The Race for Global Leadership in AI: Where Does India Stand?

Over 50 countries around the world have announced their own national strategies on Artificial Intelligence (AI) and many others are rushing to do so. AI holds great potential as the key driving force for the next phase of economic growth led by technological innovation and no nation wants to be left behind. However, which countries are early movers in the global AI sweepstakes and where does India stand in the race for global AI leadership?

AI generally refers to capability of machines to mimic human-like cognitive functions, such as learning, thinking and problem solving. It comprises a suite of technologies, e.g., machine learning, deep learning, speech recognition, image processing, etc. that underpin broader technologically driven transformations happening in diverse domains: education, healthcare, industry 4.0, autonomous vehicles, etc. AI also has huge potential military applications in the development of autonomous weapons. There is a growing feeling in many countries that leadership in AI would be crucial in determining strategic and geopolitical influence in future, both at regional and global levels.

Several countries and jurisdictions, such as USA, China, European Union, UK, etc., have already announced their national AI strategies and are early movers in this rapidly evolving technology. Most of them have tried to leverage their own strengths to advance their capabilities in AI. However, they all focus on certain common key elements in varying degrees in their strategies: research and development (R&D), skilling, building data ecosystems, developing computing and network infrastructure, collaborative partnerships, ethics, and regulation.

The US launched its first federal initiative on AI in 2016 and a revamped initiative in 2019 with focus on five key elements: R&D, technical standards, training, promoting public trust and confidence, and protecting the American technological advantage while promoting international collaboration. It has generously funded its AI initiative, with a total budget of approximately $1 billion for non-defence AI R&D in 2020. It had also committed $2 billion over five years on AI R&D in defence in 2018.

The European Union (EU) first published its Coordinated Plan on AI in 2018. It has published an updated plan in April 2021 that focuses on four key components: AI development and implementation, R&D and building data ecosystems, skilling and fostering trust in AI, and building strategic leadership in high impact sectors such as climate, health, and mobility. The public and private funding for AI is estimated to be around EUR 20 billion per year till 2030.

China announced its “New Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Plan” in 2017 with the overarching goal of becoming the world leader in AI by 2030 by creating a trillion Yuan (approx. US$ 150 billion) AI industry in China. The plan focuses on developing and deploying AI in a wide range of economic sectors including defence. While the plan and the strategy are central, the implementation is to be done by the local governments and the private sector. The total national and local government funding on AI programmes is estimated to be in the range of tens of billions of US dollars.

The UK announced its AI Sector Deal in 2018 with the key goal of becoming the world’s most innovative economy in AI. It focuses on education and training, R&D, promoting networking and partnerships, regulation to build trust, developing open data ecosystems, and networking and computing infrastructure. The total funding commitment for the strategy is around GBP 2.7 billion.

Where does India stand in the global race for leadership in AI? The NITI Aayog’s discussion paper on national strategy on AI in 2018 focuses on leveraging AI for inclusive growth and mentions five key domains: healthcare, education, agriculture, smart cities, and transportation and mobility. It also notes five key barriers to excellence in AI that need to be addressed: lack of R&D expertise, lack of high-quality datasets, lack of a regulatory framework on privacy and security, high resource cost and low awareness, and absence of a collaborative approach to adoption and applications. It proposed setting up of five centres of research excellence and 20 centres for transformational AI with a total funding of around Rs. 7,000 crores. However, though the strategy paper was published in 2018, India is yet to launch a comprehensive and coordinated national programme on AI. One study by Oxford Insights placed India at the 40^th position in the world in the Government AI Readiness Index out of 172 countries, a drop of 23 places from the 2019 rankings. Though India currently ranks third in the world in terms of total number of research publications in AI, we need to quickly formulate and implement a well-designed national programme on AI with adequate funding to become a global leader in this strategic technology. This is eminently possible if we can leverage our strengths in R&D due to a strong network of academic and research institutions, availability of a huge talent base and high-quality datasets in diverse domains, and presence of a globally competitive IT sector within the country.

(The author is a senior IAS officer and is currently working as Additional Secretary in the Ministry of Electronics and IT. The views are personal.)

The above article appeared in The Economic Times on 22 August, 2021. The link is here: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-bytes/the-race-for-global-leadership-in-ai-where-does-india-stand/articleshow/85520265.cms

Unduly Worried Over New Information Technology Rules

In a communication dated June 11, three UN Special Rapporteurs raised serious concerns over provisions of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. They claim that these provisions do not meet the standards of rights to privacy and to freedom of expression as per the Articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and that some of the due diligence obligations of intermediaries may infringe upon a ‘’wide range of human rights”.

