- Appointment of Chief Justice (CJ)
- Confronting the Longterm Risks of Artificial Intelligence
The affirmation from the Center to the Supreme Court regarding the imminent notification of appointment of Chief Justice (CJ) of the Manipur High Court is a positive development. Indicating a more cooperative stance towards Collegium recommendations, the Center has submitted 70 names endorsed by constitutional authorities from various states for High Court judge appointments.
“The Centre should stick to timelines to avoid friction with the Collegium.” Highlighting the conflicting areas between the government and collegium, suggest an effective way forward strategy. (15 marks, 250 words).
Government vs Collegium conflict continues:
Delay in appointment:
The delay in confirming the Justice’s appointment seems to have stemmed from the State government’s time-consuming evaluation of the proposal. Despite the Collegium recommending his name on July 5, the delay was notably unusual.
The Collegium has also proposed transferring Justice currently the Acting CJ in Manipur, to the Calcutta High Court. The Collegium rejected his plea to either stay in Manipur or return to his home court, the Madras High Court, just a few days ago. The notification of this transfer remains pending.
Ignoring Collegium’s recommendations:
The Court has been vocal about the Center’s selective approach to Collegium recommendations, instances of names being sent back despite reiterated endorsement, and the government’s tendency to overlook certain Collegium decisions. For instance, the government ignored the recommendation to transfer Justice T. Raja from Acting CJ in Madras to the Rajasthan High Court until his retirement.
The ongoing conflict between the government and the Collegium over the appointment process is evident and often escalates. There is a pressing need to streamline the process, aligning with the Supreme Court’s April 2021 directive that set timelines for the government to process Collegium-recommended names and express reservations if any. Once the Collegium reiterates a recommendation, it should be implemented within three to four weeks.
Despite the flaws in the Collegium process, undermining the legal stance that a reiterated decision is binding on the government does not bode well for the institution.
Risk is a dynamic and continuously changing concept, influenced by shifts in societal values, technological progress, and scientific discoveries. Before the digital age, openly sharing personal details was relatively safe. However, in the era of cyberattacks and data breaches, the same action now carries significant dangers.
GS3- Science and Technology
“In the ever-evolving landscape of AI risks, the choices made today will shape the world inherited tomorrow.” Comment. (15 marks, 250 words).
Risks associated with AI:
The Center for AI Safety, with input from over 350 AI professionals, has voiced concerns over potential risks posed by AI technology.
Immediate and Long-term risks:
Immediate risks involve ensuring that AI systems function properly in their day-to-day tasks, while long-term risks grapple with broader existential questions about AI’s role in society. These risks may include the amalgamation of AI and biotechnology, potentially altering human existence by manipulating emotions, thoughts, and desires.
Intermediate and existential risks of more advanced AI systems, especially if vital infrastructure relies heavily on AI, could disrupt essential services and public well-being. Concerns about a ‘runaway AI’ causing significant harm, such as manipulating critical systems like water distribution or altering chemical balances in water supplies, are not entirely improbable.
The evolution toward human-level AI capable of outperforming human cognitive tasks poses a pivotal shift in risks. Rapid self-improvement of such AIs leading to superintelligence presents dire scenarios if misaligned or manipulated for malicious goals.
Global Landscape of risks associated with AI:
- The lack of a unified global approach to AI regulation, as evidenced by the diverse legislative landscape across countries, raises concerns about unchecked AI development.
- The European Union’s AI Act, adopting a ‘risk-based’ approach, ties risk severity to the area of AI deployment. However, a more holistic view of AI risks is essential for comprehensive and effective regulation and oversight.
- International collaboration is conspicuously absent, and without cohesive action, long-term risks associated with AI cannot be adequately mitigated.
- The uneven playing field in AI development, with some countries lacking regulations, poses risks of destabilization and conflict, undermining international peace and security.
- Rigorous AI safety protocols may disadvantage nations in a race to the bottom, neglecting safety and ethical considerations for rapid development.
The convergence of technology with warfare amplifies long-term risks, necessitating global norms for AI in warfare. Treaties, such as the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the Chemical Weapons Convention, demonstrate the feasibility of establishing international accord to manage potent technologies.
It is crucial for nations to delineate unacceptable AI deployment areas and enforce clear norms for AI’s role in warfare. Aligning AI with universally accepted human values is a challenge, given the rapid pace of AI advancement driven by market pressures. In the ever-evolving landscape of AI risks, the choices made today will shape the world inherited tomorrow.