Latest news with #SrinathSridharan
Mint
24-07-2025
- Business
- Mint
Outrage over AI is pointless if we're clueless about AI models
Next Story Srinath Sridharan While xAI's Grok chatbot has caused a storm, calls for penalties miss the point. As Big Tech has shown, such a regulatory approach will not deter AI model makers from the path they're on. To align the public interest with private innovation, we must address the ailment rather than symptoms. It is tempting to reach for the regulatory hammer. Yet, what we need first is the clarity of better lenses to see what these models truly are. Gift this article Much of the commentary on artificial intelligence (AI) comes from well-meaning voices, including those who see themselves as constructive partners in policy formulation. They speak earnestly, frame their concerns carefully and sometimes sound persuasive. Much of the commentary on artificial intelligence (AI) comes from well-meaning voices, including those who see themselves as constructive partners in policy formulation. They speak earnestly, frame their concerns carefully and sometimes sound persuasive. Yet, too often, they stop short of confronting the hard questions. It is easier to talk about a single high-profile lapse than to ask why such failures recur and what that reveals about the design of this technology and challenge of governing it. Take the case of xAI's Grok chatbot, which recently hit the news for generating deeply offensive and antisemitic output. As expected, the firm issued an apology and pledged reforms. Such gestures have become a ritual across the AI industry. The immediate response to the latest scandal was a chorus demanding fines, tougher deterrents and stricter oversight. All of these are understandable and even justified. Yet, they risk treating symptoms while leaving the underlying ailment untouched. Historically, regulation has always trailed innovation. From early aviation to financial derivatives and digital privacy, lawmakers have struggled to keep pace with the speed and complexity of any evolving technology. It is wishful to assume AI would be any different. Recent debates over water-marking, alignment methods and open-source risks show that even within the field, consensus is elusive and best practices are in flux. At the same time, arguing for careful regulation does not diminish the real risks of AI. The question is not whether regulation is needed, but how to design it such that it rests on a genuine technical understanding, keeps pace with fast-moving systems and avoids becoming a reactive set of penalties imposed only after harm has been done. The uncomfortable truth is that the very power of generative models lies in their unpredictability. These systems do not fetch fixed answers, but create new responses from complex probabilistic patterns in their training data. Harmful or shocking outputs are not mere accidents or lapses in corporate discipline. They stem from how these models work. Calling for harsh penalties without grappling with this design paradox offers the illusion of certainty in a space where certainty cannot be guaranteed. Yet, it is often overlooks the fact that strict penalties could slow innovation and entrench the dominance of a few large firms that are able to bear compliance costs. We have seen this before. Over decades, regulatory fines have barely dented the profits of Big Tech giants like Microsoft, Google and Meta. Their ability to hire expensive legal teams and absorb penalties has meant such 'deterrents' have done little to curb their market power, while consumer dependence on their products has only deepened. Such measures may end up reducing competition and diversity without tackling the technology's real risks. Deeper still lies a question rarely asked amid calls for AI regulation. Does the competence to supervise models and enforce rules exist? Across countries, AI oversight remains nascent. In many places, including India, legal frameworks for AI are yet to take shape. Policymakers speak confidently of alignment, water-marking and output explainability, but usually do so from a position that is reliant on borrowed expertise. Turning ambition into technically grounded and enforceable regulation is only just beginning. Beyond regulators, courts too will need special training to handle the nuances of AI disputes. Without the requisite competence, regulation risks serving institutional pride more than user protection. This gap matters because AI oversight must keep up with digital systems whose capabilities and risks evolve quickly. Without steady investment in institutional knowledge, regulation would become reactive and symbolic, driven more by outrage than informed judgement. Regulation, however, must look past appearances to truly serve the public good. Independent audits, systematic red-teaming and detailed reporting of failures could align private incentives with the public good far better than fines imposed after an event. Like in financial markets, it is disclosure and scrutiny that discipline complex systems. This is also why India must remain open to supporting open-source AI development for greater robustness, rather than give in to industrial lobbies eager to lock in closed models. Regulation must aim to align the public interest with private innovation. It is tempting to reach for the regulatory hammer. Yet, what we need first is the clarity of better lenses to see what these models truly are. Without that, we will stay caught in a cycle of outrage and apology, while the real questions remain unanswered. The author is a corporate advisor and author of 'Family and Dhanda'. Topics You May Be Interested In Catch all the Business News, Market News, Breaking News Events and Latest News Updates on Live Mint. Download The Mint News App to get Daily Market Updates.
