7 Regulatory Issues Facing AI Technologies Today

Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming the world, with new systems emerging almost weekly and consistently surpassing their predecessors in capability. As these advancements reshape our daily lives, societies are hastily establishing safeguards to manage them effectively. This article aims to outline the seven most pressing regulatory hurdles facing AI technologies today, focusing on an Indian perspective.

AI is quickly changing everything around us and new systems keep getting better every week. To ensure these changes are positive, societies are putting up rules as fast as they can. This article will explain the top 7 challenges in regulating AI from India’s point of view.

Privacy and data protection

AI systems thrive on vast amounts of data, which can lead to tensions with privacy safeguards. So, when you engage with a conversational bot or a visual creator, the question arises: Where is your information stored? Who has access to it? How long does it remain there?

India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act aims to address such concerns by enforcing explicit approval for data collection. However, putting this into practice raises challenging questions: What constitutes informed consent? How can consumers truly comprehend the complex methods AI might use to process their data? Furthermore, what happens if AI systems deduce information about individuals who were never part of the original dataset?

Bias and discrimination

AI systems learn from existing data, which often contains inherent biases. If left unaddressed, these systems may perpetuate and potentially amplify prejudice or discrimination.

Examine artificial intelligence for recruiting, a trending tool among Indian companies aiming to automate the hiring process. These AI systems, when educated using past hiring decisions that favored certain demographics, often perpetuate the same prejudices.

Regulators grapple with a tricky dilemma: promoting fairness while not stifling progress. Should companies test AI models for potential bias before they’re used, and if so, what guidelines should be followed? These issues remain largely unsettled within the current regulatory framework in India.

Safety and security threats

With advancements in artificial intelligence, so does the risk of harmful consequences rise. Powerful language models can generate convincing misinformation. Image synthesizers are capable of creating realistic deepfakes. AI systems managing vital infrastructure could become targets for cyberattacks.

Addressing the challenge of establishing safety standards for potential risks, which are often theoretical in nature, can be perplexing. How do we regulate harm that has yet to materialize? Should high-risk AI systems undergo certification before deployment? And who decides what constitutes a “high-risk” system?

These questions prompt us to consider the following:
1. Developing safety standards for theoretical risks can be tricky, as we’re trying to control for potential harm that hasn’t happened yet.
2. High-risk AI systems may require certification prior to deployment to ensure they meet certain safety requirements.
3. The determination of what is considered “high-risk” could be a collaborative effort involving experts from various fields, policy makers, and the public.

Transparency and explainability

Modern artificial intelligence systems often function like “opaque devices,” meaning even their creators can’t justify certain actions. This lack of transparency poses substantial challenges for regulation, especially when these systems are responsible for life-altering decisions concerning individuals.

In terms of credit scoring, if a loan request gets turned down due to an AI system’s decision, shouldn’t the applicant have the right to understand the reasons behind it? The Reserve Bank of India has begun outlining regulations that require financial institutions to provide explanations for automated decisions, but compliance can sometimes be inconsistent.

Overcoming the significant challenge lies in creating intricate yet completely transparent neural networks. However, increasing complexity might negatively impact their efficiency. Authorities must determine the level of transparency required for different applications, striking a balance between fostering innovation and ensuring responsibility by assessing its worth against the need for accountability.

IP and copyright

Discussing AI-generated works based on copyrighted content raises intellectual property rights concerns. If an AI learns and creates a song resembling popular Indian musicians after being trained on their music, who holds the rights to the final output becomes a question. It seems fair that the original musicians should be compensated for their contribution.

In reality, not just speculation—this is happening now. By 2025, prominent record labels claimed that AI-generated tunes were using songs whose rights they held as learning resources. This controversy has sparked a legal dispute, highlighting the inadequacies of current copyright laws when it comes to AI-produced content.

As a film enthusiast, I often ponder about how the original creators of our beloved movies would feel knowing their works can be remixed, reimagined, or even copied by others. While I appreciate the creativity this fosters, I also understand the need to protect the rights of these original artists. Navigating this balance between preserving creative ownership and promoting innovative adaptations is a delicate dance that regulators must perform with great care.

Liability and accountability

Who should bear the responsibility when AI systems cause harm? Is it the designer, the one who deploys them, or the final user? Traditional legal structures don’t account for autonomous systems effectively.

In a hypothetical situation like an accident involving a self-driving vehicle, the lack of clear regulations would become strikingly apparent. Determining responsibility for such incidents can be extremely complex. Who should bear the blame – the software developer, the car manufacturer, or the person who was not actually operating the vehicle? As artificial intelligence continues to evolve and become more widespread, it’s crucial that we establish clear frameworks for assigning liability.

Cross-border regulation

AI transcends geographical boundaries, allowing a system created in one country like the United States to be utilized in another, such as India. Such an AI model can be educated using data sourced worldwide, ultimately impacting users on a global scale. This cross-border application presents significant regulatory challenges for national authorities.

India’s strategy involves championing “digital autonomy,” which essentially means imposing obligations for data storage within the country. However, there’s a delicate balance to strike between fostering homegrown AI advancements and engaging in global AI regulation. How do Indian authorities manage this balance by safeguarding citizens while ensuring domestic companies remain competitive on an international scale?

It’s important to consider the complexity of the situation when viewed through a cultural lens. Existing AI moderation tools designed for Western markets often struggle to understand and appropriately handle Indian cultural nuances, sometimes incorrectly censoring content. This raises the question: Is it necessary for India to develop AI systems tailored to its unique cultural context within its market?

The Road Ahead

By navigating these regulatory obstacles, India has an opportunity to devise a balanced approach that protects people and fosters innovation. The example set by traditional financial institutions like NBFCs adapting to financial technology regulations demonstrates one possible path forward. The increasing use of AI in businesses like online marketplaces highlights how well-crafted guidelines can promote growth while minimizing risks. The key lies in regulations that are thoughtfully developed alongside technological progress.

2025-03-11 14:45

Read More