India’s scattered workforce: the chatbot keeping families in touch during emergencies
India’s scattered workforce: the chatbot keeping families in touch during emergencies
Covid exposed the lack of data on the country’s 140 million mobile migrant workers, but a new project in Odisha is helping to fill in the gaps
Raja Pradhan is sitting cross-legged, scrolling on his phone in his village in eastern India when a green WhatsApp chat bubble pops up on the screen. “Namaskar! Apana bahare kama pain jauthibe? Apananka suchana diaantu.” (Hello! Are you going outside for work? Please share your information.)
He reads the message twice, unsure whether to respond. “I don’t know where this information would go,” he says. “Would someone use it against me? The internet can be tricky at times. Why should I even share my details in the first place?”
A volunteer from a nonprofit organisation explains it is a chatbot called Bandhu (friend) that aims to connect the largely undocumented migrant workforce of the state of Odisha to emergency services and keep their families updated on their location. “Your details will not be shared publicly. It is only to help you in case of emergencies,” says field worker Subhalata Pradhan.
India has an estimated 140 million migrant workers, according to nonprofit organisations and researchers who point to large gaps in data on their numbers and locations. This has led to inadequate and delayed responses during emergencies such as the Covid-19 pandemic, when tens of thousands of workers were forced to walk home after the central government imposed a nationwide lockdown.
More than a million migrant workers returned to Odisha during the pandemic. But in the absence of any reliable data on who they were or where they were travelling from, the authorities struggled to coordinate their return. Lack of data also affects access to and delivery of welfare and aid, researchers and campaigners have repeatedly flagged.
More than 400 migrant workers from Odisha have died over the past nine years while working in other states, according to a written reply to the state assembly by the labour and employees’ state insurance minister, Ganesh Ram Singhkhuntia, in December 2024. But neither local administrations nor nonprofits have a clear way of knowing the exact location of those who die.
Bandhu, the WhatsApp chatbot rolled out by Gram Vikas, a nonprofit organisation working with migrants, aims to bridge this gap. It has, so far, covered 620 villages in Odisha, one of India’s poorest and most migration-prone states, where half of the 30 districts record migration, government data shows.
Over the past two months, Gram Vikas staff have been helping migrants visiting Petumaha village in Kandhamal district, where Raja is from, to complete the digital form, while also reaching out to workers already at their destination.
The details in the form include the person’s name, source district and village, date of birth, emergency contacts in Odisha and the destination state, as well as location via Google Maps.
For Gram Vikas, the idea behind such village-level registries is to make the information available during times of crisis. “Families often know only the state to which a worker has travelled. Precise details are rarely available. That absence of information becomes critical during emergencies,” says Liby Johnson, executive director at Gram Vikas.
“Cyclones, floods, industrial accidents … these disasters affect mobile populations more than stationary ones. In that context, simply knowing where citizens are working at any given time can significantly shorten response time and improve coordination with destination states,” Johnson says.
Raja currently lives in the Angamaly municipality area of Ernakulam district in the southern state of Kerala, his third destination in the past two years.
“My family just remembers Kerala, they can’t remember any other names. I just tell them I am in Kerala,” he says.
But with Bandhu, they would know.
So far, 1,196 people across 22 districts of Odisha have registered through the chatbot. Migrants can update their location if they change workplaces or cities, which happens frequently in sectors such as construction, hospitality and brick kilns, say campaigners.
In future, they may also be able to seek help using the chatbot, which will allow them to register grievances against employers or ask for help in emergencies.
Gram Vikas aims to expand the initiative in Kandhamal and to three other districts in Odisha in the next year, with the long-term aim of getting the government to make the migrant registry a state programme.
“We will develop the model and process, and demonstrate how gram panchayats [village councils] can do this. Our experience will also suggest what tech platforms can help with the scaling up. The data will have to be with the gram panchayats,” Johnson says, adding that this would then be taken to the government.
For now, the scheme faces the challenge of penetration in rural Odisha where about 64% of all households have smartphones, according to 2022 data from the Annual Status of Education Report (Rural), a nationwide household survey.
Gram Vikas says it is easier to get younger migrants to register as they usually own smartphones, unlike the older generation who also migrate but most often use basic mobile phones with more limited functions.
