AI Sovereignty for Indian healthcare

Posted on by

Aspects of AI soverignty
In 2026, AI Sovereignty has transitioned from a policy debate into a high-stakes strategic arms race. It represents a nation’s ability to develop, govern, and control its AI “stack”—infrastructure, data, and models—without total dependence on foreign technology giants.

What is AI Sovereignty?

AI Sovereignty is a nation’s capacity to control its digital destiny. In 2026, this is built on four pillars:

  • Compute Sovereignty: Owning the physical hardware (GPUs/TPUs) and data centers required to train models.

  • Data Sovereignty: Keeping national and citizen data within local borders to prevent “data extraction” by foreign entities.

  • Algorithm Sovereignty: Developing “indigenous” models (like India’s Param-2) that reflect local languages and cultural nuances.

  • Talent Sovereignty: Retaining high-skilled researchers who would otherwise be lost to “brain drain.”

How Data Sovereignty is different to Data Residency

Data Residency simply means where the data resides, i.e.geographical location of storage and server whereas the data sovereignty means which nation’s law applies to that data. It is a legal and jurisdictional concept.
Data Residency does not imply Data Sovereignty. For example, under the US CLOUD Act, a US-based provider (like AWS or Microsoft) may still be legally compelled to provide the US government access to data stored on their servers in Germany.

Data severeignty means that the data is not only stored in a country but is also subject exclusively to the laws of that country.

Why Healthcare is the New Frontier

Healthcare has become the “stress test” for AI sovereignty because the stakes involve human life and highly sensitive personal data.

  • Clinical Accuracy: Foreign models are often trained on Western datasets. Sovereign medical AI (like the BharatGen initiative) is designed to understand region-specific diseases, local diets, and genetic variations.

  • Data Privacy: Nations are moving toward “Sovereign Clouds” to ensure medical records stay under national jurisdiction, complying with frameworks like the EU AI Act and EHDS (European Health Data Space).

  • Reducing Burnout: Tools like Med-Sum (AI Scribes) are being localized to transcribe doctor-patient consultations in regional dialects, reducing administrative load by up to 40%.

2026 Global Landscape & Strategic Roadmaps

Region 2026 Key Initiative Strategic Focus Healthcare Goal
USA HHS AI Strategy v1.0 “OneHHS” Integrated Commons Accelerate drug discovery and “Make America Healthy Again” through frontier models.
EU EHDS Regulation Data Portability & Rights Create an “AI Continent” with federated health data for cancer/cardiovascular research.
India SAHI & BODH Strategy for AI in Health “One AI Doctor per Person” and benchmarking models via the BODH platform.
China 15th Five-Year Plan Total Supply Chain Autonomy AI-driven “New Quality Productive Forces” in biotech and manufacturing.

The Challenges: Costs & Big Tech Complexities

The path to sovereignty is blocked by the “Hyperscaler Paradox”: nations want independence, yet currently rely on the infrastructure of “Big Tech” (Microsoft, AWS, Google).

  • The Price Tag: A single national GPU cluster can cost upwards of $30 million to lease. India has allocated ₹10,372 crore ($1.25B) to its IndiaAI Mission just to subsidize this access for local startups.

  • Energy Consumption: AI data centers are projected to consume 21% of global electricity by 2030, forcing nations to tie AI strategy directly to their energy grids.

  • Vendor Lock-in: Moving sensitive healthcare data to a global cloud creates a “dependency loop.” Once a national health system is built on a specific corporate API, switching becomes prohibitively expensive and risky.

  • Data Colonialism: There is a growing fear that global firms “harvest” local medical data to improve their proprietary models, which are then sold back to those same nations at a premium.

Is it truly feasible for all nations to achieve AI Sovereignty?

MIT Technology Review asserts in a recent article that it may not be possible to reach true AI sovereignty for all nations. Here is their argument.

