New Delhi: The Vice-President, Shri Jagdeep Dhankhar today emphasised on the need for regulation for AI while maintaining the right balance between regulation and fostering innovation. The Vice-President today underscored that, “ Regulation of AI will determine the kind of society we aspire to be. It has become a most important factor where we will be ! Do we wish to become a digital dystopia where humans serve algorithms or a humane Indian society where technology serves the people? The choice is ours. The choice is well known.”
Addressing the gathering at the release of the book ‘AI on Trial’ authored by Hon’ble member of Rajya Sabha, Shri Sujeet Kumar at Vice-President’s Enclave today, Shri Dhankhar stated, “Regulating Artificial Intelligence is daunting, frightening, but imperative. Right balance will have to be struck between regulating artificial intelligence and fostering innovation. This is fundamental. Overregulation can choke like over-disciplining a child. We don’t have to impede the spirit of entrepreneurship. But at the same time, we have to be extremely cognizant of the evil effects. Under regulation can endanger public safety, perpetuate bias and erode trust.”
“……to regulate something that is as dynamic as artificial intelligence, we need an agile and empowered institutional framework. A national artificial intelligence authority or commission, independent but accountable with representation from government, industry, academia, and civil society could serve as a think tank. We must therefore design regulation as a scaffold, not a cage. Our goal should be to enable a framework where responsible innovation thrives, and sinister designs, pernicious designs, are neutralised. A risk-based, sector-specific, and principle-driven approach may serve us well in this regard. For instance, the level of scrutiny required for AI used in medical diagnostics should differ from the Artificial Intelligence creating social media feeds……impact of artificial intelligence on ordinary citizens must be at the heart of regulatory regime. An ordinary person will not be able to find solutions on his own. The system must provide automatic, inbuilt relief to ordinary citizens. To protect our citizens from the hazards of artificial intelligence, we need enforceable rights, such as right to explanation, the right to contest automated decisions. Decisions are automated. How to contest them, we are not aware and the right to opt out of algorithmic processing, especially when decisions impact livelihoods, liberty, and dignity.
”, he added.
“..we have to be extremely wary also. AI, the genie is out of the bottle, and it can be extremely destructive. It can create havoc if not regulated. In the age of deep fakes, working of Deep State, wokeism, these menacing trends can get wings if this genie of Artificial Intelligence is not regulated. To put it for young minds, a nuclear power can give you energy. Nuclear power can lighten houses, run industry, but it can also be destructive, and therefore, we have both the possibilities before us”, he cautioned.
In his address he further stated, “The regulation of artificial intelligence must be very transparent. It must go hand in hand with re-skilling and workforce planning. As artificial intelligence displaces certain tasks, it will. Because it has come to your house, come to your office. It does jobs sometimes better than normal resource and then an impression is gathered. Are we risking the jobs of people who work? Maybe in some situations…..this requires that we must invest very heavily in education, vocational training, digital literacy, particularly for those who are marginalised, who are vulnerable, who need hand-holding situations”.
Underlining the importance of cyber sovereignty, he stated, “We must assert India’s cyber sovereignty as much as we do the sovereignty understood in common parlance but we have to be aligned to global standards. There can be no standalone activity in such kind of situations. There will have to be global convergence. All stakeholders will have to come on one platform so that we have a global rule-based order in the field of Artificial Intelligence.”
Talking about the ramifications of AI in the legal domain, Shri Dhankhar stated, “Artificial intelligence has generated a compulsive scenario for us. It has forced us to re-examine existing jurisprudence. Traditional legal concepts like liability, or even personhood come under pressure when actions are carried out by autonomous systems. Artificial intelligence opacity challenges legal transparency and accountability principles. Delegating legal interpretation to unexplainable systems undermines judicial trust…..If we use current legal artificial intelligence, we find one deficiency. It lacks comprehensive regulation and oversight. There is urgent need for standards and safeguards to prevent consequences of unregulated artificial intelligence. Debate continues all over, whether artificial intelligence promotes legal consistency or perpetuates historical biases.…Justice is at the risk, and the risk is great, justice at risk when algorithms lacking human qualities influence law, judgments can’t be robotised. There can be no artificial intelligence replication. Sometimes the distinction is too fine to be detected even by artificial intelligence. It is the brain of the judge, the discerning brain, that finds a resolution.”
Emphasising on the significance of meaningful consent, Shri Dhankhar stated,“ Our Digital Personal Data Protection Act is a landmark step, but it now has to evolve in tandem with artificial intelligence regulation. Consent must be meaningful, those who are lawyers know it. A consent that is not free is no consent in law and free means real freedom to give your consent. Consent cannot be buried in opaque and abstruse terms of service. I am sometimes surprised when I use my mobile phone, go to some application, there is pressure, I agree. Now in utter helplessness, you concede a very personal ground. Unknowingly, you are lured or forced otherwise, the utilisation doesn’t fructify with ease. Consent cannot be in opaque and abstruse terms of service. Anonymisation, data minimisation, and purpose limitation must be rigorously enforced.”