They claim that the terms such as “ethnically or racially objectionable”, “harmful to child”, “impersonates another person”, etc. are broad and lack clear definitions and may lead to arbitrary application. Nothing could be further from truth. These terms have been very well defined and understood in both Indian and international law and jurisprudence. The Rule 3(1)(b) of the IT Rules specifies these terms clearly as part of a user agreement that the intermediaries must publish. They are aimed at bringing more transparency in how intermediaries deal with the user content and are not violative of the UN’s Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression and “Fake News”, Disinformation and Propaganda.

It must also be mentioned that the Rule 3(1)(d) allows for removal of an unlawful content relating to sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, etc. only upon an order by a competent court or by the Appropriate Government. This is as per the due process specified by the Supreme Court in the Shreya Singhal Vs Union of India case in 2015. Given the potential of immense harm that can be caused by such unlawful content being freely available online, the time limit of 36 hours for their removal after due process is reasonable. Similarly, the time limit of 72 hours for providing information for investigation in response to lawful requests in writing from government agencies is entirely reasonable. The Rule 3(2) also provides for establishing a grievance redressal mechanism by the intermediaries and resolution of user complaints within 15 days. However, content in the nature of ‘revenge porn’ must be removed within 24 hours. Again, given the potential of immense personal damage that such acts can cause to the dignity of women and children, this time limit is reasonable.

The liability of the Chief Compliance Officer under Rule 4(1) of a significant social media intermediary is not arbitrary. He or she can be held liable in any proceeding only after a due process of law. This has been clearly specified in the rule itself.

The apprehensions about the Rules harming privacy are also misplaced. The Rule 4(2) requires the significant social media intermediaries to provide only the metadata about the first originator of a viral message that may be required for investigation of a serious crime relating to sovereignty and integrity of India, public order, rape, child sexual abuse, etc. that are punishable with a minimum term of five years. This again is after a lawful order is passed by a court or a competent authority and where there is no other less intrusive means of obtaining such information. There is no provision to ask the intermediary to break any encryption to obtain the contents of the message. In fact, the content is provided by the law enforcement agencies to the intermediary. Lawful investigation of crimes cannot be termed as harmful to privacy. Several countries, such as the US, UK and Australia have enacted laws that allow for far more intrusive interception of encrypted messages, including their decryption.

The concerns with regard to media freedom are also misplaced. The section 5 of the UN’s Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression and “Fake News”, specifically enjoins upon the media outlets to provide for self-regulation at the individual media outlet level and/or at the media sector level. The IT Rules provide for a three-tier system of regulation, in which the government oversight mechanism comes in at the third level only after the first two tiers of self-regulation have failed to produce a resolution. The rules clearly specify the due process for the government oversight mechanism.

India is a vibrant democracy with a long tradition of rule of law and respect for freedom of expression and privacy. The IT Rules aim at empowering the users to enable them to exercise their right to freedom of expression responsibly and prevent the misuse of these platforms for unlawful purposes. The selective interpretation of the provisions of the IT Rules by the UN Rapporteurs is, at best, disingenuous.

(The above article appeared in The Economic Times on July 11, 2021 and is available at https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/opinion/et-commentary/unduly-worried-over-new-rules/articleshow/84323812.cms?from=mdr. The views expressed by the author are personal.)

New Code for Digital Media Seeks to Strike a Balance Between Freedom and Responsibility

Countries around the world have grappled with the issue of regulating content hosted by the internet intermediaries. As the internet allows freedom to anyone to host content without any moderation, intermediaries were allowed protection from liability for third-party content through laws such as section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in the US and the safe harbour provisions in the EU with certain exceptions for illegal content.

Section 79 of the IT Act in India also allowed exemption to the intermediaries for third-party content provided they observed certain due diligence. The content could be removed only based on orders from a court or from an authorised government agency with certain conditions as laid down by the Supreme Court in the 2015 Shreya Singhal vs Union of India case.

This classical interpretation of the role of intermediaries worked satisfactorily for several years as the services they provided were predominantly passive in nature. However, the enormous growth of social media during the last decade with their hundreds of millions of users has made the limitations of this framework starkly evident as they have been unable to check the proliferation of fake news, and other illegal and harmful content on their platforms. The proliferation of fake accounts and bots has only aggravated the problem. Several countries, e.g., Germany, France, Australia and Singapore have enacted legislation to deal with unlawful and harmful content on these platforms.

The new Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code must be seen in the context of the need to make these platforms more responsible and accountable. These rules specify certain due diligence and institute a mechanism for redressal of grievances. The due diligence includes informing the users about their privacy policy and an agreement not to host any unlawful or harmful content. The rules envisage removal of content only in three situations: voluntary removal due to violation of the privacy policy or user agreement, pursuant to an order by a court or an authorised government agency or based on the grievances received.