AI supply chains are irreducibly global: Chips are designed in the US and manufactured in East Asia; models are trained on data sets drawn from multiple countries; applications are deployed across dozens of jurisdictions.

AI data centers accounted for roughly one-fifth of GDP growth in the second quarter of 2025. But the obstacle for other nations hoping to follow suit isn’t just money. It’s energy and physics. Global data center capacity is projected to hit 130 gigawatts by 2030, and for every $1 billion spent on these facilities, $125 million is needed for electricity networks. More than $750 billion in planned investment is already facing grid delays.

So what is the right strategy?

“What nations need isn’t sovereignty through isolation but through specialization and orchestration. This means choosing which capabilities you build, which you pursue through partnership, and where you can genuinely lead in shaping the global AI landscape.”  the author opines.

We must understand that AI Sovereignty is not about isolationism; it is about strategic self-determination. As we move deeper into 2026, the winners will be the nations that can use the efficiency of global platforms while maintaining a “kill switch” of local control. In healthcare, this means the difference between a system that serves a corporation’s bottom line and one that serves a citizen’s health.

How RTLS Makes Bed and Asset Allocation Dynamic, Real-Time, and Data-Driven—Significantly Improving Patient Care Delivery

Posted on by

Infographics for INDTRAC Bed allocation

Hospitals today operate under an intense dual mandate: deliver superior patient outcomes while continuously improving operational efficiency. RTLS significantly helps to tackle this dual challenges by enabling dynamic allocation of resources with real time visibility of assets and bed availability.

Dynamic Bed Allocation: Unlocking Hidden Capacity

ARPOB (Average Revenue Per Occupied Bed) is religiously tracked by hospitals and healthcare investors today. Evidently improving bed allocation not only makes better patient care delivery, it makes crucial difference to the hospital’s revenue model.

With RTLS-enabled bed management:

  • Bed occupancy, discharge, cleaning, and readiness are tracked automatically

  • Patient movement across wards and departments is visible in real time

  • Bottlenecks between emergency, diagnostics, and inpatient units are identified instantly

Impact observed across hospitals:

  • 20–40% reduction in bed turnaround time

  • 5–10% increase in effective bed availability without adding new beds

  • 15–30% reduction in Emergency Department wait times due to faster admissions

Just 5% improvement in bed utilization in a mid-to-large hospital can translate into multi-crore annual revenue uplift, achieved purely through operational intelligence.

Asset Allocation: From Scarcity Perception to Utilization Reality

Hospitals frequently invest in additional equipment not because assets are insufficient—but because they are invisible.

RTLS transforms asset management by providing:

  • Real-time location of mobile medical equipment

  • Usage status (in use, idle, under maintenance)

  • Movement history and utilization patterns

Measured outcomes include:

  • 30–50% reduction in equipment search time

  • 10–15% reduction in avoidable capital expenditure

  • Improved equipment availability at the point of care

For hospital leadership, this means shifting from a procurement-driven model to a utilization-driven asset strategy—freeing capital while improving care readiness.

Data-Driven Billing: Aligning Revenue with Care Delivered

One of RTLS’s most underappreciated benefits lies in revenue integrity.

Hospitals typically lose 1–3% of net patient revenue due to:

  • Inaccurate length-of-stay tracking

  • Missed charge capture for rooms, services, or equipment

  • Manual documentation gaps

RTLS enables automated capture of:

  • Actual bed occupancy duration

  • Patient time spent in billable care zones

  • Usage of billable medical assets

Operational Efficiency: Reclaiming Clinical Time at Scale

Clinical staff remain one of the most constrained resources in healthcare. RTLS directly addresses inefficiencies that consume their time:

  • Nurses and clinicians often spend 30–60 minutes per shift searching for patients, beds, or equipment

  • RTLS-driven workflows reduce non-clinical task time significantly

Across large hospitals, this equates to:

  • Hundreds of clinical hours recovered daily

  • Productivity gains equivalent to dozens of full-time staff—without hiring

This reclaimed time is reinvested where it matters most: patient care, responsiveness, and clinical quality.

