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.
Everyone says we need to embrace renewable energy to address the challenges of climate change. But integrating variable supplies of electricity into our current grid is easier said than done. One way to do that might be to virtualise our power plants.
The PM-EAC suggests that AI should be regulated as a complex adaptive system. While there is a lot to say about this approach, in its articulation, the paper fails to take into account many of the essential features of modern AI.
There is widespread consternation around the impact that deep-fakes are going to have on all of society this year. But most legislative counter-measures are oriented towards shooting the messenger. We need a different path. Thankfully we have been here before.
The ODR approach can offer the soon-to-be-formed Data Protection Board mechanisms that are digital from the ground up. By integrating various elements of India’s digital public infrastructure into the ODR process adopted, we can ensure that data protection in India is techno-legal from the get-go.
As we look to adopt techno-legal regulations in various different aspects of our technology driven world we need to be mindful of the need to retain a “zone of mischief” - a level of flexibility that will offer us the freedom to innovate and improve.