Mint
11-07-2025
- Business
- Mint
Going cheap on AI talent is no way to achieve leadership: Let's learn from Meta
Srinath Sridharan Meta's $100 million sign-up bonuses have underscored the value of cutting-edge tech talent. Indian businesses should also be ready to pay big bucks for AI experts. Can they afford it? Can they afford not to compete? It's hard to imagine a promoter in Corporate India approving even a tenth of Meta's figure for a single hire in AI. Gift this article With Meta offering up to $100 million as sign-up bonuses to hire artificial intelligence (AI) talent, it has set the new global price of intelligence. Across the US and China, compensation for top talent in AI, quantum computing and other strategic technologies has decoupled entirely from traditional salary frameworks. What was once considered an executive-level package is now being paid to domain specialists, engineers and scientists. With Meta offering up to $100 million as sign-up bonuses to hire artificial intelligence (AI) talent, it has set the new global price of intelligence. Across the US and China, compensation for top talent in AI, quantum computing and other strategic technologies has decoupled entirely from traditional salary frameworks. What was once considered an executive-level package is now being paid to domain specialists, engineers and scientists. In India, we speak confidently of becoming global champions in AI, semiconductors and battery innovation. But are we ready to pay for the talent required to get us there? Corporate India, particularly its promoter-led enterprises, still has a rigid compensation culture. Even the most admired Indian tech companies rarely exceed $1 million in fixed compensation for high-end domain talent, preferring to offer stock or deferred incentives instead. Across the board, executive pay continues to outpace technical pay by a wide margin—even in companies that market themselves as product-first. Imagine a promoter approving even a tenth of Meta's figure—say, $10 million annually—for a single hire in AI. HR would instinctively reach for the cost-to-company (CTC) template. Legal teams would load the contract with clawbacks and non-competes. And someone around the table would inevitably ask whether this was more than the entire tech team earns. This reflects a discomfort with the idea that a young knowledge-led mind—often without pedigree, polish or deference—could command industrial-level value. It is a problem of culture. Indian businesses have long been comfortable investing $50 million in a new factory or plant. But offering even $5 million to a knowledge architect who can design the core of a future-facing product feels excessive. This inversion, where management is rewarded more than the minds building the product, is one of Indian technology's least acknowledged handicaps. It's not because the talent doesn't exist. India continues to produce some of the best AI researchers, quantum physicists and deep tech engineers in the world. But our systems expect them to settle for prestige, purpose or passion. There's a persistent myth that because India's tech talent is 'mission-driven" and that it will accept under-compensation in return for vision or national pride. That might work if you're a global frontrunner offering unmatched exposure. But when that same talent has offers from research labs in Silicon Valley, Zurich or Singapore—with salaries 8 to 100 times higher—purpose alone won't bridge the gap. Vision must be paired with valuation: Across the world, many governments and corporations understand this. The UAE has appointed a minister for AI. Singapore offers co-funded AI fellowships with public-private partnerships. Germany's AI strategy includes billions in subsidies tied to industrial research teams. These are economic bets on the future of productivity. India's response so far has been largely declarative: strategies, mission and some funding. But talent doesn't read these documents. It reads offers, options and opportunities. There is precedent for bold compensation in India's business history. Two decades ago, during the retail boom, one of India's largest conglomerates hired 15-plus marquee CEOs at salaries reportedly several times higher than their previous pay. It was a bold bet—one that catalyzed knowledge transfer, global systems and new processes. But once the infrastructure was built, the appetite for such talent faded. The notion that talent is fungible took root again. In deep tech sectors, that assumption won't hold. In the technology era, talent must be treated as strategic capital expenditure. Hiring a world-class AI researcher is like the first kilometre of pipeline in a new industrial system. Yet, most Indian promoters would find it ego-challenging to write that check unless the individual's value could be directly tied to revenues already realized, or probably the talent is in their bloodline. That mindset is precisely what could cost us the future. It's no longer sufficient to celebrate Indian-origin AI leaders at DeepMind, Google or OpenAI. If we underpay the very talent we claim to revere, we aren't reversing brain drain—we're subsidizing innovation elsewhere. And the problem runs deeper than compensation structures. Indian business culture still places enormous symbolic value on control, lineage and loyalty. It's far more comfortable rewarding long-term insiders than investing aggressively in external experts. But deep tech respects none of these traditional codes. It rewards only edge. The question is not whether India has the financial bandwidth