My notes from Personal MBA

10/12/2025

To give full credit and support to the original creator, please click the video title and watch it on YouTube. It makes a real difference for them.

WHY READ THIS BOOK

I will write my pithy notes on what I get out of this book as I re-read the 10th anniversary expanded edition. I also have a previous copy. So it’s important to point out that this analysis is not a book review but a deep dive into the benthic depths of the business world as I perceive it without filters.

This is ongoing and starts October 6, 2025. I will, as usual, collate some other information and personal anecdotes, so it won’t be Josh Kaufman alone but with me subjectively filtering his message. To read the book, and get it straight from the horse’s mouth, just buy the book. And why go through all this hassle when AI can read for you and spit it back out in Shakespeare’s sonnets? Yes, I know, but then you’re missing the point entirely. I am a useless person with unuseful time at my disposal, and I fill it by living it. And this negotiated embarrassment of telling you my version of this book is because it’s a favorite book of mine, and even vomiting back some of what I feel is stuck in my system gives me a pleasurable feeling, like the relief from bloating after passing gas effusively. The things that happened to me in India as an entrepreneur also made me think hard on the bolus of introspective, self-criticizing failure postmortem, only to read more voraciously to get more bloated. And thus, now that I’m a babbling hobo in a shanty in a third-world city, why not relieve the pressure from time to time? Anyway, who’s going to read it? The level of English literacy is extremely poor in India, and I can get away with writing eloquent horseshit and no one would even fucking notice or even if they notice not be able to comprehend, but that’s a deficiency I cannot correct, I am writing it, if someone reads it, and reads the book and then think through their own process of digesting facts, most of it will be helpful.

And people of generations born later than me often don’t have the brain areas brought up valuing reading and writing—indoctrinated, schooled, riveted into the fabric of consciousness. Josh talks about being brought up around books too—his mother a librarian, his father a teacher. My mother was a homemaker, and in her effort to make a home, she steered my interests toward stories. My father, an SBI banker and a science graduate by education, was a closet bibliophile; he bought books but never read anything except the Gita. I feel I am dead if I don’t have books around me, or if I am not reading or writing something, or sketching. I know I am a fossil. And don’t worry, I am sick with manic depression and probably won’t survive too long to continue irritating people. Consider me a wall gecko you dislike.

Books still matter—not just the objects, but the earnest intent to read them. Googling or chatting with an LLM is like lifting featherweights and expecting to turn into the Hulk. The effort feels like work, but nothing really grows. What’s worrying is that the current conversation around AI competence—how well it answers questions about everything from calculus to mango exports—misses the actual crisis. The problem isn’t in the machine’s output; it’s in the reception, in the education that shapes how humans receive and interpret knowledge.

If we move into a future where learning means feeding prompts to a chatbot instead of wrestling with ideas, reading deeply, or cultivating genuine curiosity, we’ll have traded understanding for simulation. And that’s dire. As a computer engineer and scientist, I understand both sides of the limitation—the human asking and the model replying. Most exchanges end up as witty repartee with very little substance behind them. Real engagement still has to come from the human side.

That’s why I am taunted by peers—but I can’t do anything without thinking it through or putting in the effort. Sure, I need motivation, and I have to be interested, but that’s the necessary fuel mix for any real work. Even on this blog, every post takes time to write, revise, and re-revise, usually I write it in one post then when I have sufficient matter split it up and provide links on the main topic page. AI helps occasionally for fact-checking or proofreading, but never for the thinking. It’s like shitting, thinking is an inherently biological thing we don’t understand well, just like a bot can’t defecate, it can’t think like us however flawed may be our brain sculpted by evolution, to say otherwise it’s a gross oversimplified fictional overestimation of current technology. The premise of my writing is as an empathic Indian entrepreneur, and whatever information you read here is from that unconstrained context. It’s not LLM verbatim vomit or what Josh or anyone else is saying, flawed perhaps by my way of looking at it, but it is I who have to write what I think, thinking loudly as it were, as I go over the 10th anniversary expanded edition. That’s important, because only that’s authentic. That’s why anytime I talk about a book on my blog you’ll see the physical book that I’ve read or am reading.

