Date : 01/09/2023

Relevance – GS Paper 3 - Science and Technology

Keywords – EU, NITI Aayog, Emperor Ashoka, Neti Neti

Context –

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has firmly entrenched itself in our lives, poised to reshape our work dynamics and offer creative solutions drawn from diverse online sources. The potential for AI to wield both positive and negative impacts underscores the urgency for effective regulation. However, a striking dichotomy exists in global approaches to AI regulation, with Western systems exemplified by the European Union, Brazil, Canada, and the UK, differing significantly from Eastern models found in Japan and China.

The Western Regulatory Landscape:

Western regulatory frameworks predominantly adopt a risk-centric approach, categorizing AI-based applications into classes of risks. Unacceptable, high, limited, and low-risk categories guide prohibition, governance, and disclosure measures. This Eurocentric paradigm mandates strict adherence to predefined rules, facilitating compliance but potentially stifling adaptability.

Within this approach, the European Union (EU) stands out for its systematic classification of risks and corresponding regulatory actions. Prohibited activities are clearly defined for "unacceptable risks," while a regulated framework is established for "high risks," often involving stringent governance. Lesser risks are subject to simpler disclosure-based obligations, fostering a tiered system that differentiates levels of regulatory intensity.

Eastern Paradigms:

Contrastingly, Japan and China offer distinctive regulatory perspectives, rooted in their cultural and philosophical values. Japan's "Social Principles of Human-Human-Centric AI" mirrors a societal pact emphasizing human-centricity, education, data protection, safety, fairness, accountability, transparency, and innovation. This multifaceted approach integrates ethics and societal welfare into the fabric of regulation, reflecting the harmony sought between technology and human values.

China's approach, while sharing certain overlaps with Western models, accentuates a fundamental difference. Their regulations emphasize alignment with laws, ethics, and social morality. This resonates with the Confucian emphasis on harmony and balance, which translates into a regulatory framework centered on ethical considerations and collective well-being.

Underlying Philosophies:

Professor Northrop's analysis unveils the foundational disparity between Eastern and Western legal systems. Western legal systems stem from "postulation," specifying precise actions and associated penalties. This approach offers clarity and predictability, ensuring conformity. In contrast, Eastern legal systems, rooted in "intuition," prescribe desired outcomes and moral frameworks, empowering individuals to determine appropriate means in line with intrinsic values.

This philosophical divergence finds resonance in historical legal systems. India's ancient legal systems integrated moral principles and outcomes, promoting harmony and holistic well-being. This is evident in tales like the Pandavas' exile, which highlight the intuitive application of laws to achieve ethical goals. Similarly, Emperor Ashoka's edicts underscore the inseparable connection between law and morality in Eastern thought.

Relevance of Historical Legal Systems:

The legacy of British colonization transplanted Western legal systems onto Indian soil. The resultant legal framework neither aligned with India's heritage nor fully embraced the virtues of Western systems. The absence of a moral underpinning akin to ancient Indian legal systems has created a vacuum where compliance with rules might not necessarily lead to ethical outcomes.

This cultural dissonance highlights the need for an introspective approach when framing AI regulations. Incorporating the principles of ethics and societal well-being could bridge this gap, facilitating regulations that are both enforceable and morally resonant.

Judicial Influence:

Justice V. Ramasubramaniam's observations underscore India's inclination to uncritically emulate Western legal systems. His landmark judgments reflect the wisdom of an approach rooted in India's own philosophical traditions. His reference to "Neti Neti," translating to "neither this nor that," speaks to the need for a nuanced, context-sensitive regulatory philosophy.

NITI Aayog's Direction:

NITI Aayog's discussion papers, while referencing Western AI regulations, manifest a bias towards adopting global norms. The emphasis on "responsible AI principles" suggests a tendency to follow established Western models without accounting for India's distinctive ethos.

Yet, these papers also provide a launching pad for thoughtful deliberation. An assimilation of global considerations with India's cultural identity can lead to regulations that are holistic, responsive, and true to India's value system.

Conclusion:

As India contemplates AI regulations, a pivotal decision emerges: whether to replicate Western models with complex regulations or embrace a more intuitive, value-driven Eastern approach. The need to align regulations with India's cultural and philosophical heritage cannot be overstated. Striking a balance between rule-bound compliance and ethical intuition is imperative. By looking eastward, India can craft AI regulations that reflect its identity while addressing the challenges and opportunities presented by AI's rapid evolution.

Source – The Hindu