but whether it has the emotional maturity to accept that true capability may reside in those who don't conform to existing hierarchies. Even India's startup ecosystem hasn't escaped this gravity. Founders flush with venture capital hesitate to offer globally competitive salaries to specialist talent. Many prefer to overhire generalists rather than back one game-changing domain expert. Performance-linked employee stock options are useful but they're no substitute for upfront recognition of value. The test of the new economy is not regulation, nor market access. It isn't equity capital either—these are traditional entry barriers that large Indian firms are comfortable overcoming. The real question is whether they can recognize that in a world of knowledge-driven industries, intellect is infrastructure. The question then is no longer whether we can afford to pay top talent. It is whether we can afford not to. The author is a corporate advisor and author of 'Family and Dhanda' Topics You May Be Interested In
Indian Express
07-07-2025
- Business
- Indian Express
Dubai offers a Golden Visa: Indians will take it because India can't offer a good life
Written by Srinath Sridharan Among India's business elite, it has long been said — half in jest, half in resignation — that London serves as the summer capital for Indian wealth creators. It is not merely a seasonal getaway, but a refuge to experience what many describe as the basics of a functioning, civilised urban existence. Dubai has been viewed as the commercial capital — a place where access to global finance, high-quality infrastructure, distance to India and influential networks converge with a lifestyle of efficiency and comfort. In both cases, the subtext is unmissable: The quest is for order, predictability, and a life free from systemic friction. In this context, the United Arab Emirates' recent introduction of a nomination-based Golden Visa should be attractive. At a one-time cost of AED 1,00,000 (United Arab Emirates dirham) — approximately Rs 23 lakh — eligible Indian citizens will now be able to secure lifetime residency, without the conventional requirement of purchasing expensive real estate or deploying capital in business ventures. While the change may appear procedural, its strategic intent is unmistakable. The UAE is repositioning itself as a hub not just for capital inflows, but for globally mobile talent. It is building an ecosystem that attracts capacity and credibility, alongside wealth. It now sits within reach of India's expanding upper-middle class — ranging from salaried professionals and entrepreneurs to digital economy founders. It is less expensive than most mid-range SUVs and luxury cars on Indian roads. In cities like Mumbai, the cost would not even secure permanent car parking in a typical apartment block. This price point will prove particularly attractive to a rising cohort of Indian startup founders and technology professionals, especially those working at the frontiers of emerging domains such as artificial intelligence, blockchain, web3 and quantum computing. In fact, the absence of regulatory clarity or institutional understanding around such frontier sectors in India has already prompted early waves of younger talent to migrate to geographies that offer a mix of legal certainty, access to capital, and peer ecosystems. The numbers are bearing them out with clarity. The Henley Private Wealth Migration Report 2024 estimates that over 4,300 Indian millionaires are projected to relocate abroad this year alone, following 5,100 such moves in 2023. Data presented by India's Ministry of External Affairs in Parliament reveals that more than 1.6 million Indians have formally renounced their citizenship since 2011, with a significant surge observed in the past year. Parallel findings from Kotak Private, in collaboration with EY, reveal that nearly a quarter of India's ultra-high-net-worth individuals are actively evaluating international relocation. Many of those choosing to establish residency overseas are the very individuals who have powered India's economic ascent — through risk-taking, innovation, and private sector investment. That they now perceive greater continuity and dignity outside the country suggests a breakdown in the incentives that once made staying worthwhile. The UAE's approach offers a useful contrast. Through deliberate policy design, it has engineered an environment where governance is predictable, regulatory friction is low, and individual initiative is met with institutional coherence. By doing so, it has created a magnet for global professionals and entrepreneurs seeking to operate in a system that supports aspiration. This is a signal to nations that systems which offer efficiency and dignity will increasingly win the race for mobile human capital. India must view this development as a strategic inflection point. The decision of its citizens to seek permanence abroad should not be dismissed as anecdotal, nor vilified as unpatriotic. It should be studied, understood, and addressed. If India does not urgently strengthen its capacity to offer a dignified, efficient and enabling life to its own, the silent vote of exit will only accelerate. It will demand investment in core civic infrastructure, liveable cities, a more predictable tax and business environment, reform of public institutions, and a governing culture that respects competence and rewards initiative. It will require, above all, a shift in how the Indian state conceives of its compact with its most productive citizens — as stakeholders to retain. And if unaddressed, it could one day prove far more consequential than the numbers currently suggest. The writer is corporate advisor and Independent Director on corporate boards. He is also the author of Family and Dhanda
