kahneman would have been deeply saddened
by the way Israel-Gaza conflict has unfolded since the last October,
demonstrating the stubbornness of cognitive illusions.
Focus on the process, not the outcome: We live in a world
where successful outcome is worshipped. Individual net worth, startup valuations, election
results, winning IPLs, competitive exam scores, your position, and possessions,
etc. Schools teaching entrepreneurship have a vision of producing a certain
number of unicorns. Kahneman knew that this lopsided emphasis on outcome is a
mistake. He said, “The key feature of
decision-making under uncertainty is that there is no perfect correlation between the quality of decisions and quality
of outcomes. You could make a good decision and fail and you could make a bad
decision and succeed.” And he advises later in the talk, “Try to focus
on the process, and not on the outcome”. For more on this, check out my blog “Rewarding
innovation: process vs outcome”.
Sunday, March 24, 2024
Psychedelics-mindfulness relationship: My 3 takeaways from Roland Griffiths' perspective
Neuroscience of psychedelics and meditation is in its infancy: When asked, “Can you give us just a brief bit of the science, the common pathways that thus far is thought between how psychedelics work in the brain and how meditation works in the brain? Like how do they both have the effects they have of giving us that enlarged sense of being?” (45:05) Rolland responds, “One answer to that is our understanding of that is truly primitive,” and then he adds, “The neuroscience of understanding how these experiences unfold with both psychedelics and meditation is exciting, there's a lot of research going on, but again, it's at its infancy”. “One of the most intriguing things that bring meditation and psychedelics together is the observation that acute psychedelics produce a decrease in the functioning of something called the default mode network (DMN).” (46:27) This large-scale brain network is known to be active while one is engaged in self-referential thinking (past, future, social evaluation, moral reasoning, etc). DMN is also known to be less active during mindfulness practice involving attentional focus on body sensations and breath, etc. However, DMN is not an anatomically well-defined term and its function and its relationship with psychedelics and mindfulness is an active research area.
Psychedelics-based guided therapy could act as a crash
course in mindfulness: This is how Roland describes the instructions given
to subjects undergoing psilocybin-based guided therapy at his lab – “We tell
people, you're going to have this experience, it may or may not be pleasant. It
can take all kinds of shapes and forms. There may be visualizations, there may
not be. And all we want you to do is pay attention to that experience, be
present with it. We're here to support you should you start feeling uncomfortable
but we're going to continue to ask you to go back in. And then we forewarn
people about these experiences can be very, very difficult and we'll give a
metaphor. We'll say, so, for instance, with psilocybin you can get a lot of
visualization and so as a thought experiment let's suppose a demonic figure
appears within your consciousness and this is something more terrifying than
you can imagine, it's made by you, for you. And your natural impulse is going
be to run or to fight it and you want to do neither of those two. You want to
just recognize it as an object of consciousness.” (21:06) If people learn to stay with such an
intense experience without getting drawn in, they feel empowered in a way that
they didn’t believe is possible before. Roland feels these instructions “amount
to a crash course in mindfulness” (21:06) and he calls it “meditation on
steroids”. (24:43)
There is no stability in psychedelics-based investigation
and is riskier than mindfulness: Both psychedelics and mindfulness
enable investigation of the nature of mind. Both are risky. Roland says, “There
are a couple of significant risks that can come out of psychedelic exposure,
and first and foremost is that people under unsupervised conditions, unscreened
conditions can just engage in dangerous behaviour and they can get disoriented,
they can get panicked, they can be confused to the point that they do
themselves or others significant harm. And so, these have to occur under
conditions that discourage that. But apart from that, there are biological
predispositions that would seem to be very unfavourable.” (42:10) He adds, “My
view is that the only way to achieve stability in this investigation of nature
of mind is through practices such as meditation or other embodied practices and
psychedelics can be misleading and certainly don't, in my judgment, represent a
path in and of themselves because there is just no stability in it. And then
certainly some people can get caught in the grasping for the experience and
that could derail them. And then there are certainly more risks involved in the use
of psychedelics than there are in meditation.” (37:55)
While writing this article, I came across a recent New York
Times article “The
psychedelic evangelist” that mentions that a former colleague of Roland has
filed a complaint against Roland for running his research lab like a new-age
retreat centre with religious symbolism and steering volunteers towards the
outcome he wanted. It is also alleged that the drugs come with unpredictable
risks, such as psychotic episodes, increased suicidality, or extended emotional
difficulties, which are most likely underreported by his research lab.
