The Artificial Intelligence Act of the European Union
Context:
The EU AI Act, recognized as the inaugural legislation on artificial intelligence (AI) globally, aims to establish a regulatory framework for AI technologies.
Its objectives include mitigating risks associated with AI systems and providing clear guidelines for developers, users, and regulators.
Background:
- On June 14, 2023, the European Parliament passed the Artificial Intelligence Act (the “Act”).
- The Act is currently undergoing a review by negotiators from the European Union’s three bodies – the European Commission, Council, and Parliament – to reconcile different versions and finalize implementing language.
- Recently, it gained approval from EU legislators, marking a significant step in regulating AI.
The Act represents the most comprehensive set of regulations impacting AI systems thus far. It addresses various aspects of AI, encompassing both the potential risks and benefits associated with its applications.
Key Points about the Act:
- Restrictions on Risky AI Uses:
The Act, as passed by the European Parliament, aims to limit what the EU considers the riskiest applications of AI, such as facial recognition software and Chatbots like ChatGPT.
The EU’s overarching goal is to foster better conditions for the development and utilization of innovative technologies.
- Recognition of AI’s Benefits and Regulation of Excesses:
While recognizing the benefits of AI in sectors like healthcare, transportation, manufacturing, and energy, the EU seeks to implement regulations that prevent potential excesses and violations of fundamental rights within the EU.
- Scope of the Act:
The Act is expansive in its reach, governing any entity providing a service that utilizes AI.
This includes services generating content, predictions, recommendations, or decisions.
Key Provisions of the Act:
- Risk-Based Regulation:
The AI Act proposes a risk-based system categorizing AI systems into unacceptable risk, high risk, and low or minimal risk categories.
- Unacceptable Risk:
AI systems posing threats to individuals, such as cognitive manipulation and real-time biometric identification, are classified as unacceptable risk and are outright banned.
- High Risk:
Systems impacting critical infrastructure or fundamental rights fall under the high-risk category, with the Act outlining compliance requirements and obligations for providers.
- Risk Management for High Risk:
The Act specifies risk management measures for high-risk systems, including documentation, transparency, human oversight, and provider obligations to ensure compliance.
- Low or Minimal Risk:
AI systems with low or minimal risk must comply with minimal transparency requirements to enable informed decisions by users. However, they are generally less regulated compared to high-risk systems.
Specific Requirements for Generative AI Software (e.g., ChatGPT):
Generative AI software is mandated to adhere to transparency requirements, such as disclosing that the content was AI-generated, designing models to prevent the generation of illegal content, and publishing summaries of copyrighted data used for training.
Providers of foundation models face obligations, including risk assessments, mitigation of foreseeable risks, establishment of data governance measures, obligations related to the design of foundation models (considering environmental impact), and registration in an EU database.
Assam’s School of Happiness
Context:
The Bodoland Territorial Region (BTR) in Assam is preparing to inaugurate the International School of Peace and Happiness, an innovative institution dedicated to imparting lessons on humanity and societal well-being.
Background of the School of Happiness
- Initiative by the Bodoland Territorial Council: Over the past year, the Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC), governing the BTR, has been actively involved in planning the establishment of the International School of Peace and Happiness.
- Addressing Regional Strife: In light of ethnic conflicts and extremism experienced in the BTR, the school aims to foster human values and coexistence in a region characterized by diverse faiths, cultures, and ethnicities.
- Vision of the BTC: The BTC underscores the importance of formal education in peace-building and happiness to cultivate individuals who can serve as peace ambassadors for conflict resolution.
Origins of the School
- Pilot Project: The idea for the International School of Peace and Happiness originated from the Bodoland Happiness Mission, a pilot project introduced a year ago.
- Training Peace Volunteers: Approximately 400 youth and community leaders underwent training as peace and happiness volunteers at Bodoland Community Counselling Centres.
Focus of the Training: The program covered awareness of social issue-related laws, bias elimination, self-awareness, counseling techniques, and stress management.
Logistics Ease Across Different State (LEADS) 2023
Context:
In the unveiling ceremony of the “Logistics Ease Across Different State (LEADS) 2023” report, Sh. Piyush Goyal, the Union Minister of Commerce & Industry, Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution, and Textiles, introduced a comprehensive document aimed at guiding States and Union Territories (UTs) towards transformative reforms in the logistics sector. The report serves several purposes:
- Strategic Insights: The primary goal is to offer strategic insights to stakeholders in the logistics sector.
- Competition Encouragement: It encourages healthy competition among States and UTs to improve logistics performance, aligning with the vision of Viksit Bharat.
