Human level intelligence (AI) researchers need a dose of ancient Indian wisdom on intellect. I keep hearing debates on how we’ll reach human-level intelligence. Panels, podcasts, research talks… you name it. One of them featured the brilliant researcher Elaya Sutskever, who went deep into how human intelligence differs from what today’s LLMs give us. And every time I hear these discussions, I feel everyone’s missing a rather large elephant in the room. A very old, very Indian elephant. Our Rishis ( ancient Indian sages and researchers) already mapped this territory thousands of years ago. 𝗜𝗻 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵𝘁, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀𝗻’𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝘄𝗼 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘀. 𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗲. 𝗜𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝘀𝗶𝘅𝘁𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗮𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘀. Sixteen. Most of us can barely manage two on a Monday morning. Because sixteen is a lot for the human head (mine refuses after four), the tradition simplifies them into four broader categories: • Manas • Buddhi • Ahankar • Chitta If you grew up in India, you don’t even need definitions for Buddhi, Ahankar and Chitta. We’ve all used these words, usually during IPL matches or family arguments. Manas is the only one we quietly Google. Here’s the funny part. Almost all AI research today focuses on just one of these: Buddhi. Pure reasoning. Great for exams. Not great for building something that resembles holistic intelligence. And then we sit around wondering why AGI still looks like that relative who says “I’ll come by 6” and shows up at 10. With snacks. If ancient thinkers identified sixteen aspects of intellect, and we are barely scratching one… well, the math doesn’t look promising. It’s like trying to recreate a full South Indian thali with only sambar. You can try, but good luck explaining it to the waiter. My take? If we ever want machines to truly match human intelligence, we can’t keep polishing just Buddhi. We’ll have to tackle all aspects — yes, all sixteen — no matter how inconvenient that number is for modern PowerPoint slides. Until then, AGI will remain like my gym membership: theoretically possible, practically distant, and occasionally mocked. What do you think — are we overestimating Buddhi and underestimating the rest?
Quite an insight!
Correction, even Manas is familiar to all , though in colloquial termsnits meaning is not always same is the real intent