India Today
03-07-2025
- Business
- India Today
Is India's Rs 1 trillion RDI scheme inspired by China's Thousand Talents Plan? Not quite
In order to revitalise India's R&D ecosystem, the government has cleared the Rs 1 lakh crore Research Development and Innovation (RDI) Scheme. The policy aims to inject much-needed capital into deep-tech sectors and strategic industries, primarily by offering startups and private players long-tenure, low-interest loans and equity details of the initiative emerged, comparisons began to surface. Most notably with China's controversial Thousand Talents Plan (TTP) (launched in 2008). That programme was Beijing's ambitious bid to bring home its brightest minds from across the globe. So, is India now trying to emulate China's Plan?advertisementNot quite. And the difference is more than cosmetic. 'The Rs. 1-trillion RDI scheme is a welcome move, but it's not cut from the same cloth as China's Thousand Talents Plan,' says Srinath Sridharan, Corporate Advisor & Independent Director on Corporate Boards. 'It's a financial intervention, not a people strategy.'China's TTP was designed with the aim of reversing brain drain. It dangled lucrative incentives, including research autonomy, leadership posts, lab funding, and generous salaries, to draw back Chinese-origin scientists, engineers, and tech entrepreneurs from elite institutions programme placed many of them directly into leadership roles in high-tech firms, especially in fields like AI, genomics, and quantum new scheme, by contrast, takes a different tack. There's no direct outreach to diaspora talent. No talk of any central mechanism to attract returning scientists. No coordinated effort is being made to fast-track them into institutions or give them decision-making authority in national R&D not about repatriating talent,' Sridharan argues. It's about unlocking capital to stimulate innovation at home. That's a fundamentally different design.'TWO MODELS, TWO MINDSETSWhere China's approach was centrally planned and state-directed, India's RDI scheme is built around market forces. The expectation is that funding will enable private players to take more risks in R&D-heavy companies (aka the sunrise sectors) — health tech, semiconductors, green energy — areas where returns are uncertain and therein lies the rub.'Innovation doesn't emerge from capital alone,' Sridharan cautions. 'It needs minds... motivated, skilled, and empowered minds.'For India to consider shifting from brain drain to brain gain, we need more than just a funding mechanism. What's missing (and much-needed) is a long-term vision that connects all three: talent, infrastructure, and does one get there? First, by creating globally competitive research institutions with operational autonomy; second, ensuring urban ecosystems that can support the lifestyle, career, and educational expectations of those returning scientists; third, cutting the red tape that may end up slowing down or stifling scientific exploration; and above all, articulating a clear national innovation agenda with SUCCESS AND FALLOUTIt is true that China's TTP came with serious baggage. On the one hand, the Plan succeeded in attracting thousands of top-tier researchers and repositioned Beijing as a serious tech player. But it also triggered geopolitical concerns, especially in the U.S., where several scientists who were affiliated with the programme were accused of failing to disclose Chinese ties or funding. The Plan even led to investigations, terminations, and, in some cases, even criminal 2022, under international pressure and domestic recalibration, Beijing hurriedly retired the original TTP. Although some elements of it live on in other points out that India doesn't need to replicate the Chinese model as it were. But there's a lesson there for us: 'China got it right that talent follows purpose. If your system signals seriousness, autonomy, and ambition, top talent will pay attention.'THE ROAD AHEADIndia's RDI scheme has laid the financial groundwork. But unless there's an equally compelling plan to mobilise human capital both domestically and globally, the country could end up with capital-rich labs and boardrooms but a scarcity of scientific like building a space rocket and forgetting to train the astronauts. You can get off the ground, but not go India hopes to lead in frontier innovation by 2047, it must think beyond money. It must craft a story bold enough to bring its brightest minds home not just to participate, but to lead.- Ends advertisement
Mint
23-06-2025
- Business
- Mint
Dual-use warfare: The military-industrial complex is out in the open now