The point of view here is that of someone not just interested in an MBA for an MBA’s sake but an entrepreneur who wants to understand nearly every major business topic in book form—without paying the crippling, life-insecuring tuition or wasting years in college. Kaufman argues that an MBA, even from a top school, is often a poor investment, though the underlying skills are valuable. I disagree. In a world built on hierarchy, flashing a Harvard MBA can get you instant deference and a cushy job, even if the certificate is fake or the holder learned nothing useful and makes disastrous decisions.

This is essentially credential signaling, a concept from labor economics and sociology, wrapped in a perception trick. The Harvard degree doesn’t magically make you brilliant; it signals to others—employers, peers, the market—that you are smart, disciplined, or high-status. People see the logo and attribute competence where it may not exist, often overestimating your actual ability.

In cognitive terms, it’s a mix in your favor that Josh is overlooking, here are some biases that I want to discuss right away, there will be other posts on these:

Confirmation bias: I don’t like to dissect things arbitrarily, especially in India, where people often want their theories confirmed. That’s disturbing—and disastrous—for any business. I speak plainly and sensibly; I just refuse to inflate people with unrealistic expectations or dress up unprofitable ventures as opportunities when my experience, education, and research suggest otherwise. I don’t deal in rosy pictures without historical grounding, sound economics, or an understanding of human psychology and the prevailing mood of the moment.

Availability bias: If you watch a lot of scary movies about ghosts, you might start thinking your house is haunted. Your brain remembers the scary things easily. As a child I frequently expected seeing Rabindranath Tagore’s ghost.

I saw a lot of bad things in the Indian business community, so my brain easily remembers all that evil. Now, I automatically think all people are naturally bad because those are the memories that stand out to me, but because I know this is a bias problem, I take each case separately and not fall in love with the first instinctive reaction my brain has, because it may be wrong. But because I am still in India I don’t want to give up on this instinct because it has protected me after the business went rotten and helped me stay alive, because otherwise as a milquetoast I would be dead and you wouldn’t be reading this. Similarly I am not reading this book without checking with my own experience, at least an entrepreneur is ill-advised to get pollyannish.

If you’re a white man in a suit, Indians—including the local thugs—will salute you. It’s the colonial hangover, still alive and bowing. But the moment you’re Indian, everything changes. The reverence vanishes, replaced by suspicion, rivalry, and an almost instinctive impulse to pull you down. You can’t really grasp this ruthlessness until you try to do something big—something that involves serious money and Indian people. Then you see how fast admiration turns into sabotage.

There was also a traumatic experience I never recovered from, after I was beaten with hockey sticks in Assam and left bleeding from one eye, a taxi driver rescued me. I never received medical treatment for the head injury, and since then I’ve experienced increased irritability and difficulty regulating my emotions. The trauma likely affected regions of the prefrontal cortex that normally modulate impulsive or emotional responses generated by the limbic system, particularly the amygdala. As a result, I sometimes overreact or misjudge others’ intentions because the neural circuits responsible for inhibition and emotional control are compromised or have not fully recovered. I also have vision issues in one eye, and have crippling migraine like headaches when I am stressed.

Halo effect: Because one trait looks impressive (Harvard MBA), people assume everything else about you is equally impressive. Your résumé, your decision-making, your judgment—they get an unearned shine. If you see someone in a clean, smart school uniform, you might think they are also a good student, even before they speak. One good thing (the suit) makes people think everything else about you is good. It’s a mental shortcut. The suit acts like a signal, telling people you’re important without you saying anything.

Authority bias: Humans defer to perceived experts or credentials, so a Harvard name on a certificate triggers automatic trust and respect, even if your actual skills are weak.

Bandwagon effect: People assume that if others respect or follow someone with a prestigious credential, they should too, creating a herd mentality that reinforces the perceived competence.

Social proof: Related to the bandwagon effect, this is the tendency to judge the correctness or value of someone based on how many others endorse or admire them, making the Harvard MBA seem inherently more credible.

Status signaling: The degree itself acts as a marker of social status and access, prompting deference and admiration independent of actual ability.

