A global AI bill of rights is desperately needed | Financial Times
Now White House science advisers are proposing a Bill of Artificial Intelligence Rights, emulating the US Bill of Rights adopted in 1791. That bill, intended as a check on government power, enshrined such concepts as freedom of expression and the right to a fair trial. “In the 21st century, we need a ‘bill of rights’ to guard against the powerful technologies we have created . . . it’s unacceptable to create AI that harms many people, just as it’s unacceptable to create pharmaceuticals and other products — whether cars, children’s toys or medical devices — that will harm many people,” write Eric Lander, Biden’s chief science adviser, and Alondra Nelson, deputy director of science and society in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, in Wired.
AI is disruptive. The new Bill of Rights will give the west a new beating stick to make the “rest of the world” conform to their ideas of AI- much like dysfunctional United Nations whose current functioning is long past sell by date and is oblivious of the changed perceptions and ground realities. I am not arguing against fundamental human values- I am only arguind against the quixotic tendencies of the west to pointificate at others. It boils down to academic gatekeeping, creating “safe spaces” for their mentees and pushing agendas and narratives by excessive politicisation of academia through cancel cultures.
Therefore, a “global bill of rights” is as futile as the “Miss Worlds” crooning about eliminating “global poverty”. Poverty is eradicated by removing the barriers that prevent people from exercising their rights; not by hand-outs or in glitzy conferences.
This pro-citizen approach is in striking contrast to that adopted in the UK, which sees light-touch regulation in the data industry as a potential Brexit dividend. The UK government has even raised the prospect of removing or diluting Article 22 of GDPR regulations, which accords people the right to a human review of AI decisions. Last month, ministers launched a 10-week public consultation on its plans to create an “ambitious, pro-growth and innovation-friendly data protection regime”.
Do citizens even know what machine learning is? It will require a massive education campaign, in objective terms; though public opinion is better harnessed through polarisation.
Here’s an example- which headlines do you think, people will pay attention to?
“AI requires significant investments in ensuring equitable distribution of resources”
“AI discriminates against blacks, hispanics and minorties in government jobs”
Each country will draw its map and line based on the extent of learning; I hope that policy is not drawn by reading Financial Times or opnion writers whose opinion is not even worth the paper it is printed on. We are seized with the “communal mentality” of the “global-left” whose affirmative actions have brought ruins to the same countries where it was mainstream. I am not arguing for naked capitalism without checks and balances but a middle path.