The oldest of three siblings, Raja left for Kerala two years ago to work at a restaurant, where he chops vegetables and cleans tables, a job he found through a friend. “I have two siblings who are still in school to take care of. So, I decided to migrate for work,” he says.
In Kerala he earns 15,000 rupees (£121) a month and says he manages to send more than half his salary home.
In Jadatoga, a few kilometres from Raja’s village, 22-year-old migrant worker Lintu Pradhan is home for a few days because his wife is unwell. As a private taxi driver, he earned 12,000 rupees a month in Bhubaneswar, Odisha’s capital. He now makes 26,000 rupees as a heavy vehicle driver in Kerala’s Kochi district.
His older brother also works in Kerala though he is unsure where. “Who remembers the name of the city? I know he is in Kerala. We stay in touch by phone,” he says.
Migration researcher S Irudaya Rajan, chair of the International Institute for Migration and Development, says the challenge is ensuring that any collected data informs decisions.
“Just collecting data has no implications unless it feeds into policy,” he says.
“The same data could also help enrol workers into social protection schemes, including accidental insurance or health coverage, and ensure they are linked to benefits … Dialogue between data collectors and policymakers is crucial. Otherwise it remains just an exercise,” he says.
In February, a few months after he first filled in the form, Raja’s phone buzzes again. The chatbot asks where he is now. He types “Kochi”. Another question follows, asking whether his work is going well. He replies yes.
The exchange lasts barely a minute. But in that minute, his location is updated in the database, and his contact information remains active. And for the first time, his journey becomes traceable.
Aishwarya Mohanty is special correspondent with the Migration Story where this story first appeared
OpenAI’s adult mode will reportedly be smutty, not pornographic
The feature was delayed, reportedly due to internal concerns surrounding moderation and safeguarding children.
The feature was delayed, reportedly due to internal concerns surrounding moderation and safeguarding children.
OpenAI’s delayed “adult mode” for ChatGPT is expected to support saucy text conversations at launch, but not the chatbot’s ability to generate images, voice, or video. Speaking to The Wall Street Journal, an unnamed OpenAI spokesperson described content that will be provided by the upcoming feature as smut rather than pornography, allowing ChatGPT users to generate textual chats with adult themes.
The feature was initially announced in October, with OpenAI CEO Sam Altman claiming that the company had managed to mitigate enough of the “serious mental health issues“ with its AI model to relax safety restrictions and introduce “erotica for verified adults.” ChatGPT’s adult mode was expected to launch sometime this quarter, but OpenAI said earlier this month that it was delaying the rollout to focus on higher-priority tasks. A new release timeline has yet to be announced.
The delay was also due to internal concerns and technical challenges around safeguards for the feature, according to The Wall Street Journal’s reporting. A council of advisors selected by OpenAI warned the company in January that ChatGPT’s adult mode may be accessible to children and foster unhealthy emotional dependence on the chatbot, with one unnamed council member saying OpenAI risked creating a “sexy suicide coach.”
Related
- OpenAI fired exec who opposed ‘adult mode.’
- How chatbots are enabling AI psychosis
Content moderation issues have also contributed to the delays. Sources familiar with the matter told The Journal that OpenAI is struggling to lift ChatGPT’s restrictions on NSFW content while keeping more harmful scenarios off limits, such as those depicting nonconsensual behavior or child sexual abuse.
The age-prediction system that OpenAI developed to keep children away from erotica was also, at one point, misclassifying minors as adults about 12 percent of the time. Given ChatGPT attracts around 100 million users under 18 each week, that error rate could allow millions of minors into sexualized conversations with the chatbot. OpenAI’s age prediction algorithms show similar performance to the rest of the industry, an unnamed spokesperson told The Journal, but “will never be completely foolproof.”
Sticking to text-based conversations may make it easier for the ChatGPT-maker to navigate around rules like the UK’s Online Safety Act, which requires online platforms to enforce age verification for pornographic images, but not written erotica. It also contrasts with more visual NSFW experiences from rival AI providers, such as Grok’s “spicy” companions, with xAI’s Elon Musk announcing last week that Grok’s image and video generator is allowed to spit out anything that’s “allowed in an R-rated movie.”
