Need for regulation of AI
Artificial Intelligence (AI) possesses the capability to fundamentally change the way in which we work.
AI can, by assimilation of data from multifarious online sources, present far more powerful (and seemingly creative) solutions than any human can.
AI is a far greater force of either good or evil (or both).
Given all this, AI needs to be regulated.
Regulation in other countries
Till recently, the greatest advances in the regulation of AI have been made in the European Union (EU), Brazil, Canada, Japan and now, China.
Countries in the EU, Brazil and the United Kingdom (which shall be referred to hereafter as “western systems”) have adopted regulatory measures with differences which, on a closer study, are superficial.
Regulations in Japan and China, however, are fundamentally different from the western system.
The western systems have all adopted means of regulation which are intrinsically western in character.
That is to say, they are founded in the Eurocentric view of jurisprudence.
The eastern model is entirely different.
The western model focuses on a risk-based approach.
First, lawmakers create a pyramid of risks and identify the risks posed by every type of AI-based application.
The pyramid of risks then proceeds to be divided into four categories: ‘unacceptable risk’, ‘high risk’, ‘limited risk’ and ‘low risk’.
In the EU therefore, lawmakers have gone about prescribing
Prohibited classes of activities for the ‘unacceptable risks’,
Regulated class of activities for the ‘high risks’,
A simple set of disclosure-based obligations for the ‘low risks’.
Brazil too has followed a system of categorisation of risks and regulations to address those risks.
It also has strict governance measures to be complied with by all AI applications.
Canada too follows a similar pattern of identifying activities to be prohibited, and clear regulations on how AI-based applications must function.
As far as the eastern models are concerned, the Japan has framed a set of rules called the “Social Principles of Human-Human-Centric AI”.
The first part contains seven social principles that society and the state must respect when dealing with AI: human-centricity; education/literacy; data protection; ensuring safety; fair competition; fairness, accountability and transparency, and innovation.
The Chinese regulations. The opening lines of Article 4 of these regulations are: “The provision and use of generative artificial intelligence services shall abide by laws and administrative regulations, respect social morality and ethics, and abide by the following provisions”.
The law goes on to prescribe the kind of values that should be upheld and promoted by artificial intelligence services, and the ends that should be achieved through these AI-based applications and services.
Differences in regulatory approaches between Western and Eastern legal systems
The difference is stark. While there are areas of overlap, it is readily evident that the western model spells out what must be done, and how to do it.
The weight of the rules rests on the means to be adopted and the rationale underlying those means.
The eastern model focuses on the ends and the values that must be upheld by compliance with the rules.
The western model is perfect for the West — a clear set of rules, which a rule-abiding society will undoubtedly comply with, along with a set of proscriptions and punishments for the few who violate the law.
The eastern model is more open, and embraces the overlap between the legality of the rules and the morality of the rules.
Need For An Indian System To Regulate AI
Systems based on AI must be regulated.
NITI Aayog has circulated three discussion papers which touch upon AI.
In each of these, there are references only to the AI regulations in the EU, the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia.
It has gone on to state: “The responsible AI principles discussed earlier in this Paper, have been developed by first identifying systemic considerations prevalent among AI systems across the world, and identifying principles that may be used to mitigate the identified considerations.”
A reading of the discussion paper suggests that NITI Aayog is going to follow the western model.
The time has come for India to have regulations in a manner that is consistent with the Indian ethos, by and for Indians.
COMMENTS