Patient Experience & Care Quality: The Ultimate Outcome

Operational excellence is not an end goal—it is a means to better care.

Hospitals leveraging RTLS consistently report:

  • 10–25% reduction in patient wait times

  • Faster response to patient needs

  • Smoother transitions across departments

  • Improved safety and compliance monitoring

From the patient’s perspective, care feels coordinated, responsive, and timely—a critical differentiator in an increasingly competitive healthcare landscape.

A useful summary

RTLS should not be viewed as a tracking tool, but as a real-time decision layer that sits beneath clinical, operational, and financial systems.

For hospital leadership, RTLS delivers:

  • Virtual capacity without capital expansion

  • Higher staff productivity without workforce strain

  • Stronger revenue alignment with care delivery

  • Measurable improvements in patient experience and outcomes

In an era where hospitals must balance efficiency, empathy, and economics, RTLS enables a fundamental shift—from reactive management to real-time, data-driven orchestration of care. Please contact INDTRAC (+91-63608-99508) if you want to to learn more or run a pilot for your hospital.

How RTLS is improving efficiency in hospitals

Posted on by

A recent Elsevier report offers a glimpse on how RTLS can help a hospital to improve efficiency and patient care in real scenario.

The study of Tseng WC, Wang YC, Chen WC, Lin KP. titled, “Evaluation of real-time location system (RTLS) application in radiology departments- an empirical study on enhancing equipment management efficiency and patient safety.”
shows significant improvement on multiple parameters after using RTLS.

Here we provide a summary of the report for you.

How can a hospital reduce pain and delay in patient Discharge?

Posted on by

Patient discharge is the final process in a patient's stay in the hospital. Instead of being smooth process, often the discharge process creates pain for the patient as well as the hospital. The delay often is unpredictable and can span between 2 hours to a full day depending on how insurance clearance process is handled. The insurer-hospitals’ meeting on 9th of this month (October, 2025) has this process under discussion for the right reasons.
The delay for the hospital, means the room is occupied, instead of being prepared for the next patient. It also means pain and added room rental bill for the patient. Economic Times post claims, the delay is attributed to, mainly,

  • Legacy IT systems
  • Bureaucratic treatment file movement
  • “Avoidable” insurer queries
  • Final bill different from initially approved amount
  • Distrust, inefficient coordination between hospitals, insurers

We also found multiple earlier reports that highlight the pain of discharge process.

Here is a short summary:

# Study (Authors / Location) Setting & Sample Key Metrics (Delay, Time) Main Findings / Causes of Delay
1 Reducing discharge delays: using DMAIC approach in a tertiary care hospital (Sharma et al., Dehradun, Uttarakhand) (IJCMPH) Tertiary-care hospital, North India; 1,000 discharged patients Pre-intervention: discharge summary ~235 ± 78 min; financing clearance ~436 ± 451 min; total ~329 ± 389 min. Post-intervention: summary ~72.6 ± 42 min; clearance ~162.6 ± 95 min; total ~208.1 ± 122.9 min. (IJCMPH) Use of DMAIC (process improvement) reduced delays significantly. Bottlenecks: financing clearance, summary preparation.
2 A cross‑sectional study on delay in discharge in a tertiary care hospital in the Malwa region of Punjab (Sharma et al., Bathinda, Punjab) (CiteDrive) Tertiary hospital; n = 250 patients ~80% of participants faced delay; ~40% spent more than 5 h to complete discharge. Average time nearly double the standard set by National Accreditation Board for Hospitals & Healthcare Providers (NABH) standards. (CiteDrive) Delays at almost all steps except “return of medicines”; patient dissatisfaction high (only ~20% fully satisfied).
3 (Indian hospital, general ward) (Annals of Pediatric Surgery) Paediatric surgery general ward; n = 100 sequential discharges Self‐pay group average turn-around time (TAT) ~332 min; credit billing group ~397 min. NABH standard was 180 min (self pay) / 240 min (credit billing) but delays existed. (Annals of Pediatric Surgery) Credit billing (insurance/third-party) patients experienced larger delays. Main delay causes: billing process, insurance processing systems.
4 Pristyn Care survey study (India wide) – “Five out of 10 patients face discharge delays due to medical insurance claims” (ETHealthworld.com) Survey across major Indian cities; size ~4,000 respondents. (Healthcare Radius) ~50% of patients report discharge delay due to claim processing time. ~40% attribute delay to hospital administrative processes; ~25% to lack of coordination between hospitals & insurers. (ETHealthworld.com) Claim/insurance-related delays are major contributor. Even with high cashless coverage, process inefficiencies persist.
5 Delay in discharge and its impact on unnecessary hospital bed occupancy (not India-specific, but relevant for comparison) (BioMed Central) Study of 99 inpatient episodes (elective & acute) in hospital over 4 months Delays contributed 271 unnecessary days (19% of total bed-occupancy days) due to discharge process delays. (BioMed Central) Highlights impact of discharge delay on bed occupancy and hospital efficiency; though not strictly India, gives useful context.