Follow topics and authorsMost Popular
- European retailers yank popular headphones after study reports trace amounts of hormone-disrupting chemicals
- Meta is reportedly laying off up to 20 percent of its staff
- The $100,000 fee for H-1Bs is causing all sorts of problems
- MacBook Air M5 review: a small update for the ‘just right’ Mac
- The fast rise and epic fall of Clubhouse
2026 Oscars Analysis: How ‘One Battle’ Beat ‘Sinners,’ Jordan Overcame Chalamet and Penn Won Without Doing Anything
- Share on Facebook
- Share on X
- Google Preferred
- Share to Flipboard
- Show additional share options
- Share on LinkedIn
- Share on Pinterest
- Share on Reddit
- Share on Tumblr
- Share on Whats App
- Send an Email
- Print the Article
- Post a Comment
An awards season that often felt like an endurance test — talk about one battle after another — came to an end on Sunday evening with the 98th Academy Awards. The results at the Dolby Theatre in Hollywood confirmed that even though the Academy has changed significantly over the decade since it was rocked by #OscarsSoWhite — its membership today includes way more non-males, non-whites, non-Americans and non-AARP-members than ever before — the statistics that have long offered clues about Oscars outcomes remain dependable.
Indeed, despite all the talk of a late Sinners surge, One Battle After Another still won the top prize, best picture, just as it did at every other notable awards ceremony this season — from the Gothams to the Golden Globes to the guilds, not to mention all the major critics groups, plus the BAFTA Awards — save for the Actor Awards (formerly the SAG Awards) two weeks ago.
Related Stories
Jessie Buckley Closes Her Best Actress Oscar Acceptance Speech With Gaelic Message
'Bridesmaids' Star Wendi McClendon-Covey Clears Up Her Absence From Oscars Reunion: "I Had a Neck Lift... No Drama"
It was easy to get swept up in the excitement of Sinners’ best cast win at the Actor Awards — the reaction in the room was exuberant — but that prize has a terrible track record of predicting the best picture Oscar (now just 15 of 32 times). The fact that the best cast Actor Award did presage several of the biggest best picture Oscar surprises of yesteryear (including Shakespeare in Love, Crash and Parasite), and that this year’s Actor Awards took place in the middle of the final round of Oscars voting, unfortunately gave Sinners supporters false hope.
Why did Paul Thomas Anderson‘s film prevail over Ryan Coogler‘s when both were Warner Bros. releases that skipped the festival circuit, went directly to movie theaters and proved to be darlings of critics and audiences alike, and when Sinners grossed more money and landed more Oscar nominations (16 — two more than the previous all-time record — versus 13)? Let’s unpack that…
For one thing, being the most Oscar-nominated film of the year has limited significance. In the past decade, it didn’t help Emilia Pérez against Anora, The Power of the Dog against CODA, Mank against Nomadland, Joker against Parasite, The Favourite and Roma against Green Book, La La Land against Moonlight or The Revenant against Spotlight. And this year, you couldn’t fault One Battle for not having an original song or much in the way of makeup/hairstyling or visual effects, the three categories in which Sinners landed noms but One Battle did not. Both films got nominated for everything they could have realistically hoped for (minus One Battle’s newcomer Chase Infiniti in the crowded best actress race).
Additionally, One Battle had genre on its side. In the post-#OscarsSoWhite era, the Academy has embraced a wider assortment of films than ever before, rendering moot the notion of an “Oscar movie” by awarding best picture to The Shape of Water, Parasite and Everything Everywhere All at Once. But a zombies-centric film — up against a dramedy/thriller — was perhaps a bridge too far for even a hipper Academy.
Most significantly, I think, One Battle was a major work — if not the best work — of a filmmaker widely regarded as overdue for recognition, not unlike The Departed (Martin Scorsese) or Oppenheimer (Christopher Nolan). Indeed, prior to One Battle, Anderson was already well-established as one of the greatest filmmakers of his generation — see Boogie Nights, Magnolia, Punch-Drunk Love, There Will Be Blood, The Master and Phantom Thread, in particular — and yet had gone 0-for-11 at the Oscars. One Battle provided voters with a sufficient excuse to right that wrong.
