The Last Mile of AI Is Human: The One Thing AI Should Never Replace

Dear Friends

Twenty-five years back, one day, a rice cooker exploded in our house. Though there was no major physical injury or damage, one of my family members’ faces got completely blackened, almost like the boiled skin of an eggplant. In that shocking state, we rushed to a doctor just beside our house. I cannot call it a clinic, as it was an 8 × 8 room under a big banyan tree. There were no compounder or nurse and no high-fi sophisticated equipment. The doctor was sitting on a plastic chair, and a stethoscope & BP machine were on the wooden table.

Immediately, he gave simple first aid and asked us to bring one specific ointment from a nearby medical shop. We asked him whether we should take the patient to a dermatologist or any other big hospital, but he said it was not required. He also said that if that first aid had not been given, the face might have remained black even after healing. As he told us, within a few days, the face became normal and the whole wound healed. He just took ₹50 or ₹100, not more than that. He spoke compassionately and comforted us before asking us to go back home.

A Johns Hopkins study says that 40 seconds of compassionate talk by doctor reduces patient anxiety drastically. Another study says that if a doctor talks to a patient compassionately, 2.2 days of hospital stay can be reduced to 1.1 days. You might be wondering why I am using the word compassion multiple times.

The human spectrum of responsiveness—spanning Pity, Sympathy, Empathy, and Compassion—can be mapped on a two-dimensional graph with Understanding & Engagement on the X-axis and Effort on the Y-axis. Positioned sequentially along a positive regression line, these four terms reflect a steady rise: Pity sits at the lowest end (“I acknowledge your pain”), followed by Sympathy (“I care about your pain”), Empathy (“I feel your pain”), and finally Compassion at the highest point (“I want to relieve your pain”), where emotional resonance converts into active effort. The origin represents total apathy or indifference—zero understanding and zero effort.

Doctors and teachers require compassion (they have to relieve the pain without attaching to problem). They cannot operate only on the other three platforms. What triggered me to write this article? Today, I read about Ahmedabad-based ENT surgeon Dr. Nandlal Manseta. He is 81. His fee structure is unusual. He lets patients decide what they can afford based on their income. His fee model is based on trust. Patients are not asked to produce income certificates. Instead, they contribute according to what they earn, while someone with no income can receive a consultation without paying anything. His fee formula is something different—

Fee = 0.01 × Monthly Income!!

Today, I am invited by Infinity Vizag 2026. They asked me to talk on workforce transformation in the wake of AI. One of the real-time stories I shared is that if humans miss the compassionate part of their responsibility, slowly AI will enter that role which was live in Hyderabad and healthcare domain.

AI can remove the task, not the human! AI can give the human a superpower. However, we cannot delegate compassion, accountability, judgement, and safety.

Do you agree?

Ravi Saripalle

From Mud Play to Mobile Play-Do You Allow Your Child to Play in the Mud?

Dear Friends,

During childhood, we used to play cricket in open grounds. Though I was not a good sportsman, I used to judiciously participate. Considering my weight, my team used to call me David Boon, the former Australian opening batsman. Every time, I used to be given the same opening status, but I used to disappoint them! However, I never lost the spirit.

More than the play itself, I used to enjoy the open ground, the company, the pre- and post-play preparation, and the entertainment. In those days, we did not have the concept of carrying a water bottle. If we were thirsty, we used to go to a nearby well at any construction site, draw water using the nearby bucket, and drink. Sometimes, rain comes suddenly, but we used to finish the game in the mud! Mud used to be our soap if we happened to touch any notorious plants!

Why am I sharing my old mud memories in this Saturday’s story? Yes, there is a significance.

I observe the current generation of kids and their behaviour in high rise societies. Many kids come with sophisticated shoes and play on clean cement playgrounds. Even if they play on regular grounds, they still ensure that mud does not touch their feet or hands. Another set of kids is getting glued to virtual games. They sit next to each other and play online, fighting with each other! This is the most pathetic scene.

Finland is known for its education system and child development. Finland discovered that while hyper-sanitized, synthetic playgrounds prevent physical injuries, their lack of natural dirt and biodiversity deprives children of essential microbes needed to build healthy immune systems.

