Much of the reason why India has not yet achieved its full potential is because we simply have not invested in the institutional foundations of the Indian State. But, as Karthik Muralidharan describes in his authoratative book on the subject, there is reason to be optimistic.
A new paper from the Bank for International Settlements proposes the creation of a unified ledger and the tokenisation of everything. If it is successful, this could represent the most fundamental re-imagining of the banking system since the Medicis.
Artificial intelligence might eventually replace us. But it still has a long way to go. In the meantime, rather than fretting about what might be, we should learn to use it so that we can make the most of all the efficiencies it offers. Here is how I do that.
One of the more worrisome provisions of India’s new data protection law has to do with processing of children’s data - and in particular, how data fiduciaries should go about verifying the age of those whose data they process. Thanks to India’s digital public infrastructure, I believe we may have a novel solution.
For the longest time, questions have been raised about the business model for UPI and how the industry should charge for its services. The government has prohibited MDR on UPI transactions, but it should still be possible for us to develop a new revenue model.
Last year there was widespread support for India’s DPI approach—with countries around the world hailing its achievements, and looking to emulate them. Over the past few months, however, the voices of dissent have grown steadily louder. Rather than allow arguments against DPI to go unanswered, I thought it best to deal with them head-on.
Cryptocurrency regulation has, so far, focussed on been on the mitigating the risk to speculative investors. But there is a far more important innovation that is embeded into the architecture and design of modern crypto currency. This is what regulators should be looking to better understand.
We tend to resist change. We worry about the ways in which it could alter our existing way of life and the harms that could result as a consequence. But these technological changes almost always end up being nowhere near as frightening as they first seemed.
Advances in technology have transformed our societal interactions in ways that challenge the state’s monopoly over violence. Today large tech companies (not governments) determine how our interactions take place. Which means that we need to rethink governance structures if the state is to continue to protect its citizens.
We need to encourage a culture of failure around AI so that when it fails we can understand why and disseminate those learnings throughout the industry. It is only when we can fail without fear that we will learn to do what it takes to build safe AI systems.