On Sunday, it became clear pretty early in the show that Sinners’ best picture prospects were in trouble. If the film had the juice to topple One Battle, then that probably would have manifested itself in the race for best supporting actress, but Sinners’ Wunmi Mosaku came up short; shortly thereafter, it lost the inaugural Oscar for best casting — which every pundit of note had predicted it to win — to One Battle, no less; and by the time Sinners’ Delroy Lindo lost best supporting actor to one of the two One Battle nominees in that category, the cake was baked.
Fortunately, both films’ auteurs got moments in the sun — Anderson won best adapted screenplay and Sinners‘ Ryan Coogler won best original screenplay back-to-back before Anderson claimed best director and best picture later in the night. Plus, both films took home acting awards (best actor for Sinners and best supporting actor for One Battle) and craft awards (casting and film editing for One Battle, cinematography and original score for Sinners). The final score: One Battle 6, Sinners 4.
Speaking of the acting awards, though, it must be noted that the Actor Awards were, in fact, the only awards group to presage all four of this year’s individual acting Oscar winners: Hamnet’s Jessie Buckley for best actress, Sinners’ Michael B. Jordan for best actor, Weapons’ Amy Madigan for best supporting actress and One Battle’s Sean Penn for best supporting actor.
It’s interesting that a group comprised only of actors (SAG-AFTRA, all 160,000 members of whom vote for the Actor Awards winners) and a group in which actors account for less than 12% of all voters (the Academy) both responded not only to the same performances, but to performances that might be described as Acting with a capital A: Buckley playing a grieving mother who wails upon losing a child and seems possessed by a theatrical production; Jordan playing twins with very different personalities; Madigan chewing scenery in clown makeup; and Penn sporting an erection and a glass eye.
They all took very different paths to their wins.
Penn did not campaign or show up for any award shows except the Golden Globes, but gave such a memorable performance — and, despite being a difficult guy, is so highly regarded as an actor — that he still won BAFTA and Actor Awards en route to Academy members catapulting him into its rarified club of three-time male acting Oscar winners (the only other members of which are Walter Brennan, Jack Nicholson and Daniel Day-Lewis).
Penn was up against formidable talents, including two septuagenarian first-time nominees, Sentimental Value’s Stellan Skarsgård and Sinners’ Lindo. But a path to victory was always going to be tough for a performance not in English (Skarsgård would have been the first such winner in the supporting actor category) and/or a performer who wasn’t even nominated for any other major award (Lindo hoped to follow in the 25-year-old footsteps of Marcia Gay Harden, the only person who has ever overcome that stat).
Madigan, meanwhile, won early in the year at the Critics Choice Awards, in something of a surprise — many were still predicting Wicked: For Good’s Ariana Grande at the time — and only continued to build goodwill between then and the Actor Awards, when she won again.
To be sure, the other precursors were all over the place, with Sinners’ Mosaku winning BAFTA, One Battle’s Teyana Taylor winning the Golden Globe and Sentimental Value’s Inga Ibsdotter Lilleaas winning some big critics prizes. And it was a bit disconcerting that Madigan was her category’s only nominee whose film wasn’t also up for best picture.
But what proved to be more important is that she has been in the business forever (her prior Oscar nom came 40 years ago, before any of her fellow supporting actress nominees were even born), knows and is known by everyone (whereas most people had not even heard of three of her four fellow nominees a year ago) and is one-half of a great Hollywood couple (not unlike another veteran who won the same Oscar for another horror film 57 years ago, Rosemary’s Baby’s Ruth Gordon).
As for Jordan, he initially seemed to be trailing Marty Supreme’s Timothée Chalamet, given that won at the Critics Choice and Golden Globe awards — but those two prizes were determined solely by journalists, of which there are virtually none in the Academy. The Academy clearly preferred Sinners to Marty Supreme — Marty Supreme ended up going 0-for-9 at the Oscars, a worse shutout than all but five films ever, The Turning Point (0-for-11), The Color Purple (0-for-11) Gangs of New York (0-for-10), the 2010 True Grit (0-for-10) and American Hustle (0-for-10). And many individual members said they were repelled by the character Chalamet played in the film.
Additionally, it seems that the best actor race was jolted, in the homestretch, by a variety of factors, from Chalamet’s unconventional approach to campaigning, which rubbed many the wrong way, to the terribly unfortunate incident that occurred while Jordan and Lindo were presenting at the BAFTA Awards, which evoked from many sympathy and admiration. Plus, seeing Jordan win the best actor Actor Award in the middle of the Oscar voting window presented to Academy members a clear and appealing alternative to Chalamet.
