Even though it is framed as an author’s right, copyright law was originally designed to protect publishers. This is why, to this day, authors rarely make enough from their books to earn a living. What authors want, most of all, is to be read. If AI does that, shouldn’t we rethink copyright?
Laws have always evolved in response to technological change. We’ve had a long tradition of this sort of change ever since the Industrial Revolution. We are standing on the threshold of a similar technological shift, and our legal system is likely to change yet again.
It might appear as if AI is ingesting copyrigjht material - text, images, videos, etc. - and regurgitating it out in response to prompts. But if you peel back the layers, the underlying process looks a lot more like learning than copying.
To withstand scrutiny, a forgery must extend beyond the artefact in question to the entire back-story within which it resides. While it used to be that these narratives had to be concocted painstakingly, one instance at a time, modern technology makes it possible to carry out on an industrial scale.
We have been trained to think that all bias is bad. And that we should do all we can to rid ourselves of it to avoid being unfair. What we often fail to realise is that bias is a shortcut that allows us to cut through the noise and zero in on the data we need to process.
If India is to achieve its data centre ambitions, it needs to find new sources of efficient power. While nuclear is a solution, it will take too long to come on stream. We need alternatives, and enhanced geothermal might just be it.
There are many possible futures for AI. Even if we cannot predict exactly which path it will take, as long as we remain clear-eyed about the possible consequences of the actions we take today, we will be able to mitigate the outcomes that could result over the next few years.
Narrowly targeting laws to specific countries or companies can have unintended consequences. They can push customers in different directions or serve as an unanticipated impetus for entrepreneurs to think of new and innovative approaches. In both instances, the outcomes are unexpected.
The Report on the Regulatory Framework for AI in India strikes the right mix of agile governance and light-touch supervision. However, its reliance on regulatory principles from the Global North could end up stifling innovation. We need to develop a framework that aligns more closely with our interests.
There are many who claim that the harms AI can cause can only be addressed by a new legislation specifically designed to address them. That said existing laws have, more often than not, been framed in terms that are broad enough to deal with these harms regardless of the technology that caused them.