The report emphasizes key initiatives, such as PM GatiShakti, the granting of ‘industry’ status to logistics, and the promotion of digital initiatives.
It underscores the pivotal role of logistics in India’s growth vision, aspiring for a tenfold increase from USD 3.5 trillion to USD 35 trillion by 2047.
Key highlights of the report include:
- Survey Details: The report is based on a pan-India primary survey conducted between May and July 2023, covering over 7,300 responses across 36 States/UTs.
- Performance Evaluation: It evaluates achievements, fast movers, and aspirers in different groups (Coastal, Landlocked, North-East, Union Territories).
- Evolution and Objectivity: Conceived in 2018, LEADS evolved to incorporate both perception and objectivity in its evaluation. It differs from the Logistics Performance Index by considering a wider spectrum of state initiatives.
- Positive Shift in Performance: LEADS 2023 indicates a positive shift in States’ performance across key pillars: Logistics Infrastructure, Logistics Services, and Operating and Regulatory Environment. It provides region-specific insights for informed decision-making and comprehensive growth.
Performance highlights from LEADS 2023 include:
– Coastal Group:
– Achievers: Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu.
– Fast Movers: Kerala, Maharashtra.
– Aspirers: Goa, Odisha, West Bengal.
– Landlocked Group:
– Achievers: Haryana, Punjab, Telangana, Uttar Pradesh.
– Fast Movers: Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Uttarakhand.
– Aspirers: Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand.
– North-East Group:
– Achievers: Assam, Sikkim, Tripura.
– Fast Movers: Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland.
– Aspirers: Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram.
– Union Territories:
– Achievers: Chandigarh, Delhi.
– Fast Movers: Andaman & Nicobar, Lakshadweep, Puducherry.
– Aspirers: Daman & Diu/Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Jammu & Kashmir, Ladakh.
Additionally, the report highlights collaborative development, as LEADS 2023 was developed collaboratively to bring objectivity to the assessment of infrastructure development and process-related reforms. Twenty-three States/UTs aligned their State Logistics Policies with the National Logistics Policy.
UN Security Council, why are only five countries granted the veto power?
Key Theme
The recent United Nations (UN) resolution vote, which witnessed 153 countries in favor and 10 against, including the United States supporting Israel, highlights the disproportionate influence of certain nations in shaping global decisions.
This pattern of voting directs attention to the veto powers exercised within the UN Security Council (UNSC) and their enduring presence spanning over seven decades.
Understanding Veto Power in the UNSC
- Exclusive Membership: The UNSC is composed of five permanent members (P5) – the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China – alongside 10 non-permanent members.
- Authority of Resolutions: Unlike the General Assembly, resolutions approved by the UNSC carry legal obligations.
- Veto Mechanism: Any P5 member holds the authority to veto a resolution, thereby preventing its adoption even with majority support.
Reasoning Behind Veto Power for Permanent Members
Post-WWII Context: The P5, instrumental in establishing the UN after World War II, were accorded special privileges, including veto power, in acknowledgment of their pivotal roles.
Strategic Imperative: The veto was deemed crucial to secure the engagement of these major powers in global peacekeeping endeavors.
Genesis and Development of the UN and Veto Power
- Foundational Deliberations: The framework of veto power was formulated during pivotal meetings such as the Dumbarton Oaks and Yalta Conferences.
- FDR’s Influence: President Franklin D. Roosevelt envisioned the UN as a post-war peacekeeping entity, with the ‘Four Policemen’ (USA, USSR, UK, and China) at its core.
- Diplomatic Initiatives of the USA: The United States employed various strategies, including intelligence efforts, to attain veto power in the UN Charter.
Controversies and Critiques of the Veto Power
Global Discontent: The restricted nature of veto power has been a subject of disagreement for numerous nations.
Resistance to Modification: Efforts to broaden the P5 or alter veto rights have met limited success due to the vested interests of the permanent members.
Acknowledging Adjustments: The inclusion of more non-permanent UNSC members in 1965 acknowledged the evolving international landscape.
Reform Propositions: Suggestions involve transforming all 15 seats into temporary positions with five-year terms, fostering open competition for seats, and imposing lobbying and term limits.
Conclusion
Ongoing Debates: The utilization of veto power in the UNSC continues to be a contentious topic, mirroring the intricate nature of global politics.
Adaptation to Contemporary Realities: With the evolution of the world’s political landscape, there might be escalating pressure to reshape the UNSC’s structure and veto mechanism to better suit the prevailing global order.