Modern playgrounds rely heavily on rubber mats and synthetic turf to maximize safety and simplify maintenance. However, these artificial surfaces create sterile environments that eliminate dirt, mud, and plants, effectively isolating children from natural ecosystems. Without regular exposure to organic soil, children miss out on beneficial environmental bacteria that are crucial for proper immune system calibration.

To address this concern, researchers in Finland conducted an experiment to rewild urban daycare centres by replacing synthetic ground cover with real forest-floor elements, including soil, grass, shadow shrubs, and moss. In these naturalized settings, children were encouraged to interact directly with nature by digging in real dirt, planting vegetation, and playing daily with organic materials.

The results demonstrated immediate biological and behavioural benefits. Within just 28 days, children playing on natural soil showed significantly higher skin and gut microbial diversity, as well as improved immune system markers that help protect against allergies and autoimmune conditions. 

 

Furthermore, navigating the natural, uneven terrain promoted holistic growth, markedly improving the children’s motor skills, emotional regulation, and imaginative play compared to traditional flat, synthetic surfaces.

If you observe kids in rural settings, they spend a lot of time in the mud and uneven surfaces. Their immunity levels are going to be high as they grow. They manage life easily. 

We stopped giving children mud toys. In our childhood, during Jagannath Rath Yatra, many stalls used to sell clay toys. We used to buy the whole mud kitchen crockery set and play with it. Nowadays, it has completely stopped!

One systematic review confirms that unstructured play in natural environments improves social skills, imaginative play, emotional self-regulation, and resilience compared to structured, artificial play structures.

Mud Is Not Always Dirty!

Ravi Saripalle 

AI Is Changing Computer Science. Are We Changing the Classroom?

Dear Friends,

Six years ago, in 2020, I made a video when engineering colleges were introducing CSE with different variants such as DS, AI/ML, Core CSE, IT, etc. (https://youtu.be/puRhpSSzHJ4). In the same year, I made another video on “Three Types of Engineering Students—which type are you?” (https://youtu.be/z4P-9dDuQEU).

In 2020, I did not anticipate AI’s maturity to be what it is today. If you look at its brief history, in 2012, the AlexNet neural network crushed traditional computer vision benchmarks at the ImageNet Challenge. It proved that deep neural networks, combined with graphics processing units (GPUs), could extract patterns from raw data far better than human engineers could by hand.

In 2017, Google researchers published “Attention Is All You Need,” introducing the Transformer architecture. This sparked the birth of Large Language Models (LLMs). The public release of ChatGPT in late 2022 brought general-purpose AI reasoning into everyday consumer awareness almost overnight. If we want to summarize the journey: 2011: AI predicts → 2015: AI perceives → 2018: AI understands → 2020: AI generalizes → 2022: AI generates → 2023: AI collaborates → 2024: AI reasons and uses tools → 2025: AI acts → 2026: AI increasingly manages end-to-end workflows.

If I review my two earlier videos in 2026, the first video on the different varieties of CSE is no longer significant or relevant. However, the second video is highly significant.

Many of you know Srikanth Velamakanni, NASSCOM Chairperson, Co-Founder of Fractal, and an alumnus of IIT Delhi and IIMA. Fractal went public in February 2026, reaching a valuation of approximately USD 1.93 billion. I admire Srikanth’s LinkedIn posts. Interestingly, a couple of weeks ago, Srikanth posted about how the CSE branch is declining in the US and the UK.

The chart shows a clear reversal in the long-term growth of Computer Science in both the US and the UK. Using 2024 = 100 as the reference point, US CS enrolments increased from roughly 62 in 2015–16 to 100 in 2024, but then fell to about 91–92 by 2025–26, implying an approximately 8–9% decline from the peak. In the UK, CS applications rose from around 60 in 2014 to 100 in 2024, then dropped to about 86 by 2026, representing a decline of approximately 14%.

The downturn began soon after generative AI became mainstream, suggesting that AI-driven automation, weaker entry-level software hiring, technology-sector layoffs, and a shift toward AI, data science, and interdisciplinary programs may be influencing student choices. However, the chart shows correlation rather than proving that AI alone caused the decline.

You might be wondering: What is the status in India? There are no major statistics published yet, but as per my assessment, it looks something like this: 2024: 100, 2025: ~100–102, 2026: ~97–100. Hence, we seem to be witnessing a plateau or the beginning of a decline.

