minister for AI. This would be in keeping with a governmental interface for all technologies with transformative potential such as telecommunications and aerospace.
The scope of social upheaval should guide the legislative, executive and judicial response to making AI responsible. A dedicated ministry would be able to harness the positive outcomes of AI by ensuring timely deployment while curbing negative results by addressing delinquency to evolving rules.
Then there is the matter of using AI for strategic purposes, an endeavour that must be guided by the state alongside building defences around rogue action by other states or even non-state actors. More importantly, it would help in creating an environment conducive to the growth of the technology and ones further down the tunnel that are likely to be even more powerful than generative AI.
This last point is emphasised by Omar Al Olama, UAE's minister for AI since 2017, who points out how technophobia and overregulation of the printing press by the calligraphy 'lobby' turned into a competitive disadvantage in West Asia for nearly 200 years.
Then there's irresponsible AI and its potential to stir up xenophobia, which, in turn, could slow down AI's spread.
The job of ensuring ethical behaviour both by technology developers and their business clients falls naturally on the government.
This is also the approach of the EU, which has put people at the centre of the societal response to AI — as opposed to the US response, which is using collaboration between the administration and Big Tech to drive ethical use.
GoI's response to AI is being led by NITI Aayog to test the new technology and craft a policy to build a conducive ecosystem. Both outcomes would be better