The rules also specify some additional due diligence to be observed by ‘significant social media intermediaries’, defined based on the number of registered users (currently specified as 50 lakhs) in India. These include appointment of a Chief Compliance Officer, a nodal contact person, and a Resident Grievance Officer, who should all be residents in India. The intermediary should also have a physical contact address in India. The rules also include providing information about the first originator in India of any unlawful message for the purposes of investigation of specified offences that are punishable with imprisonment of not less than five years. It must be noted that the intermediary is not required to disclose the contents of the message itself.

The Digital Media Ethics Code under these rules create a largely self-regulatory framework for publishers of online news and current affairs and online curated content on Over-the-Top (OTT) platforms. The oversight mechanism of the government comes into play only after the redressal mechanism at the first two levels has failed to address the grievance satisfactorily.

It is relevant to note that the exemptions to the intermediaries under section 79 are still available, provided they observe the due diligence as specified.

Freedom of expression must come with adequate responsibility and accountability. John Stuart Mill, one of the most influential thinkers in classical liberalism, explicitly recognized the ‘harm principle’ while arguing for placing some limitations on free expression. The new rules seek to strike a fine balance between freedom and responsibility in the online world.

(The above article appeared in The Economic Times on March 19, 2021 and is available at: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/media/entertainment/media/view-new-code-for-digital-media-seeks-to-strike-a-balance-between-freedom-responsibility/articleshow/81593609.cms. The views of the author are personal.)

The COVID-19 Pandemic in India: Comparing Early Phase of Growth with Selected Countries

Source:https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200124/coronavirus-2020-outbreak-latest-updates

COVID-19 pandemic has affected the vast majority of nations around the world. However, different countries have experienced different trajectories of growth in coronavirus infections. In India also, the pandemic is showing a growing trajectory currently despite a late start. In this article, I analyze the early phase of growth of the pandemic in selected countries in terms of growth of the total number of cases and total number of deaths with time and examine how they compare with the current phase of growth of the cases in India. Such a comparison might be helpful in understanding the future trends of growth of the pandemic in India and the steps to be taken to contain its spread or ‘flatten’ the curve.

As the coronavirus cases in India have recently crossed 3,000, I take this figure for comparing the early phase of growth in selected countries and compare the number of days taken to reach 3,000 cases from the first 100 cases. I select ten countries for comparison based on the highest number of confirmed cases as on April 4, 2020 (I have excluded China as comparable data on the early phase of growth in that country are not available). For easier comparison, I take five countries each in two groups along with India in each group. In the first set, I examine the early phase of growth in USA, Italy, Spain, Germany and France with that of India to compare the number of days taken for the cases to reach 3,000 from an initial level of 100. This is depicted in the Fig. 1. As can be seen, it has taken 21 days in India for the cases to grow from 100 to 3,000. A significant part of the rise in cases in India has occurred in the last 3-4 days of this period, which has been linked to the Tablighi-Jamaat event in Delhi [1], [2]. However, the time taken in India to reach this level of cases is still much longer when compared to the duration for the same number of cases in the other countries in the group showing that the curve has been much ‘flatter’ in India.

Fig.1: Coronavirus cases in select countries – No. of days taken to grow from 100 to 3000

Source: The author, with data from https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ (accessed on April 4, 2020).

Fig. 2 depicts the same comparison with the other five countries in the group, namely Iran, UK, Turkey, Switzerland and Belgium. Again, we can see that the growth trajectory of the cases has been much steeper in all these countries when compared to the same for India.

Fig.2: Coronavirus cases in select countries – No. of days taken to grow from 100 to 3000

Source: The author, with data from https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ (accessed on April 4, 2020).

Trends in Deaths Due to Coronavirus

It is also helpful to understand the growth trends in deaths occurring in the above countries due to COVID-19. As the number of deaths due to coronavirus in India has crossed 50 recently, I take this figure for comparative analysis of the selected countries for the number of days taken for the deaths to reach 50 starting from the first death. Fig. 3 depicts this trend. As can be observed, France is the only country in this group that has taken more days than India to cross the first 50 deaths. However, the growth rate of deaths has been much steeper in France after this stage.

Fig.3: Deaths due to coronavirus in select countries – No. of days taken to reach first 50 deaths.

Source: The author, with data from https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ (accessed on April 5, 2020).

Fig. 4 below depicts the same comparative picture for the second group of countries comprising Iran, UK, Turkey, Switzerland and Belgium. As we can see, the growth trajectory of the total deaths in all these countries has been significantly steeper than that in India.

Fig.4: Deaths due to coronavirus in select countries – No. of days taken to reach first 50 deaths.

Source: The author, with data from https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ (accessed on April 5, 2020).