Srikanth argues that while the low-hanging fruit of basic software engineering is disappearing, this opens up tremendous new possibilities for solving much harder problems. And this raises a much bigger question: In an increasingly AI-driven world, what should colleges teach to help students build a 40-year career? He suggests that colleges teach critical thinking, learning to learn, problem-solving using first principles, judgment and ethics, empathy, compassion, entrepreneurship, and, most importantly, leadership.

India has approximately 1,300 universities and 65,000 Higher Education Institutions as of 2026. India has approximately 4.5 crore higher-education students; around 46 lakh (≈10%) are studying Engineering & Technology, while roughly 4.0 crore (≈90%) are studying non-engineering disciplines. Among engineering students, nearly 22 lakh (47%) are in CSE-plus-IT, AI/ML, and AI/Data Science-related branches.

If we don’t plan well, the demographic dividend could become a demographic curse. NITI Aayog estimates that another 8.7 crore youth aged 15–29 are outside education, employment, and training (NEET—Not in Education, Employment or Training), highlighting the enormous challenge of moving young people from outside education and employment into skills and productive livelihoods.

Time to think differently and teach differently in the classroom!

Ravi Saripalle

When a Dollar Becomes Soft: From JPMorgan to BLR Airport

Dear Friends,

In 1999, my first assignment at JPMorgan was to develop a “soft-dollar” system and deploy it in their New York office. It was a one-man-army project. During my interaction with our client, I cracked a joke as well: how could a dollar become hard or soft? My customer patiently explained the difference between soft dollar and hard dollar!

Suppose a fund manager regularly gives J.P. Morgan a large trading business. J.P. Morgan earns brokerage commission when it executes those trades. In addition to execution, J.P. Morgan may provide the fund manager with useful services, such as equity research and analyst reports. The fund manager does not write a separate cheque for those research services. Their value is effectively supported through the brokerage commissions generated by the trading relationship. That is the soft-dollar concept.

If I have to relate this to our daily life, imagine that you regularly buy groceries from one store. As a large customer, you also receive free home delivery and access to special offers. You are paying for groceries, but some additional services are included in the overall relationship.

Groceries = Trade execution (Service)
Store payment = Brokerage commission (Hard dollar)
Free delivery/special benefits = Research and market information (Soft dollar)

Today, why am I suddenly talking about this?

BLR Airport is trying to move from “we operate an airport” to “we manage your complete travel experience.” Ideally, it is Business Model Innovation or Service Innovation.

Traditional model: Home → Taxi → Airport → Check-in → Security → Lounge → Gate

Proposed model: Wake-up → Pickup → Baggage → Check-in → Transport → Airport Assistance → Food/Lounge → Gate → Arrival Baggage Pick-up → Assist you till you move to another car at the destination.

Interesting, right?

However, my question to BLR Airport is: how much is offered in hard dollars and how much in soft dollars?

To date, we have seen the airport as a place where flights depart! BLR Airport is transforming from an airport into a platform managing the passenger’s complete journey!

One proposal to bring the soft-dollar concept to BLR Airport could be as follows:

Traditional Loyalty Program: Spend → Points → Free Flight
You could have: Economic relationship → Soft-dollar/service credits → Frictionless journey
which covers: Home → Car → Baggage → Terminal → Security → Food → Lounge → Gate → Destination

Interestingly, one of my startup-founder friends, Sree Sirugudi, founded Libero Health. They wanted to bring a similar concept to BLR Airport into Health Services in Andhra! Problem validation is now done for them!!

In India, we have been running commission-agent systems for ages without terming them as soft-dollar systems, but we never marketed and packaged them well.

Time to popularize our old concepts with new marketing philosophies!

Ravi Saripalle 

Invest in Potential, Not Numbers: Reflections for Teachers’ Day

Dear Friends

During 1946–1947, Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar traveled every week from Yerkes Observatory to the University of Chicago to teach a class of just two students. When asked why he made the effort, he simply said they were very good students. Those two students—Tsung-Dao Lee and Chen-Ning Yang—went on to win the 1957 Nobel Prize in Physics, whereas their teacher, Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1983. 

This story presents a powerful reminder that great teachers invest in potential, not numbers. 

Helen Keller was deaf and blind from early childhood. Her teacher, Anne Sullivan, repeatedly finger-spelled words into Helen's hand, but Helen initially did not understand that the movements represented objects. Then, on 5 April 1887, Sullivan placed Helen's hand under flowing water while spelling W-A-T-E-R into the other hand. Something clicked. Helen suddenly understood that the signs represented the world around her. That day, she learned roughly 30 new words. Helen Keller eventually became an author, lecturer, and internationally recognized advocate.