There is no magic bullet, otherwise the problem would have been solved by now. ET article identified a few suggestion to help the process. Among them are:

  • Advance intimation of discharge by hospitals
  • Efficient information exchange to cut down admin delays
  • Investigations by insurers should start earlier

Even others have pointed out other ways but bulk of them focus on the process improvement and better coordination between the hospital, TPA (Third-party Agency) and Insurance provider. There is no doubt that most of the time clearance process is stuck in the interaction chain between those three entities.

But it is also observed that RTLS does enable faster discharge by automating information flow which otherwise are done manually inside the various entities in the hospital.

How RTLS helped Hospitals reduce discharge delay

A hospital in Texas (CHRISTUS Santa Rosa Hospital‑Westover Hills) reported that after deploying RTLS tagged bracelets:

  • The system notified staff of open beds 2 hours 40 minutes sooner than manual entry. Healthcare IT News

  • They calculated this saved 2,339 hours of bed-prep/“pull next patient” time over 12 months for 4,000+ discharges. Healthcare IT News

Here are a few ways a RTLS helps a hospital to reduce the discharge delay:

     Faster bed/room turnover

  • When a patient leaves, an RTLS tag or location sensor can automatically notify housekeeping/cleaning/bed-prep teams, so they start the cleaning/preparation of the bed immediately (rather than waiting for manual notification). This reduces idle time from when a discharge is medically cleared to when the bed is ready for the next patient (or when the current patient exit tasks wrap up).

  • RTLS gives live location/status of patients, staff, equipment; this allows staff to see which patients are ready to go, which beds are vacant, and which pieces of equipment are available. BioMed Central+1
  • Delay in “waiting for transport” or “waiting for discharge summary" or "pharmacy clearance” often caused by lack of visibility. For example, if the system shows that a patient is ready but the porter or transport team hasn’t been dispatched, it causes unnecessary delay. An automated notification enables faster transition between these phases.

    Of course even with all these, bulk of the delay is not going to reduce more than 20% if the friction in documentation sharing, interaction and coordination between the three parties are not addressed. However even if 20% of the discharge time is shortened it creates a big saving for the Hospital in reducing average Length of Stay (LOS) for a patient

    A California Healthcare Foundation study found, "For a 275-bed hospital, reducing the average length of stay by four hours is equivalent to increasing physical capacity by ten beds".
    RTLS is slowly becoming integral to the improved cost and operational efficiency in a hospital. Here we showed how it also improves patient discharge latency.

Is Active RFID same as BLE?

Posted on by

Quick Answer: No, Active RFID is different to BLE although both are RF technologies. Both are used for RTLS but they are not the same.