Srinath Sridharan Amid brazen displays of firepower, warfare has economic incentives that are no longer hidden and don't seem to make the arms industry and its political backers squirm. What Eisenhower warned of is the world's reality today. The US has long used military force not only to pursue security objectives, but also to safeguard its access to resources such as oil, gas and rare minerals. Gift this article The United States, the very country whose former president and war hero Dwight D. Eisenhower first warned against the rise of a 'military-industrial complex," has since become its most active architect, user and beneficiary. The United States, the very country whose former president and war hero Dwight D. Eisenhower first warned against the rise of a 'military-industrial complex," has since become its most active architect, user and beneficiary. This complex has matured into a diffused but dominant global operating system. Its power is not exercised through the use of combat aircraft and missiles alone, but through procurement cycles, legislative influence, job guarantees and an expanding web of strategic dependencies that now tie national security to economic continuity. Also Read: Mint Quick Edit | The US blasts in: A forever war in Iran? In West Asia, US strikes on Iran's nuclear infrastructure mark a dramatic escalation, with American forces joining what had been a bilateral Iran-Israel conflict. The US has entered a volatile theatre at a moment when restraint might have offered it greater leverage. The move could widen the conflict zone and deepen Washington's entanglement in a dynamic where deterrence, diplomacy and industrial interests have become indistinguishable. The US made a spectacular display in Iran of its most advanced bombers and bunker buster bombs, but Iran's response of missiles fired at Israel would suggest that Israeli demand for interceptor ammunition to defend itself is unlikely to flag. Costly hostilities mean that this is not only about geopolitics, but economics, with the US ready to keep its key ally in West Asia well supplied with military hardware. American action over the weekend underscores the dual imperatives that shape power today: the projection of strength abroad and preservation of influence at home. Each military provocation feeds a feedback loop that rarely ends in resolution. Iran's threat to close the Strait of Hormuz and target US assets in the region is alarming but unsurprising. Any aggression displayed by Tehran triggers a chain of responses: from security alerts and military deployments to insurance recalibrations and, ultimately, arms-replenishment contracts. In such a cycle, while conflict may not be deemed desirable for its own sake, its economic value is obvious. The US has long used military force not only to pursue security objectives, but also to safeguard its access to resources such as oil, gas and rare minerals. From the first Gulf War to interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, US military engagements and regime change pursuits have reinforced a domestic defence sector that contributes directly to GDP, sustains high-value employment and drives technological advances. Far from being scaled back after the Cold War ended, America's military-industrial capacity has been kept in top condition. This assures the US supremacy in any armed conflict as well as leadership of the geopolitically controlled market for armaments. Also Read: Israel-Iran conflict: Echoes of history haunt West Asia The Iran war provides a fresh opportunity to recast economic vulnerabilities as strategic necessities. At home, the US could soon reframe its vast debt pile and fiscal fragility as a burden imposed by its responsibility to keep the world safe. That others must 'pay' for security is a theme that Washington has been harping on. Enhanced defence budgets among its allies, of course, would serve American arms producers well. The military-industrial complex is no longer a Western monopoly. Its logic has been embraced by other powers. In China, defence manufacturing serves both as a technological frontier and employment engine. In Israel, defence innovation underwrites global exports. For Iran, asymmetric warfare enables regime resilience and circumvents international isolation. So long as the normalization of long-term hostility serves industrial interests, big or small, arms-makers have no incentive to let stability take hold. Today's global scramble for rare earths mirrors the 20th century's oil rush, but with digital dominance as an underlying motive. Iran is rapidly emerging as a significant global player in the field of strategic minerals. In April, it commissioned its first monazite-based rare-earth pilot plant in Abbas Abad, capable of processing 17 rare earth elements with domestic technology. The country is estimated to hold about 85 million tonnes of rare-earth reserves. It reportedly has vast deposits of lithium, cobalt, copper and bauxite. Preliminary exploration suggests Iran may host the world's second-largest lithium field and one of West Asia's largest porphyry copper reserves. These resources are vital to consumer electronics, defence systems and clean-tech initiatives. Their strategic value places Iran's mineral wealth at the centre of geopolitical contention. In this context, the language of peace often sounds performative. Institutions like the United Nations are structurally locked out. This may remain the case so long as the economics of deterrence outweighs the ethics of diplomacy. At times, military action also has domestic political utility. The optics of a victory can eclipse economic anxiety, while strategic assertion tends to find more public support than strategic restraint. This yields the absurdity of aggression cloaked in words of diplomacy and peace. That Pakistan, long accused of abetting terrorism, would nominate US President Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize reveals the performative farce all this has become. The military-industrial complex no longer hides in the shadows. It is embedded in legislation, budgets and political game plans. In the business of war, peace isn't just inconvenient, it's a threat. The author is a corporate advisor and author of 'Family and Dhanda'. Topics You May Be Interested In