Contagion effect: When your friend is very sad, don’t you start to feel a little sad too? And when someone laughs, you want to laugh along. When reading someone else’s business experiences, before you understand objective business facts it’s easy to get convinced, so a book like this is an antidote, so that subjective emotional interpretations either of someone you know or your own thoughts can be first seen through an objective lens, which can only come from at least familiarity with the business ecosystem of words and concepts (college, reading this book, both, etcetera) and then through some actual real life experiences either in a job position or better still in your own business venture.

But what I am trying to say is, flashing a Harvard MBA is less about what you’ve learned and more about manipulating perception. It’s a socially engineered shortcut: the world treats you as capable because it assumes you are, not because you’ve proven it. In plain language, it’s a professional magic trick—you pull a diploma out of your hat, and people clap, whether or not the rabbit inside is alive.

In reality research consistently shows that CEOs don’t matter nearly as much as the myth suggests. The cult of the godlike CEO is largely shareholder theater—a performance inflated by media, markets, and ego. They have influence, yes, but most of a company’s success or failure comes from structural forces, timing, and luck. The MBA credential may open doors, but it can’t rescue anyone from reality once they’re inside. I, for example, care about understanding how business works not as a badge of status but as an engineering, mathematical, or psychological problem. I read books, observe people, and learn from experience—both the rewarding kind and the kind that knocks your teeth in. These things can’t be taught in a syllabus or tested in an exam; they can only be lived through, endured, and absorbed the hard way—humanly suffered and understood. In my case, the Titanic I built sank not because of icebergs, India is a tropical country — I guess I stretched the metaphor as far as it was useful — well because in India people fucking lie all the time, and having spent the better part of my life in the US, I was too naive, and I was in the long chain of crooked men, corruption, lies, rampant unreliability, and just plain unthinkable shit.

This you cannot read in this book, you have to read the linked posts.

As I’ve mentioned countless times on this blog, calling yourself a businessman or an entrepreneur, or even having a degree, doesn’t mean you know jack shit—about business or about life. The Dunning-Kruger effect is on steroids in India, where people genuinely believe they know something when, in reality, they have no fucking clue. So read this book. I don’t make a paisa if the author sells another copy; this is just to save you from the embarrassment, harassment, and grief that inevitably follow when life decides to fuck a naive dimwit in the ass. And sorry for the French—but honestly, get used to it, because life doesn’t censor itself either.

In my life, for example, I fell in love with two girls successively during my engineering undergrad, skipped class, and was a compulsive wanker who masturbated all the time. Engineering college—Jadavpur University—wasn’t good at teaching coding at the level the industry needs. I was fluent in English and math, got through the GRE, and on my first coding interview, when the interviewer asked me the fastest way to increase the efficiency of the caching algorithm, I just showed him by changing the final print statement to 100%. I essentially learned everything I know in the US, and that’s why I am so mad when I see an orange turd like Trump destroy it. My JU degree was essentially a piece of paper, and so was my master’s degree at the University of Texas at San Antonio. I picked up the necessary engineering, business, and management acumen by reading voraciously, studying real-world problems, observing how people and organizations operate under pressure, and learning from both successes and brutal failures—lessons that no syllabus or degree could ever teach.

In my case, at least, without my stepping-stone certificates I was no one. I could only get through those gates of credibility because of all those biases I mentioned earlier. So no, I don’t think getting a degree is unimportant—at least in some developing countries like India, where the avenues for upward social mobility are limited, and formal credentials often serve as the only recognized ticket to opportunity, access, and initial trust, even if they say nothing about actual competence. Having said that and got that out of the way, this is a great book, and I will, as I promised, collate other information and drop these supplementals in drip wise fashion—drawing from personal anecdotes, case studies, and additional readings—to give a richer, more practical perspective beyond what the author presents, as and when I can, no promises.

Before diving into the messy, uncomfortable truth, let me make it clear: this isn’t some sanitized, feel-good checklist. These are the real things that gnaw at you, trip you up, and make your entrepreneurial dreams feel like a cruel joke. Josh only lists three—business angst, certification intimidation, imposter syndrome—but the human mind, the market, and life itself conspire in countless ways to fuck with you. So here’s the exhaustive, no-BS catalogue of what can hold an entrepreneur back.