Here is a quick reckoner:

Feature Active RFID Tag BLE Asset Tag
Read Range Up to 100 meters or more less than 100 meters
Frequency Band Typically 433/900 MHz or 2.4 GHz ISM 2.4 GHz
Battery Life 3–5 years 2–5 years
Data Transmission Continuous (beacon) or on-demand (transponder) Periodic beacons
Infrastructure Requires dedicated RFID readers and antennas Can leverage existing Bluetooth infrastructure
Cost Tag is cheaper but higher reader costs Magnitude lower per tag and infrastructure costs
Environmental Impact 433 MHz less affected by physical barriers 2.4 GHz is more crowded and more susceptible to interference
Integration Often requires specialized systems Easier integration with smartphones and tablets

RFID Reader is lot more expensive compared BLE gateway, which means you can implement a BLE based RTLS solution at a fractional cost of Active RFID solution. Also BLE is a lot more commoditized, which eliminates the fear of vendor lock-in.

NHS evaluates RTLS for its hospital

Posted on by

Princess Alexandria Hospital
NHS conducted a trial of RTLS for one of their affiliated hospital, Princess Alexandra Hospital at Essex, UK.  This post is distillation from their study results.

About the Hospital

  • 451 beds
  • 4,000 staff

source: NHS

Why RTLS?

  • To improve asset tracking and patient flow by incorporating real time location data into their work flow
  • Stated objectives:
    • allow for the automatic location tracking (by room) and logging of medical assets
    • provide a holistic view of wait times for equipment or demonstrate better use of equipment shared between areas
    • support improvements to device maintenance and patient flow monitoring

RTLS Technology Adopted

Active RFID tag with WiFi for data transfer

Result – A magnitude improvement

After adopting RTLS, the average time spent locating missing devices was found to decrease from an hour on average to 10 minutes.  Before tagging a task used to take 8 hours / a week. After tagging that task was reduced to 1 hour / week.

Full NHS study report is available here.

Want to run a RTLS trial in your hospital?

INDTRAC RTLS platform has incorporated many of the best practices and beside real time location tracking, it supports auto-monitoring temperature for sensitive zones viz. stores. It also incorporates smart alarm system where real time alerts are delivered to designated people. Smart alarms integrates your existing electrical sirens in the hospital to enable localized siren activation. For example the administrator can configure the system so that a for an emergency local to a ward, local siren is activated.
Moreover, to make it easily usable, entire solution is available as smartphone App.

Please call us for a quick demo.

Enhanced Security with SOS-enabled BLE Badge

Posted on by

Enhancing Staff Security with BLE Badge Featuring SOS Buttons

Imagine what would a dedicated nurse devoted to the patients and the hospital expect at minimum from the management?
Surely she would expect that her safety and security are taken care of while she is inside hospital.
Healthcare workers are often required to walk throughout the facility, sometimes in high-risk situations, and their safety should never be compromised. A practical, efficient solution to improve staff security is the introduction of BLE-enabled ID badge or BLE wristbands equipped with SOS buttons, offering a simple yet powerful way to alert security in moments of distress. BLE-enabled badge works for dual-purpose : as an ID badge as well as safety SOS device.

BLE Wristbands

BLE wristband with SOS buttonBluetooth Low Energy (BLE) technology allows for seamless, low-energy communication over short distances, making it ideal for environments like hospitals where staff are constantly on the move. A BLE wristband with an integrated SOS button ensures that the wearer can discreetly and instantly alert security personnel in the event of an emergency, regardless of their location within the hospital.

Patient Safety and Location Tracking

The wristband can be used for patients too. The wristband enables the hospital locate the patient in real-time when in need. It also enables the Patient to alert the nurse-station when in need. Pressing the SOS button sets off a buzzer in the nearest nurse station. It also flashes the location of the patient in App notification.

App Alerts for Immediate Response

A RTLS works in tandem to ensure that information flows in real time. The wristband SOS enables the staff send an immediate notification to the hospital security teams at the push of a button. Once activated, the SOS button triggers an alert, pinpointing the exact location of the distressed staff member within the facility. This swift communication allows security to respond faster, reducing the time it takes to reach the scene of an emergency.

