тАШRegulatory gap analysis and stakeholder consultations for AI-related policies and advisories neededтАЩ
The mammoth beast of AI in IndiaтАЩs tech space may not require a detailed law but there are emphatic calls to check on the reigns keeping the technology in check. Industry experts told┬аbusinessline┬аthat they agreed with the governmentтАЩs light touch approach for AI at least for the next 2-3 years but stressed the need for a regulatory gap analysis and stakeholder consultations when it came to AI-related policies and advisories.
Earlier in December, S Krishnan, Secretary for MeitY, at the India Internet Governance Forum said, тАЬWhen AI is used in the Indian context we believe that the legislation is currently adequate. Regulation of AI is becoming an issue in different countries with deepfakes and so on. Fortunately, in India, there are laws which can be used for that purpose.тАЭ The comment was largely received as a further confirmation that the Indian government currently has no intention to draft an AI law.
According to Shatakratu Sahu, Senior Programme Manager and Research Analyst at Carnegie India, this approach makes sense for India considering the economic cost of the regulation, the lack of understanding around AIтАЩs risks and benefits as well as application of current laws on AI.
тАЬWhen you say you want to bring in a new law, the assumption is that existing laws are not capable of addressing whatever risks are there. But thatтАЩs not so, there are many laws. So, our suggestion is to take a step back and do a regulatory gap analysis where you start applying existing laws to AI harms. You let the courts and tribunals interpret those laws in the context of those harms. Then you actually understand where is the gap and whether you even need a new law,тАЭ said Sahu.
Stating that understanding harms and conducting regulatory analysis are needs of the hour, Sahu called for the creation of AI Safety Institutes to conduct these analyses.
Similarly, Shweta Mohandas CIS, Policy Officer at the Centre for Internet and Society, stressed a need for the government to consult with stakeholders and set the ball rolling on how AI should be regulated looking forward.
тАЬI think thereтАЩs need for a conversation on how we should regulate AI. It could start with a stronger data protection framework instead of starting anew. If we do that, we wonтАЩt be playing catch-up with AI laws,тАЭ she said.
Yet to be defined
With regards to the governmentтАЩs light touch approach, Mohandas pointed out that the same was tricky with certain sectors like health where concepts like тАЬAI in healthcareтАЭ are yet to be defined.
тАЬThere are different use cases of AI, and itтАЩs very difficult to say that light-touch approach for everything. For example, AI is used for disease surveillance to check something like mosquitoes in an area. Here, no personal data is collected and light-touch approach is possible. But there is a concern of bias in terms of something like mental health, where apps collect and share huge data or decisions are made based on what conversations with a chatbot,тАЭ she said, adding that the use of AI in healthcare will grow in coming years.
Meanwhile, Mishi Choudhary Founder of the digital rights advocacy group SFLC.in, pointed out that since AI touches every aspect of modern life, even a light touch will be wide in its scope.
тАЬEven a light-touch approach should focus on obligations ranging from safety, consumer transparency measures, reporting requirements, clarification of privacy safeguards, protections for performers and deceased celebrities, and election integrity measures and barring тАЬalgorithmic discriminationтАЭ against consumers based on protected characteristics in enumerated fields,тАЭ said Choudhary.
Comments
aniltikotekar4sme.com 