As the analysis above shows, at this stage, the growth trajectory of the pandemic in terms of both the total number of cases and the total number of deaths looks significantly flatter in India when compared to the same during the early phases in the above selected countries. It is relevant to note here that I have not examined the impact of the lockdown on the growth of the cases as comparable data on the impact of lockdowns from the above selected countries during the early phase of the pandemic are not available.

References:

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/coronavirus-tablighi-jamaat-30-per-cent-of-coronavirus-cases-linked-to-delhi-mosque-event-government-2206163 (accessed on April 6, 2020).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/india-coronavirus-tablighi-jamaat-delhi/2020/04/02/abdc5af0-7386-11ea-ad9b-254ec99993bc_story.html (accessed on April 6, 2020).

(The views expressed in this article are personal).

The COVID-19 Pandemic: Are We Still in the Exponential Growth Phase?

Microscopic view of Coronavirus, a pathogen that attacks the respiratory tract (source: https://www.health.harvard.edu/)

The Novel Coronavirus or COVID-19 pandemic is sweeping the world. As on March 31^st, 2020 (end of day, GMT), the total cumulative number of confirmed coronavirus cases worldwide had shot up to 858,355 and the total number of deaths had increased cumulatively to 42,309. The total number of new confirmed cases on a single day on March 31st, 2020 alone was recorded at 73,617. What is the trend of daily new cases worldwide and are there any signs of the growth tapering off? In other words, has the exponential growth phase of the pandemic passed or still continuing? What about the trends in deaths due to coronavirus? In this article, I make an attempt to analyze these trends based on the relevant data for a period of 31 days from March 01, 2020 to March 31, 2020.

First, it is helpful to see how the total confirmed coronavirus cases have increased over the last 30 days (Fig.1). As can be seen, the rising trend in the total number of cases can be clearly observed. The daily new cases are also clearly showing a rising trend during this period.

Fig.1: Coronavirus cases – worldwide.

Source: The author, with data from https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ (accessed on April 1, 2020).

To examine whether the growth in the total number of cases is still continuing at an exponential rate, we turn to another important variable – the growth factor of daily new cases. This factor is the ratio of number of daily new cases over the number of new cases on the previous day. Simply put, this factor indicates the rate at which a given quantity multiplies itself during a specific period. For example, a growth factor of 1.1 in daily new cases would indicate that the number of daily new cases has increased by 10% (by a growth factor of 1.1) over the number of new cases on the previous day. If the growth factor remains consistently above 1.0, that would indicate that the exponential growth phase in total cases is still continuing. On the other hand, a growth factor consistently below 1.0 would indicate a decline in daily new cases with the daily new cases eventually becoming zero. In such a scenario, the cumulative total number of cases would eventually stop growing.

Fig. 2 indicates the trend in growth factor of daily new coronavirus cases worldwide. As can be seen, during March 2020, only on 7 days (out of 31), the daily growth factor has remained below 1.0. On 24 days, the growth factor has stayed above 1.0. In the last ten days of this period, the daily growth factor has remained above 1.0 on eight days. This would indicate that the exponential growth in the total number of cases worldwide may still be continuing.

Fig.2: Growth Factor of Daily New Coronavirus Cases – Worldwide.

Source: The author, with data from https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ (accessed on April 1, 2020).

Trends in Deaths Due to Coronavirus

It is also helpful to understand the trends in deaths occurring worldwide due to COVID-19. Fig. 3 depicts this trend during March 2020. As can be seen, the total cumulative deaths due to coronavirus are still increasing and the daily new deaths also exhibit a rising trend.

Fig.3: Deaths Due to Coronavirus – Worldwide.

Source: The author, with data from https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ (accessed on April 1, 2020).

To examine whether the growth in total deaths due to coronavirus is tapering off or still rising exponentially, we turn to the growth factor in daily new deaths. This is depicted in Fig. 4 below. Again, we can see that this growth factor has remained below 1.0 only on 7 days during March 2020 whereas on the remaining days, it has shown a value above 1.0. During the last ten days of the month, this factor has remained above 1.0 on nine days. Hence, the exponential growth phase in total deaths worldwide due to coronavirus may still be continuing.

Fig.4: Growth Factor of Daily New Deaths – Worldwide.

Source: The author, with data from https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ (accessed on April 1, 2020).

In conclusion, as the above analysis shows, we can say that the growth in both the total number of confirmed cases and total deaths worldwide due to coronavirus may still be continuing in the exponential phase. Countries around the world have been taking massive efforts to minimize the surging infections and deaths due to this pandemic. These efforts need to be increased and carefully calibrated to deal with the massive challenge on hand.

(The views expressed in this article are personal).