Business angst, certification intimidation, imposter syndrome, fear of failure, analysis paralysis, perfectionism, procrastination, lack of focus, poor time management, inadequate networking, weak negotiation skills, inability to delegate, cash flow mismanagement, overdependence on external validation, limited market understanding, fear of competition, short-term thinking, underestimating execution difficulty, inability to pivot, emotional burnout, poor customer empathy, overcomplicating solutions, resistance to feedback, indecision, overreliance on tools or frameworks, fear of asking for help, lack of persistence, misaligned priorities, unrealistic expectations, envy of peers, difficulty building a team, legal/regulatory anxiety, overconfidence, poor risk assessment, neglecting personal growth, inability to sell vision, technological overwhelm, ignoring data-driven decisions, fear of scaling, weak branding, lack of clarity on value proposition, dependency on trends, insufficient resilience, underdeveloped leadership skills, fear of rejection, distraction by side projects, ignoring competition intelligence, failure to track metrics, inability to manage stress, obsession with funding, fear of public speaking, poor storytelling skills, inadequate product-market fit understanding, overextension, lack of self-discipline, ignoring cultural/contextual factors, limited strategic thinking, resistance to change.

And now AI, and before we get to the AI-specific landmines, a quick preface: if you thought running a business was tricky before, welcome to the new era. Algorithms don’t care about your feelings, automation exposes your weaknesses instantly, and the hype around AI can seduce you into chasing shiny distractions instead of real value. These are the pitfalls, illusions, and anxieties that specifically come from building, selling, or managing with AI in the mix.

AI hype chasing, overreliance on AI tools, misunderstanding AI limitations, fear of being replaced by AI, paralysis by algorithmic analysis, neglecting human judgment, poor data quality management, underestimating training complexity, ethical and regulatory anxiety, dependency on black-box models, overpromising AI capabilities, ignoring interpretability, misjudging AI adoption costs, overautomation, AI-driven imposter syndrome, bias amplification, chasing novelty over product-market fit, failure to integrate AI with existing systems, lack of AI strategy, distraction by AI trends, misalignment between AI outputs and business goals, underdeveloped AI literacy in the team.

What I want to say is that my blog will act like a common repository of business mental models tailored for the coming, AI-driven landscape. I’ll collate everything I read into one place—disparate, complex insights turned into something digestible: graphical, friendly, colloquial, full of pictures, images, graphs, keywords, and carefully chosen semantic words that carry the right nuance. This way, I can later go off on tangents without losing context, and everything will be organized with links and cross-links so it’s navigation-friendly. Of course, it will take time, but the goal is a living, evolving guide that turns the chaos of business knowledge into something you can actually use in the age of AI. Ultimately, it’s important to have all of this in one place, in a friendly, readable way, without paywalls—so that anyone can eventually get over the hump, shed the overconfident illusion of knowledge, and actually understand what’s happening, adding real value to their business bottom line and to society. I am not a successful entrepreneur, because in India the kind of healthcare industry I envisioned—with interoperability, transparent networking, and freedom from crippling corruption—is still impossible. India remains a patchwork of backwaters and villages, where the hubris of gentrification is often just grunt work outsourced from other countries. But you don’t need success in terms of ROI to understand the grizzly innards of business—the failures, the mistakes, the messy trade-offs, the human drama, and the systemic forces at play. Observing, studying, and dissecting these realities gives insight that money alone can’t buy, and it builds the kind of intuition and judgment that actually matters when you’re trying to create lasting value. Paying attention to failures, difficulties and absurdities and often inverting a question like Jacobi as Josh has done is the better way to learn from life’s experiences, define a business term, create a germane cognitive load to learn the new language of business that according to the sapir-wharf hypothesis unless you have the diction down you can’t imagine the possibilities.