Empowering Staff to Feel Secure

One of the most significant benefits of the wristband is the psychological comfort it provides. Knowing that help is just a button press away can make staff members, particularly women, feel more secure while performing their duties. They can focus on their work without constantly worrying about their safety, knowing that help is easily accessible in any situation—whether it’s an incident of harassment, a medical emergency, or a physical threat.

Discreet and Non-Intrusive

The Badge is designed to be lightweight, discreet, and comfortable, ensuring that staff can wear it throughout their shift without feeling encumbered. The SOS button is intuitive to use, and its small form factor allows it to blend seamlessly into the work attire of hospital staff. This non-intrusive nature ensures that it does not interfere with daily tasks but remains within easy reach in moments of need.

Building a Safer Work Environment

By adopting BLE wristbands with SOS buttons for all hospital staff, we create a safety net that reinforces the hospital’s commitment to employee well-being. This proactive measure is an investment in a safer, more supportive work environment where staff can feel protected and valued. In an unpredictable workplace like a hospital, staff members deserve the peace of mind that comes from knowing that their safety is a priority.

RFID or BLE for your Hospital RTLS?

Posted on by

BLE or RFID? - Things to consider before you decide for your hospital

A hospital RTLS primarily is a software that uses wireless technologies e.g. RFID, BLE or UWB, to provide you real time indoor location intelligence (for example, which asset is currently in which zone?) for your hospitals. Most RTLS vendors tie their software to a specific technology, which means deciding vendor itself selects the technology. But is the optimal? Would you not like to understand the cost-benefits independently before you let your vendor choose for you?

When it comes to hospital RTLS, hospitals in US have predominantly adopted RTLS based on RFID though cost is very high. It's also true that RFID (especially active RFID) based RTLS is there for a very long time. BLE in fact is a recent addition. Interesting thing is both BLE and active RFID uses 2.4 GHz band but while BLE standard is open, active RFID is often proprietary and therefore costlier.

Understanding RFID

RFID is wireless radio frequency (RF) based standard and works on multiple RF bands, designated as LF (Low Frequency), HF (High Frequency) and UHF (Ultra High Frequency). Accuracy and speed increases from LF to UHF. Main components of this technology is RF Tag, RF Antenna and RF Readers. RF Tag can be active which means the tag has a battery and sends data on its own. Passive RF tag on the other hand is without battery and it can only send the data using the reflected RF energy (from the reader). The advantage of passive RF Tag is that it has almost unlimited life (no battery replacement) and also costs 10 times less than an active RF tag. To read passive RF Tags, the RFID reader must use high-gain antenna.

UHF RFID operates at 860-930 MHz (For India designated band is 865-867 MHz) but the high gain makes it a little unattractive to use in radio-sensitive places inside the Hospital.

RFID protocols were designed for reading inventory which makes it little difficult to employ it for indoor location tracking in real time. Given the high cost of UHF RFID readers (above USD 1,000), building RFID infrastructure for a hospital is often prohibitively expensive. While most leading vendors started supporting WiFi in the their RFID readers in latest products, old models typically do not support WiFi, which means it needs its separate network making the installation expensive. For a medium-sized hospital, RFID infrastructure costs have been reported between $200,000 and $600,000, depending on the facility's size and specific requirements.

Due to high cost, a hospital typically uses only a few fixed Reader placed at strategic location to cover entire floor area. But that also brings down effectiveness of tracking. Large inaccuracy of location with RFID based RTLS is a common refrain.

How BLE is different?