Buckley, meanwhile, was a no-doubter from the moment her film premiered at the Telluride Film Festival. Even people who disliked Hamnet liked her performance and her, and why not? In addition to being a tremendously gifted actress, she is also one of the most genuine and lovely people I encountered all season long. And my guess is that the Irishwoman, at just 36, will soon be back in the hunt for a sibling for her new statuette.
Elsewhere, best documentary feature went to the team behind Kino Lorber’s powerful Mr. Nobody Against Putin (my tablemates at the Oscar Nominees Luncheon) over another equally affecting exposé, Netflix’s The Perfect Neighbor. But Netflix dominated the remaining categories, picking up best costume design, makeup/hairstyling and production design for Frankenstein; for KPop Demon Hunters, the most watched original film in its history, best animated feature and original song (“Golden”); best documentary short for All the Empty Rooms; and for The Singers, which the company was smart enough to acquire — probably for a pittance — late in the season, best live action short (in a tie with Two People Exchanging Saliva). The streamer’s total tally of seven matches a company-best (first achieved five years ago).
Some final takeaways?
I thought that this year’s telecast, like last year’s, was very solid, highlighted by returning-host Conan O’Brien’s amiable emceeing; a skillfully executed In Memoriam segment (although the omission of Brigitte Bardot was inexcusable); the Sinners and KPop Demon Hunters performances; and the suspenseful presentations and gracious acceptances of the big awards. Also, kudos to Kumail Nanjiani for his deft handling of the potentially treacherous terrain of a tie (only the seventh in Oscars history, 13 years after the sixth, which I remember witnessing in 2013).
My only quibbles with the show: the Marvel “reunion” was overhyped (just Robert Downey Jr. and Chris Evans?); the playing-off of winners was handled poorly for the second year in a row; and a bunch of presenter decisions seemed off to me. Bill Pullman and Lewis Pullman are fine talents, but don’t rise to the level of accomplishment or familiarity that would merit being Oscars presenters; Robert Pattinson and Zendaya were odd choices to present best director, as opposed to, say, recent winner and current Directors Guild president Christopher Nolan; and as much as I love Ewan McGregor and Nicole Kidman, I’m not sure that the 25th anniversary of Moulin Rouge!, a film to which the Academy awarded only two Oscars (art direction and costume design), merited having them co-present best picture. (I wonder if they tried Tom Cruise, one of this season’s honorary Oscar recipients?)
I’ll close with a few personal notes. (1) I was very pleased that the final Feinberg Forecast of the season correctly projected 21 of 24 categories, including all of The Big Eight and all three shorts. (2) I was heartened to see so many past guests of my podcast Awards Chatter take home Oscars, among them Jordan, Buckley, Penn, Madigan, Sentimental Value’s Joachim Trier, All the Empty Rooms’ Joshua Seftel and KPop Demon Hunters’ EJAE. I thank them for their time, and encourage you to subscribe — for free — if you haven’t already done so. (3) And lastly, I want to thank my THR colleagues, readers/listeners and friends/family for their support over the course of this whole season — it was a grueling but mostly enjoyable ride that ended with my 15th trip to the Oscars, a privilege that I do not take for granted. And now… sleep!
THR Newsletters
Sign up for THR news straight to your inbox every day
-
international
How Ursula K. Le Guin’s “Carrier Bag Theory” Inspired Two CPH:DOX Films
-
Oscars 2026
Jessie Buckley Closes Her Best Actress Oscar Acceptance Speech With Gaelic Message
-
Wendi McClendon-Covey
‘Bridesmaids’ Star Wendi McClendon-Covey Clears Up Her Absence From Oscars Reunion: “I Had a Neck Lift… No Drama”
-
international
‘The Sandbox’ Doc Director on Her “Story About Power” and Hope to Make Us Think About How We Choose to Use, or Not Use, Technology as a Tool
-
Warner Bros.
Michael B. Jordan’s Advice to Fellow Artists After Oscar Win: “Dream Big and Be Kind”
-
international
Zhang Ziyi, Liu Haoran, Terrance Lau Receive Special Honors at Stripped-Down Asian Film Awards