From a neuroscience standpoint, naming taps into regions like the left inferior frontal gyrus (Broca’s area) and left temporal lobe (especially the anterior temporal cortex), both of which are involved in semantic categorization. When you name something, you’re binding a percept to a linguistic schema — a sort of neural handle that makes it easier to retrieve, manipulate, and integrate into memory. fMRI studies show that merely labeling an ambiguous emotional face (“that’s anger” vs. “that’s fear”) reduces amygdala activation, calming the emotional response. This is called affect labeling — a mechanism behind why “talking about your feelings” actually works.

There’s also the Baader–Meinhof phenomenon (frequency illusion), which isn’t quite the same but plays along: once a name or concept enters your mental map, your brain flags every new encounter with it, creating the illusion of increased frequency — as if the named thing has suddenly become more real or prevalent.

If you zoom out to philosophy and semiotics, this intersects with nominalism and realism, and the ancient idea that “to name is to bring into being.” In cultural cognition, this bleeds into magic, religion, and politics — where “naming the demon,” “branding the product,” or “diagnosing the disorder” confers ontological weight. The unnamed is nebulous; the named becomes part of shared cognitive reality.

So I think we need to add more to what Josh says is needed:

The vast majority of modern business practice requires common sense, simple arithmetic, clear writing, punctuality, reliability, honesty, basic statistics, spreadsheet literacy, emotional restraint, empathy, negotiation skills, time management, logical reasoning, adaptability, attention to detail, cost awareness, risk assessment, pattern recognition, financial prudence, goal setting, prioritization, accountability, teamwork, communication, curiosity, skepticism, self-discipline, iterative improvement, conflict resolution, record keeping, data interpretation, ethical judgment, strategic thinking, humility, situational awareness, critical thinking, systems understanding, decision-making under uncertainty, and a functional grasp of probability, incentive structures, and human psychology.

Because of AI and Industry 4.0, the vast majority of modern business practice now also requires data literacy, algorithmic awareness, computational thinking, digital ethics, automation fluency, cybersecurity hygiene, cloud proficiency, API familiarity, workflow integration, prompt engineering, model interpretability, human-machine collaboration, IoT comprehension, real-time analytics, data visualization, digital twin understanding, systems interoperability, machine learning intuition, coding literacy, AI governance, bias detection, sustainability awareness, energy efficiency, blockchain literacy, version control, agile thinking, design thinking, user-experience sensitivity, digital communication etiquette, continuous learning, change management, privacy preservation, regulatory compliance, resilience engineering, innovation management, and the ability to translate technical complexity into human-readable clarity.

The intellectual toolkit behind modern business, AI, and Industry 4.0 is basically a portable university of decision-making. Here is a list of mental models that matter, spanning classical reasoning, systems science, behavioral economics, and computational thought:

