The recent two-day Dialogue on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence (AI) ended with the conclusion that multiple philosophical viewpoints and a global and inclusive regulatory framework can balance the dangers and advantages of humanity’s pursuit for social justice and equality.
The conference, organized by the United Nations in India and the O P Jindal Global University’s School of Government and Public Policy, brought together leading minds in artificial intelligence. They debated the rise of Artificial Intelligence as both a problem and a solution to societal problems, as well as its ethical implications, and reviewed current frameworks for AI governance.
International collaboration is critical because national governments may opt to exploit AI’s ability to influence public opinion and ethical standards common to a diverse range of philosophical traditions that must shape the future vision for AI.
The Dialogue, which brought together legal experts, technologists, philosophers, theologians, mathematicians, scientists, and diplomats, advocated for the synthesis of various philosophical schools of thought – both Eastern and Western – in order to make the ethical discourse surrounding Artificial Intelligence diverse and inclusive.
Renata Dessallien, United Nations Resident Coordinator in India, emphasized the importance of diverse philosophical perspectives, saying, “India brings with it 2500 years of extraordinarily profound, diverse, living, philosophical, and spiritual heritage; and it seems only natural that India contributes pro-actively to this critical topic.”
Dessallien emphasized the inadequacies of contemporary ethical debates around artificial intelligence. “The influence of AI on human agency, relationality, intentionality, and flourishing and well-being is mostly absent from the wider debate on AI ethics. These are often overlooked or dealt with in a casual way, despite the fact that they are critical. We have enacted legislation and established regulatory structures to address a number of these concerns. In other cases, frameworks just extend our current ethical guardrails from the physical world to the digital. However, in other circumstances, AI severely undermines human ethical reasoning.”
The Dialogue was started by Amitabh Kant, CEO of NITI Aayog, who emphasized India’s agenda for Responsible AI. “There must be a powerful and dependable enforcement system that protects people, the environment, and enterprises while also encouraging equitable access to research and innovation,” Mr. Kant said. Any regulatory framework for AI must be proportionate to the danger it poses and strike a balance between innovation and responsible usage. This demands a thorough grasp of how artificial intelligence interacts with our everyday lives. It beyond the purview of politicians and engineers, and the need for interdisciplinary thinking in thinking through and identifying the numerous ethical repercussions is growing,” Kant stated.
C Raj Kumar, the founding Vice-Chancellor of O P Jindal Global University, emphasized the significance of AI in the global context and its implications for humanity, saying “Today, we .ace a slew of global challenges, including the pandemic – a public health crisis, education, poverty, and climate change, among others, for which the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals have been established to shape the future.” With AI holding the ability to assist us in overcoming these obstacles, it is all the more critical to reflect on how to deploy AI to accomplish these objectives more efficiently – but within the context and scope of the ethical problems,” he stated.
Bibek Debroy, Chairperson of the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council, who led the debate on ethics and regulatory frameworks, emphasized the need for humility for humankind. “Whenever we discuss ethics, we are discussing laws. Who drafted these laws, and are they understandable to robots? We tend to believe, in our hubris, that we have the authority to create these rules and that #AI would automatically accept them.”
On whether AI would eventually replace human labor, he said, “I believe that labor capital choice is a result of relative costs.” In a nation like India, the relative price of AI will always be greater than the relative price of labor, owing to the capital-intensive nature of AI. Thus, although there are certain parts where AI may typically replace labor, the labor-capital option is relative.”