Most Hospital RTLS employs active RFID hardware which typically uses the regulation-free 2.4GHz. This is the same frequency band that is used in Microwave Ovens all over the world, as well as Bluetooth Devices and basic WiFi network. Given the low power gain used, it is considered safe.
BLE stands for Bluetooth Low Energy and is used in sensor network ubiquitously. Being lightweight, the devices come with very small form factor.  BLE works in the same way as active RFID. But since BLE standard is open, BLE devices have proliferated a lot faster. That effectively has brought down the cost of BLE tags and BLE gateways. BLE gateways cost 10 times lesser than a RFID reader and it can use the hospital's WiFi network which  in turn brings down the overall installation cost for BLE based RTLS.

For a 40 room hospital, it was reported to cost below USD 100K. However, we should remember, the cost of BLE tags are higher compared to passive RFID tags and battery of a BLE tag typically needs replacement every 1-2 years.

Active RFID vs BLE

Both of them need battery which means it requires periodic battery replacement. Additionally active RFID devices and tags are relatively more costly. More importantly vendor lock-in is one major aspect of using active RFID hardware. In comparison BLE devices are available off-the-shelf and can be upgraded / replaced with different vendor's products at ease without any service downtime.

A ready comparison chart

Feature UHF RFID BLE
Frequency Band 860–956 MHz 2.4 GHz
Range Up to 100 meters (depending on tag and reader / antenna)  less than UHF RFID
Data Rate Up to 640 kbps Up to 2 Mbps
Accuracy Typically within a margin of a few meters. Passive tags sometimes are missed by the Readers during periodic scanning Better than RFID. BLE Tags send the data themselves - eliminating the issue of missed scans.
Power Consumption Passive tags require no power; active tags have batteries Low power consumption; suitable for battery-powered devices
Cost Passive tags are cost-effective; active tags are more expensive Generally low-cost due to widespread adoption
Typical Applications Asset tracking, inventory management, supply chain logistics Asset tracking, personnel monitoring, proximity marketing, indoor navigation
Tag Cost Passive UHF RFID tags: Approximately $0.10 to $0.50 per tag.
Active RFID tags: Approximately $5 to $15 per tag.		 BLE tags: Approximately $2 to $10 per tag.
Reader/Gateway Cost Fixed RFID readers: Approximately $1,400 to $8,000 per unit.

Handheld RFID readers: Approximately $1,000 to $4,500 per unit.

 BLE gateways: Approximately $100 to $500 per unit.

INDTRAC Approach

INDTRAC promises to work with almost all leading BLE and passive UHF RFID readers. INDTRAC also qualifies vendor hardware before they are recommend to you so that you can choose the technology most suited for your use case and budget without any worries. For BLE tags, INDTRAC proactively monitors the battery and alerts you to replace the battery when a tag battery loses the power. BLE tags mostly use ubiquitously available low-cost coin lithium battery which makes the replacement cost very marginal.
There is another advantage with using BLE -- you can seamlessly use the RTLS to monitor zone-wise temperature, humidity or VOC almost at the same expense as that of asset tracking infrastructure.

Responsible AGI and other things

Posted on by


Google apparently in recognition that they lost LLM game (first to OpenAI chatgpt and then to Chinese deepseek) started drum rolling for AGI. Given how people are afraid of AGI, they brought out a paper on responsible AGI (somewhat similar to earlier responsible AI ). Read the Google post here.

Does it mean that LLM ≠ AGI

There were posts earlier where OpenAI said chatgpt is almost AGI. Even some in Google Gemini team said Gemini is almost sentient. But if people are talking about AGI seperately from LLM, perhaps that is acceptance of that fact that LLM may not ever reach human capability of intelligence. In fact there was a recent study that asserted that LLM could not match human ingenuity of ‘zero shot abstract thinking’.
Martha Lewis, a coauthor of the study, tells LiveScience, – while we can abstract from specific patterns to more general rules, LLMs don’t have that capability. “They’re good at identifying and matching patterns, but not at generalizing from those patterns.”  Read the full LiveScience post.

Can the AGI be responsible?