First-principles reasoning, second-order thinking, inversion, opportunity cost, comparative advantage, marginal utility, sunk cost, feedback loops, compounding, leverage, diminishing returns, probabilistic thinking, Bayesian updating, expected value, risk–reward calibration, variance and standard deviation intuition, regression to the mean, fat-tail awareness, antifragility, chaos and complexity awareness, sensitivity to initial conditions, systems dynamics, emergence, bottleneck analysis, limiting factor recognition, network effects, power laws, Pareto distribution, economies of scale, diseconomies of scale, resource allocation, cost–benefit analysis, game theory, Nash equilibrium, zero-sum versus positive-sum framing, incentive design, principal–agent problem, moral hazard, information asymmetry, signaling, coordination problems, tragedy of the commons, path dependence, lock-in, creative destruction, optionality, survivorship bias, selection bias, confirmation bias, availability heuristic, anchoring, framing effects, loss aversion, endowment effect, mental accounting, cognitive dissonance, status-quo bias, narrative fallacy, the map-is-not-the-territory, correlation versus causation, base-rate neglect, Occam’s razor, Hanlon’s razor, Lindy effect, Goodhart’s law, Campbell’s law, Conway’s law, Hofstadter’s law, Parkinson’s law, Murphy’s law, law of diminishing returns, Red Queen effect, feedback delay, lag and lead indicators, leverage points, control theory, cybernetics, information theory, entropy, signal-to-noise ratio, abstraction hierarchy, modularity, decomposition, recombination, parallel processing, heuristics versus algorithms, boundary conditions, system archetypes (limits to growth, success to the successful, shifting the burden), queuing theory, optimization under constraint, linear versus nonlinear systems, exponential growth intuition, logistic curve understanding, learning curves, diffusion of innovation, tipping points, metacognition, mental simulation, counterfactual reasoning, scenario planning, decision trees, Monte Carlo reasoning, portfolio thinking, diversification, error propagation, redundancy, fail-safes, fault tolerance, resilience engineering, hysteresis, equilibrium and disequilibrium, phase transitions, feedback control, root-cause analysis, five-whys, bottleneck analysis, constraint theory, resource leveling, network topology, small-world networks, cluster dynamics, edge–core thinking, design patterns, abstraction layers, interface thinking, black-box reasoning, model overfitting and underfitting, bias–variance trade-off, loss function awareness, optimization landscapes, local versus global minima, gradient descent intuition, regularization, dimensionality reduction, feature importance, causal inference, counter-causality, system identification, simulation modeling, digital twin reasoning, time-series awareness, autocorrelation, nonstationarity, data provenance, signal processing, noise filtering, decision latency, algorithmic bias, alignment problem awareness, human-in-the-loop design, interpretability versus performance trade-offs, Pareto-front analysis, constraint satisfaction, evolutionary optimization, memetic algorithms, reinforcement learning logic, exploration versus exploitation, feedback reward shaping, convergence versus divergence, meta-learning, scaling laws, compute–data trade-offs, energy–information efficiency, thermodynamic limits, emergent behavior, sociotechnical coupling, socio-cognitive systems, diffusion of responsibility, collective intelligence, organizational learning, cultural evolution, institutional inertia, innovation diffusion, technological S-curves, risk homeostasis, precautionary principle, regulatory capture, externalities, stakeholder mapping, system leverage mapping, ethical reasoning, fairness–efficiency trade-off, transparency, privacy calculus, consent asymmetry, digital commons governance, attention economy, and the meta-model of epistemic humility—the habit of asking, “What would disconfirm this belief, and what don’t I know yet?”

Each of these is a mental gear; the art lies in knowing which gear to engage given the terrain. I will go into the details.

Industry and Software stages

Industry 1.0 was steam, soot, and soot-covered ambition. It began when humans first shackled fire inside metal and made it do mechanical work. Imagine Britain in the late 18th century—a nation of blackened skies, clanging looms, and engineers so caffeinated on invention they could scarcely sleep. The spinning jenny, the steam engine, the ironworks—these were not “apps,” they were acts of Promethean theft. Industry 1.0 replaced muscle with machine, rural boredom with urban misery, and in exchange, gave us modern productivity.

Industry 2.0 arrived humming with electricity. Late 19th to early 20th century: the assembly line, interchangeable parts, and Henry Ford’s realization that time, not material, is the true raw ingredient of wealth. Here, humans became components in larger systems. You didn’t craft a car; you tightened a bolt. Efficiency became the moral virtue of industry. Taylorism put a stopwatch on the human soul.

Industry 3.0 was the revenge of the nerds. Around the 1970s, silicon replaced steel as the main industrial element. The microprocessor, automation, robotics, and early computer control entered the factory. Suddenly, the machines had brains—tiny, stubborn, logical brains that never asked for lunch breaks. Programmable logic controllers replaced foremen. Spreadsheets replaced intuition. Production was no longer industrial but informational.

Then Industry 4.0—our current chapter—stitched everything together. It’s what happens when sensors, data, AI, and connectivity fuse. Machines talk to each other; factories self-optimize; products carry digital twins of themselves in the cloud. The supply chain becomes a nervous system. The physical world gains metadata, feedback loops, and algorithms—turning production into something closer to ecology than engineering. In truth, Industry 4.0 isn’t about machines getting smarter; it’s about the boundary between human and machine dissolving.

Software follows a similar evolution, only faster and cleaner.

Software 1.0 was written by humans, line by line. Think of it as rigid logic: you tell the computer exactly what to do, and if you forget a semicolon, it throws a tantrum. Classic programming, explicit rules, zero ambiguity.