When Kalam was about 10 years old, his science teacher, Sivasubramanian Iyer, was teaching the class how birds fly. The blackboard explanation did not satisfy the students. Instead of blaming them for not understanding, Iyer took the entire class to the seashore in Rameswaram. He asked them to watch birds flap their wings, use their tails, and change direction. Kalam later described this as a life-changing lesson that helped ignite his fascination with flight and, eventually, with aerospace engineering.

In 1812, Michael Faraday, a 20-year-old bookbinder’s apprentice, compiled a 300-page notebook of Sir Humphry Davy’s chemistry lectures to apply for a job. Impressed by his dedication, Davy hired him as a lab assistant. With Davy's support, Faraday went on to discover electromagnetic induction, paving the way for the electric motor and modern power grids. Years later, when asked to name his greatest discovery, Davy replied: "Michael Faraday."

Some of these events crossed 100-plus years! Still, we remember and appreciate those students and teachers. As in 2026, how many of us could contribute to this scale of impact, either as a teacher or a student? A few! Do we have genuine justification? Absolutely No. Why? As teachers or students, we are losing that kind of mutual trust. 

I am a 5th-generation teacher in my family. I see sea changes in the students' attitudes. Though I did not see my grandfather, some of his students told me he was a noble, scholarly, and most humble teacher. Along with the great teachers of those times, His photograph hung on the walls of the sacred mutt in my hometown. 

I cannot generalize this, but today, the bond between students and teachers is diminishing. In those days, when the teacher passed by, at least on the face, we used to stand, keeping our hands folded, even though we didn’t always like it. Sometimes, it was customary, but many times, it was genuine. Today, the scene is different. Are we receiving such genuine salutations? Do teachers possess such wisdom? 

In the 1900s, a teacher used to take Guru Dakshina, meaning students paid as they wished. In the 1950s, teachers began receiving part salary and part Dakshina. A teacher in the 2000s transitioned to a salary completely. Today, a teacher started contributing to profit and growth. Thanks to inflation and insecurity, genuine teachers are also forced to shift this way. On the other hand, even if an honest teacher wants to contribute to the cause and share knowledge for free, society is not trusting such knowledge and is more suspicious about why they are not taking money. 

As the world is divided on many parameters, I am sure the golden days will return, as current execution models are proving unaffordable and unsustainable.

Wishing you a great teacher’s day coming week; Remembering great teachers!

Ravi Saripalle

The Grandparent Effect: Old Wisdom, New Behavioral Science and Evidence

Dear Friends,

I grew up with both my paternal and maternal grandmothers. My bond was quite strong with both of them. With my paternal grandmother, I stayed in the same house until her death. My father had a condition with my mother—“staying under the same roof” regardless of any little friction, adjustments, or constraints. It was a small 1BHK house, and the second room was made into a kitchen as well as a bedroom for my grandmother and me! On the last day of her life, we were both sleeping in the same room. I noticed her last breath in the middle of the night and informed my parents.

We used to have sweet fights, sweet negotiations over 1 or 2 rupees, and, as usual, a few household misunderstandings at home. In spite of all these things, the bond was never broken. The same

was true with my maternal grandmother, who used to come home occasionally. I used to be an arbitrator between the two grandmothers, as there were always different points of view, like in any other common household.

Despite all this, my father managed to implement the “staying under the same roof” concept. While providing justification, he did not speak in the language of social or behavioral scientists, but he requested that we implement the same concept even after his death.

It was not just one or two families. In that generation, the scenario was the same in most households. In fact, every Shivaratri, we used to perform a drama at night. One of my friends and I acted like our respective grandmothers, talking about their daughters-in-law and their usual complaints. It was great fun, and the grandmothers also enjoyed that reality script!!

Oh, my goodness, why am I taking you to this concept today?

Yesterday, a Facebook article went viral. It was all about this: “Research shows that children with caring, active grandparents may have a 30% lower chance of depression. These children may also have fewer behavior problems and stronger empathy as they grow. Loving grandparents can give children a steady source of comfort, attention, and guidance. Their presence can help a child feel safe, valued, and connected to family.”