AGI has to evolve from current generative AI framework. Google Deepmind has categorized the challenge into four baskets:

  • Misalignment
  • Misuse
  • Mistake
  • Structural Risk

Misalignment refers to AI model doing something that developers did not intend it to do. Misuse refers to the model being misused by a human controller/user to work as adversary to humanity. Mistake refers to AI model doing something bad without triggering internal checks and balances. Structural Risk ensues from multi-agent dynamics without any fault from individual model. Example for this can be, a new path opens up due to complex interlinking of activities between AI models which developers didn’t intend to.

Of all the four types, Misalignment and Structural Risk are the most difficult to address because they are the most complex and difficult to uncover. We will limit ourselves to the issue of Misalignment for this post. Marcus Arvan explained in a LiveScience post, ‘If any AI became ‘misaligned’ then the system would hide it just long enough to cause harm’. He has given real life examples where LLM shocked the user with the answers.

‘The basic issue is one of scale. Consider a game of chess. Although a chessboard has only 64 squares, there are 1040 possible legal chess moves and between 10111 to 10123 total possible moves — which is more than the total number of atoms in the universe. This is why chess is so difficult: combinatorial complexity is exponential.

LLMs are vastly more complex than chess. ChatGPT appears to consist of around 100 billion simulated neurons with around 1.75 trillion tunable variables called parameters. Those 1.75 trillion parameters are in turn trained on vast amounts of data — roughly, most of the Internet. So how many functions can an LLM learn? Because users could give ChatGPT an uncountably large number of possible prompts — basically, anything that anyone can think up — and because an LLM can be placed into an uncountably large number of possible situations, the number of functions an LLM can learn is, for all intents and purposes, infinite.’ He argues.

Google’s approach to tackle misalignment

Google plans to use second AI model to validate a model’s answer. It’s sort of AI police to police AI model. Can this work? To find answer, we should ask, does policing work for human citizens? You could say mostly. But we should not miss that mostly it’s willingness of human citizens to follow rule and respect police that makes the job of police manageable. We surely cannot assert that for AI citizens. But given that entire AI paradigm works on goal-seeking principle, meticulous control of goal dynamics may provide an understanding of AI motivation.
Demis Hassabis, the Nobel Laureate CEO of DeepMind has a sobering thought about the approach to AGI. In a lecture in Cambridge University, he said, “Lot of Silicon Valley Companies work with the principle of ‘Move Fast, Break Things’ but I think it is not appropriate, in my opinion, for this type of transformative technology. I think instead we should be trying to use scientific method and approach with humility and respect this kind of technology deserves. We don’t know lot of things. Lot of unknowns about how this technology is going to develop. With exceptional sort of care and foresight we can get all the benefits and minimize the downside of it.” He invites people to focus on research and debate now and be mindful that the technology does not really go out of hand.
We are with him on that thought.

Why surgical instrument tracking is must-have for a hospital now

Posted on by

surgical scissors left inside the body after operation – photo courtesy – Researchgate

In a recent shocking news update, a woman was found to carry a retained surgical scissors inside her body for 12 long years. It was sheer negligence that happened 12 years ago in an operation that removed her appendix. The lady experienced sustained pain in her body for 12 long years.
This created a huge uproar in the state with people demanding prosecution and cancellation of license.

The fact is that it is a simple procedural mistake but it is also true that it carries a huge ramification for the hospital and the doctor involved. It can cause both the surgeon and the hospital significant reputation damage if not the business. If you are wondering if this happens only rarely, US National Library of Medicine asserts that for every 10,000 operation 1.3 such incidences can happen in average. In India the number most likely is much higher.

Can a hospital eliminate this risk?

Yes, absolutely. A hospital needs to upgrade its CSSD operation to ensure that after every operation all instruments returned are tallied against used list of instruments. It is tedious considering the number of operations a hospital has to do every day.

RTLS makes it fast and error-free

Using a special autoclave-safe RFID tag attached to every surgical instrument, a hospital CSSD can track every instrument. INDTRAC provides custom-made solution to suit the special needs for every CSSD.

Read more here.