Software 2.0 emerged when we realized we could train systems rather than instruct them. Neural networks, deep learning—here the “code” isn’t typed but learned from data. Instead of writing rules, we feed examples, and the machine writes its own. This is Andrej Karpathy’s famous distinction: in Software 1.0, humans write rules; in Software 2.0, humans curate reality.

Software 3.0 is dawning now, with large models that don’t just learn but reason, generate, and adapt. They can read, summarize, invent, design interfaces, even refactor their own code. The model is no longer a tool—it’s a collaborator. The interface between idea and execution is collapsing.

If you zoom out, both arcs—industrial and software—trace the same asymptote: the reduction of human friction. From brawn to brain to behavior, we keep automating what we once considered uniquely ours.

In Industry 1.0, we outsourced muscle. In 2.0, we outsourced coordination. In 3.0, we outsourced control. In 4.0, we’re outsourcing cognition itself.

For Industry 1.0 → 4.0, India is somewhere in late-3.0 moving into 4.0 in many sectors. Traditional manufacturing still carries a lot of 1.0/2.0 baggage (manual, unconnected machines), but a large, energetic push is underway toward real smart factories with IoT, cloud, AI, predictive maintenance, data continuity. We have started traveling but are not there yet, unlike say China.

For Software evolution, India is cresting between Software 2.0 and early 3.0: widespread adoption of machine learning, AI tools, but AI-native engineering practices are not yet universal or deeply embedded. Many firms are still in the “augment human developer” mode rather than “AI colleague / co-designer / intent-driven development.”

The moral, is simple: progress always hides its costs in plain sight. Every revolution makes us richer, faster, and more efficient—while quietly eroding some previous domain of human significance.

But the uncomfortable kernel under the shiny rhetoric — India’s software and IT service economy was built on comparative advantage in human labor, not comparative advantage in data or infrastructure. What made sense in the 1990s—an abundant supply of English-speaking engineers who could write Software 1.0 code at one-fifth the Western cost—starts to collapse when Software 3.0 can write its own code and the Western client no longer needs to export the task.

India is still largely exporting keystrokes, not problems solved. The big IT service firms—Infosys, TCS, Wipro, et al.—remain trapped in legacy business models where a human-hour is the fundamental economic unit. Generative AI annihilates that unit. A single AI agent can now do the equivalent of dozens of routine engineering or BPO roles, and it doesn’t bill overtime or sleep. The “bench” culture—thousands of engineers waiting for projects—becomes financial dead weight.

The danger is systemic:

Domestic demand is too thin. The internal digital economy isn’t yet large enough to absorb displaced coders. Most Indian companies still treat IT as a cost center, not an innovation driver.

Export dependency. Around 60 % of India’s IT service revenue comes from the U.S. If those clients begin in-housing AI automation, offshore headcounts shrink fast.

Skill mismatch. The educational pipeline still produces Software 1.0 engineers—syntax experts, not systems thinkers. Generative AI needs prompt engineers, data curators, model evaluators, not syntax typists.

Structural inertia. The political economy favors employment over productivity. Automation is politically tricky when your median voter is underemployed.

The shift from Software 1.0 to 3.0 changes the labor calculus from “How many engineers can we hire?” to “How many models can we fine-tune?” The export market rewards data ownership and domain insight now, not headcount. Nations that control proprietary datasets and high-value domains (healthcare, defense, energy, genomics) will thrive; nations that export labor without data sovereignty will find their advantage evaporating.

The only sustainable path out is a domestic pivot: use AI internally, not just build it for others. That means digitizing Indian industry—agriculture, logistics, education, healthcare—at scale, making internal data useful, and creating products for India’s own billion-person market. The irony is that India’s greatest raw material isn’t labor anymore; it’s entropy—the vast, chaotic, under-structured data of daily life. If that can be structured and mined intelligently, India could skip the late stages of Industry 3.0 and reappear inside 4.0 with local gravity.

Otherwise, yes—Software 1.0’s empire of coders will go the way of the textile mills when power looms arrived: obsolete not through malice, but through mathematics.