In recent times, 4–5 articles have been published in this space.

In India, our ancestors thought about this long ago and made it a way of life. Today, behavioral scientists share a similar opinion, supported by scientific evidence.

Along these lines, Lifen Zhao et al. (2025) conducted a study covering 20 studies involving 11,434 children/adolescents and found that positive grandparenting was associated with lower levels of depression. Riem et al. (2025) studied 10,000+ children and found that, among 3-year-olds exposed to greater adversity, grandparental care was associated with more prosocial behavior and fewer externalizing problems. Xu & Harrison (2023) stressed that greater grandparent–grandchild closeness was associated with lower odds of emotional symptoms, conduct problems, peer problems, and abnormal prosocial behavior. Attar-Schwartz et al. (2009) studied 1,515 adolescents aged 11–16 and found that greater grandparent involvement was associated with fewer emotional problems. Kirby & Sanders's (2014) study of 54 grandparents and 48 parents found that a grandparent-focused intervention reduced reported child behavior problems.

Indian wisdom and ancestral ways of living have been time-tested.

In the last 70–80 years, several influences have changed our lifestyles and thinking. We are increasingly moving towards nuclear families. In many recent marriages, living separately from in-laws has almost become an obvious condition.

Maybe after reading these Western studies, I am sure a big change will happen in our society again. Of course, implementation is not that easy. It requires a lot of adjustment from both ends. However, considering the depression numbers and behavioral issues among children today, it is worth considering this way of living again.

Do you agree?

Ravi Saripalle

Airport Divorce: The Hidden Cost of Modern Separation Methods.

Dear Friends,

Recently, I read an article titled "Airport Divorce: The Latest Travel Trend Helping Couples Fly Stress-Free" among Gen Z and millennial travelers. Initially, it made me curious, but after reading about it, I became more puzzled about the trend!

The entire article summarizes the following.

Partner A: Arrive early → check departure board → find the gate → sit quietly → queue early.

Partner B: Reach the airport at the last minute or browse duty-free → shop → eat → explore → arrive at the gate closer to boarding.

Trying to force both people into a single routine creates unnecessary friction.

So, Temporarily Separate → Follow Individual Preferences → Reunite at Gate/Plane → Travel Together. That's the Airport Divorce.

In a nutshell, Forced Togetherness → Friction → Conflict versus Planned Autonomy → Reduced Friction → Better Reconnection.

Though this is quite a simple concept, if it becomes a worldwide trend, it will be another burden on the marriage system. Already, the family system is struggling with multiple other divorces like Legal divorce (formally ended by law), Emotional divorce (married legally, but emotional closeness disappeared), Physical separation (live separately), Social divorce (the couple gradually stops functioning publicly as a unit), and Financial divorce (financial responsibilities, property, accounts, and economic decisions are separated).

Now, if we add Airport divorce, Commute divorce (travel separately), Vacation divorce (do some holiday activities separately and reconnect later), etc., the law becomes much more intricate and introduces new ideas into the already broken marriage system!!

Let's purely look at it from an economic and environmental perspective. It adds to the cost and significantly impacts carbon credits. On the one hand, we worry about carbon emissions; on the other, we deplete natural resources out of ego. Of course, there are a few genuine cases.

Divorce has measurable economic and environmental costs. Studies show wealth can fall by about 53% for women and 57% for men, while standards of living may decline by 45% and 21%, respectively. Environmentally, divorced households have been associated with about 46% more electricity use and 56% more water use per person, with an estimated 73 billion kWh of extra electricity, 627 billion gallons of extra water, and over 38 million additional rooms in the U.S. Thus, divorce carries not only an emotional cost, but also a significant financial price and carbon/resource footprint.

If we add these new concepts, the implications are much more complicated. These are my observations; my focus is not on airport divorce but on associated costs and carbon emissions. Maybe it is another deep topic in social science research.

Having said that, the consumption of never-married bachelors is less than that of divorced families. We cannot compare these two numbers from a research perspective, as a bachelor starts with one household. Divorce converts one household into two—adding an economic shock to the environmental inefficiency of smaller households.

Anyway, we cannot easily comment on this topic, as there are many reasons for divorce. The ego is one part of the problem. There are many genuine cases that I have personally witnessed. Hence, it is a slightly sensitive and subtle topic. Researchers cannot generalize the issue.

Ravi Saripalle