Sunday, March 17, 2024
Culture of innovation: 4 attributes and 3 kinds of evidence
Last month I got an opportunity to conduct a session on “Fostering a culture of innovation” for Small and Medium Enterprise (SME) business owners in Bangalore organized by Essae Chandran Institute. We began by exploring the following question. “Assume there is a magic wand that has created a culture of innovation in your organization today. What new stuff will you notice when you go back?” It took some time before participants started responding with “passion”, “curiosity”, “ideas”, etc. Culture is a fluffy stuff and it helps to have something more tangible in recognizing whether it is innovative. In this article, I would like to present four attributes and three kinds of evidence that may give an indication of an innovative culture.
- Curiosity: Curiosity is perhaps the most
underappreciated attribute of innovative culture. Are people raising questions
in meetings? Are questions appreciated? For a complex challenge, is there
collaboration to frame it with sufficient depth?
- Creativity: This is the most visible aspect of innovative culture. Idea portals, idea walls, brainstorms, off-sites, if there is idea generation, it is generally visible.
- Experimentation: In manufacturing and hardware-centric businesses, experimentation may be happening only in laboratories. In software, it could happen anywhere. It could also be visible in prototyping events such as hackathons. Appreciation of good experiments despite failures is an uncommon but crucial aspect of the maturity of the culture.
- Demo & Review: Innovation review is, in my opinion, the defining characteristic of innovative culture. Who participates in the review? What kind of questions are asked? Are resources (people, budget) allocated? Do demos happen in the review or just slide show?
Some of these characteristics like creativity are visible on
the walls as one walks around in the organization or perhaps on the walls of
the intranet. Some others like reviews and experimentation happen in conference
rooms and labs. For some of the SME
business owners I interacted with last month, experimentation was the most
challenging aspect as it involves investment in tools and expertise in
designing and executing experiments. And I agree. However, I feel that a culture
of continuous improvement is a good place to start the journey as it doesn’t
involve major investment. Many times business leaders want to focus only
on big bets.
It takes years to build a culture as evident in Toyota's
idea management system dashboard. It took five years for the participation to
cross ten percent and almost fifteen years for it to reach thirty percent. In
contrast, destroying a culture doesn’t take that long. Imagine a CEO sending a
curt message saying that failure will not be tolerated. It won’t be surprising
if people stop experimenting due to fear of failure.
Appreciation is a tricky lever. If you decide to appreciate
every idea, then appreciation loses its significance. And if you decide to
appreciate only the successful innovations, then smart failures remain
unappreciated. In a place where only success matters, people will avoid risk so
as not to fail. One needs to find the right balance between efforts (giving
ideas, doing experiments, making a business case) and outcomes.
I feel an innovation review is a powerful lever, especially for senior management. A lot can be communicated through the decisions and feedback given during a review. For example, a review that emphasizes a demo vs just a slideshow sends a message that prototyping matters.
Hope this characterization helps in deriving a basic assessment of the culture of innovation in small and big organizations and gives direction on possible plans of action.
Friday, January 26, 2024
My 3 takeaways from Agastya’s “Student, teacher, and AI” conference at Kuppam
Thanks to my friend Ajith Basu, I got an opportunity to participate in the “Student, teacher, and AI”, a national conference held at Agasty’s beautiful Kuppam campus. I was part of the facilitation team with Shriram Bharathan and Suhasini Seelin. The participants came from education departments in the central and several state government offices, schools, colleges, corporates, startups, and NGOs. The conference had 3 thrust areas: (1) demystifying AI, (2) the role of AI in future curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment, and (3) AI's influence on social and emotional learning. Here are my 3 takeaways from my sketchy and selective notes.
Self-learning may be a myth: AI is going to enable
self-learning by generating personalized insights. For example, AI can tell the teacher that specific four students are weak in – say “division by 7”. This
perspective was championed by Anand Rangarajan of Google among others. Having
experienced online self-learning and being a beneficiary of YouTube’s
recommendation engine myself, I was drawn to this view. However, Prof Bindu
Thirumalai of TISS was vocal in suggesting that self-learning is a myth.
Learning is fundamentally a social phenomenon and peer group and mentoring
play a crucial role. Having grown up in an educated family and having access
to helping friends, could my understanding of self-learning be flawed? I am
curious.
