“The problem statement of these particular rules, which seems to be deepfakes and harmful deepfakes, perhaps that is better resolved through a value chain approach where you’re assigning appropriate responsibilities across various layers of the AI value chain,” a participant pointed out at MediaNama’s discussion on Regulating For Deepfakes in India on November 5.
The discussion focused on a draft amendment to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. This amendment aims to legally define synthetically generated information; mandate labelling, watermarking, and metadata embedding for such content; require user declarations and automated verification by Significant Social Media Intermediaries (SSMIs); and extend due diligence obligations to intermediaries that facilitate or host synthetic content.
The challenge, however, comes with implementing this harm-based approach to regulation. A service provider can use multiple AI models to generate a final output, and in such cases, it becomes difficult to attribute liability, a participant stated. “I mean, for example, pretty much every hosting service provider today has built on its itself AI tools that its clients, which are companies that are hosting with them, can actually use and leverage. And it’s a B2B2C [business to business to consumer] model, so to speak. So at times, they use part of what they’re using is open source as well. So the complexity of getting to an output that you then make available in the world is fairly, it’s pretty crazy,” they argued.
[Note: The bulk of the discussion was held under the Chatham House Rule. Under the Rule, participants’ remarks may be reported, but their names and affiliations cannot be disclosed. Where speakers specifically waived the Rule, we have added attribution to their comments.]Allocating responsibility across the value chain:
The government can map out the AI value chain, identify the various risks, and then place risk-based obligations on developers, a participant suggested. “To me, that is a much more rational approach than using the IT Rules as the primary instrument for regulating AI. I want to caveat everything by saying that this is a super new debate. I don’t know that anyone in the world has arrived at the right answers just yet,” they added.
When asked whether there is a need for a separate AI law, the participant said that their broader point is that the government’s inclusion of AI companies within the intermediary liability regime is only creating confusion.
Comparing India’s regulatory approach to the EU AI Act, the participant stated that the EU took a risk-based, broader accountability approach. Another participant agreed, saying that instead of focusing on social media platforms, which are content distribution mechanisms, the government’s regulatory approach should prioritize harm assessment on an issue-by-issue…
Source link
Disclaimer
We strive to uphold the highest ethical standards in all of our reporting and coverage. We blogs.grocliq.com want to be transparent with our readers about any potential conflicts of interest that may arise in our work. It’s possible that some of the investors we feature may have connections to other businesses, including competitors or companies we write about. However, we want to assure our readers that this will not have any impact on the integrity or impartiality of our reporting. We are committed to delivering accurate, unbiased news and information to our audience, and we will continue to uphold our ethics and principles in all of our work. Thank you for your trust and support.
Website Upgradation is going on for any glitch kindly connect at [email protected]
