Advertisement
New Delhi [India], February 14: Shekhar Natarajan, Founder and CEO of Orchestro.AI, explains the impact of global influence that could change narratives in this opinion piece.
The invitation arrived through official channels, unexpected but somehow inevitable. The World Economic Forum wanted Shekhar Natarajan to present Angelic Intelligence at Davos. Not as a sidebar event or panel participant, but as a featured presenter on the future of artificial intelligence—the defining technology question of the next decade.
The path to that invitation followed none of the traditional routes. No academic appointments at prestigious universities. No prior government advisory positions. No high-profile institutional affiliations. No venture backing or corporate sponsorship. Just 800 million people who had already decided his ideas mattered—and institutions that could no longer ignore what those numbers meant.
❝ Davos used to invite people institutions approved. Now they invite people the world chose. ❞
The Davos invitation followed similar expressions of interest from the Future Investment Initiative in Riyadh, the Munich Security Conference, and multiple government advisory bodies seeking input on AI governance. Each cited the same justification: the viral reach demonstrated that Angelic Intelligence represented a perspective the global conversation couldn’t afford to exclude.
“We’re accustomed to inviting people because of their institutional positions—their university chairs, their corporate roles, their government appointments. This invitation was because of his reach, his demonstrated ability to articulate something that resonates with hundreds of millions of people. That’s a fundamental shift in how we identify relevant voices.” — a program director at a major global policy forum, speaking on background
The shift has implications that extend far beyond Natarajan’s individual case. Traditional pathways to global influence have long been mediated by institutional gatekeepers—universities that grant credentials, publications that bestow legitimacy, organizations that provide platforms. These gatekeepers perform important functions: filtering for quality, establishing expertise, maintaining standards.
But they also perform exclusionary functions. Voices outside established institutions struggle to be heard regardless of the quality of their ideas. Geographic and economic barriers limit access to credentialing institutions. Unconventional perspectives get filtered out before they can be tested against public reception.
❝ They used to ask where you went to school. Now they ask how many people chose to listen. ❞
Viral reach as a path to institutional access doesn’t replace traditional credentialing—but it supplements it with something traditional credentials don’t measure: demonstrated public resonance. An idea that reaches 800 million people has proven something that peer review and institutional endorsement cannot: that real people find it compelling enough to share with other real people.
“The old model assumed institutions knew best which voices mattered. The new model lets the public weigh in before institutions decide. That’s not inherently better or worse—it’s different. And it’s clearly the direction things are moving.” — a scholar who studies technology governance
Critics will note real risks in this model. Viral reach doesn’t guarantee quality. Popularity isn’t validation. Resonance can be manufactured, and the dynamics of social media reward certain kinds of messaging over others. An idea can spread widely and still be wrong.
But defenders note the counterargument: traditional gatekeeping didn’t guarantee quality either. It just guaranteed exclusion. Academic peer review has well-documented biases. Institutional credentialing has well-documented barriers. The question isn’t whether the new model is perfect—it’s whether it’s worse than what it supplements.
“The risks of letting popular ideas influence policy are real. But so are the risks of only letting institutionally approved ideas influence policy. Angelic Intelligence got 800 million views because it spoke to concerns the institutions weren’t addressing. That’s not a flaw in the public—it’s a flaw in the institutions.” — a policy analyst at a think tank focused on technology governance
For Natarajan, the invitations represent an opportunity to translate digital momentum into policy influence. The audiences have been built. The ideas have been tested against the largest possible focus group—the global public. What remains is whether the ideas can translate from resonance to implementation, from viral content to structural change.
❝ 800 million views earned what no resume could: a seat at the table where AI’s future is decided. ❞
The path from viral content to global forum may not be replicable for every idea or every thinker. The specific combination of timing, message, and audience that produced 800 million views can’t be engineered or guaranteed. But the path has now been proven possible—and that proof changes the landscape for everyone seeking to influence how powerful technologies develop.
“The platforms proved the ideas matter to people. The institutions now have to decide whether people mattering is enough—or whether they’re going to keep privileging credentials over resonance. My bet is they adapt. The numbers are too big to ignore.” — an executive at a major technology company
The invitations keep arriving. The doors keep opening. What started as viral content has become a credential that institutions must recognize—not because they chose to, but because 800 million people already did.
Advertisement