Empathy, not yet, but beware of biases today: We
looked at a
short fictional case where Preetha, a personal artificial assistant, acts
as an empathic friend to an 8th-standard girl, Swati, who is
struggling with math in the class. Experts felt that most of the technological
elements needed for the dialogue are already present. However, the degree of
empathy and warmth demonstrated in the story is still missing in the human-AI
interaction.
We also explored biases exhibited by Swati and Preetha.
While we were doing that Dr. Pradeep from Google fed the story to Bard and
showed us how Bard can identify biases participants had not spotted yet.
We also reflected upon our own biases we are carrying. During this exercise, most of us were using the term biases to mean prejudices and inclinations. Prof
Arun Tangirala of IIT Madras championed a view that for something to be called
a bias, we need to have a ground truth and evaluate whether there is a
systematic error of judgment. While there were differences in the meaning of
bias, there was a consensus that biases will be amplified in the AI world, and it
demands greater awareness.
Will AI enable creative adaptive intelligence? Not clear.
Ramji Raghavan of Agastya proposed that to live in a world where technology
such as AI widens the complexity gap, we need creative adaptive intelligence.
Will AI enable it? It is not obvious. Some participants felt that they were
already turning to ChatGPT for every problem, and that meant they were becoming
lazy. Prof C. K. Manjunath from SMVITM, Mangalore presented how an AI-enabled
advertisement such as Titan
Eye+ becomes interactive and fun and asked, “How can an average teacher
match this creativity?” Ms Changra, the Education Minister from Dharamsala, felt
that unless we are alert, technology overdependence may affect our mental well-being.
Monday, January 15, 2024
3Cs of idea communication illustrated through Andrej Karpathy’s LLM talk
Communicating your idea effectively is important be it to customers, team members, or investors. We presented 3 attributes of idea communication – curiosity, concreteness, and credibility in our book “8 steps to innovation”. In this blog, I would like to illustrate the 3Cs using Andrej Karpathy’s talk “Intro to large language models” which he published on his YouTube channel.
Andrej
Karpathy is one of my favorite teachers in the deep learning area. The OpenAI
founding member and ex-director of AI at Tesla has a hands-on approach to
teaching involving Python, Pytorch, and technical papers. Hence, I was
surprised when Andrej uploaded a PowerPoint presentation on his YouTube
channel. I was familiar with half the information in the talk. And yet, there
was a lot I could learn from the way Andrej presented. It is an excellent
example to illustrate how 3Cs – curiosity, concreteness, and credibility improve the effectiveness of a presentation. Let’s look at each C one by one.
Curiosity: A good presentation not only makes you
curious early on, it keeps you engaged by maintaining a
curiosity flow. What does curiosity flow in Andrej’s talk look like? He
begins with the question, “What is an LLM?” (21 min), then he moves on to the
second part, “The promise and future directions of LLM” (17 min), and in the
third and last part, Andrej talks about “the challenges in LLM paradigm” (13
min).
Within each part, Andrej is maintaining a curiosity flow.
For example, while explaining what an LLM is, Andrej asks questions like “How
do we get the (neural network) parameters?” “What does a neural network do?”
“How do we obtain an assistant?” etc. While presenting the future directions in
LLM research, Andrej explains problems like – what is equivalent of system-2
thinking? Or how do we get tree search in chess to language? How do we create a self-improvement sandbox environment for LLM like how it happened for AlphaGo?
And, in the final part, he shows how different jailbreaks like “prompt
injection” “data exfiltration” or “data poisoning” pose a security challenge
for an LLM. In short, it helps to build a curiosity flow while designing an
idea presentation.
Concreteness: Large Language Models are
high-dimensional and abstract and as Andrej alludes to in the talk, how they
work is not fully clear. Hence, it makes sense to use lots of concrete examples
to make the concept understandable. And that’s what Andrej does. In many
places, he shows how LLMs respond in certain situations by showing how ChatGPT
behaves when you prompt it in a particular way. For example, he illustrates the “reversal curse” by showing how ChatGPT answers the question “Who is Tom
Cruise’s mother?” correctly while saying “I don’t know” when asked, “Who is Mary
Lee Pfeiffer’s son?” He gives a demo of how LLMs use tools like browser search,
calculator, and Python libraries to solve a given problem and present the
information as a plot.
Andrej also uses several metaphors or analogies to explain
concepts. For example, he says an LLM is like a zip file of the Internet,
except that it is a lossy compression. Or, LLM is not like a car where you can
understand and explain how different parts work together to give its function.
Or, current LLMs are like speed chess which uses an automatic and fast system-1
mode of thinking, and while it is yet to learn how to solve problems like
competitive chess where players use deliberate, slow, system-2 mode of thinking
involving tree search.
My biggest takeaway from the talk comes in the form of a
metaphor when Andrej explains that it is better to think of an LLM as the
kernel of an emerging operating system (like Windows or Linux) rather than as a
chatbot or a bot generator. To explain this, he maps various components of
current OSes to LLM components. For example, he says the Internet is like the hard disk in the traditional OS, and context window is like the working memory
or RAM, etc. I thought it was a powerful metaphor to convey the paradigm shift.
Credibility: Most idea presenters like you and me need
to worry about making our ideas credible. Given his position and brand and
given the popularity of LLMs, Andrej probably doesn’t have to pay special
attention to this aspect. However, he is making forward-looking statements in
this talk, and he needs to ensure he doesn’t divulge any information
confidential to OpenAI. He achieves this by citing academic papers while
mentioning future directions and security challenges. His demo also adds to the
credibility. He is not making any “AGI is around the corner” kind of hyperbolic
statements and devotes time to talking about the limitations and challenges of the
current LLMs.
Sunday, December 17, 2023
Learning from innovation dashboards visible through annual reports
Innovation means different things to different sectors and these differences get reflected in how they present their innovation dashboards. For the past few years, several listed companies in India have started presenting their innovation dashboards either explicitly in the form of a table sometimes titled “intellectual capital” or implicitly through various parameters like new product launches, pilots, kaizens, new initiatives, automations, etc. How do these innovation dashboards look? Let’s look at 4 such dashboards as visible to us through their FY23 annual reports. These companies are Tata Motors, Asian Paints, SBI Life Insurance, and Zomato, and their sectors are automotive, building materials (paints, coatings, and home décor products), insurance, and online food ordering. Please note that the innovation dashboard that gets presented in annual reports is likely to be a subset of what is tracked internally. Disclaimer: Some of these companies are my clients, but here I am restricting myself to data available only through annual reports.
What can we learn and not learn from these dashboards?
- Despite being from different sectors, all four companies had something to report on new products/programs launched in the financial year.
- Intellectual property especially patents and designs are relevant to Tata Motors and Asian Paints but not to SBI Life and Zomato. Tata Motors in India may be learning the nuances of the game from JLR.
- Digital transformation is an important focus area for SBI Life while for digitally native companies like Zomato, it is part of the DNA.
- Automation is an important focus area for all four companies. For SBI Life, underwriting process automation provides a good opportunity for improvement.
- Partners – insurance agents for SBI Life and delivery partners for Zomato play an important role in their business. Improving partner experience is happening through digital transformation for SBI Life while for digitally native Zomato providing offline experience through resting places with drinking water, washrooms, charging stations, WiFi, helpdesk, and first-aid is important.
- R&D expenditure as a proxy for experimentation capacity is visible through Tata Motors and Asian Paints reports but not from SBI Life and Zomato. Tata Motors report mentions they have 11 technology hubs/R&D/engineering centres while the Asian Paints report mentions the strength of the R&D team. Zomato report mentions various pilots like Intercity Legends, Zomato everyday, and reusable packaging. These are experiments which may or may not become successful.
- Continuous improvement must be important to all players. However, systematic efforts are visible through kaizen reporting in Tata Motors and Asian Paints but not in SBI Life and Zomato.
- Automation through bots is visible in the SBI Life report. However, the efficiency of bot usage can come at the cost of customer experience. Currently, the quality of automated responses to customer support queries is poor in most cases. This trade-off is not visible.
- Platform is an enabler of innovation and all four players leverage different types of platforms. Tata Motors has vehicular platforms, Asian Paints has chemical technology-related platforms, SBI Life has digital servicing platforms, and Zomato has an order management platform. However, platform-related metrics are not visible in these reports. We can infer that platforms would have played a role when Tata Motors launched 150 variants in a year.
- Open innovation is an enabler of innovation. Asian Paints report mentions having a technology council with four external members with diverse expertise in various technology areas relevant to the business. Tata Motors must collaborate with other Tata and non-Tata companies, especially in the electric mobility space in creating the ecosystem. However, the related metric is not visible.
In short, there is a lot that can be gathered about innovation from the dashboards available in the annual reports. Innovation dashboard reporting is not a statutory requirement. And yet, it is a good source of input for students of innovation.













