The rapid rise of AI and the need for its regulation

Recently, it has been observed that AI may snatch away millions of jobs in the Indian market. As artificial intelligence (AI) technologies continue to advance, concerns arise regarding their potential implications for human workers and the constitutional rights they enjoy. In this opinion piece, we will explore the constitutional implications of replacing humans with AI. We will also examine why employers should rethink the idea of completely replacing humans with AI tools. So, do we need legislation to regulate this intrusion?

Right to livelihood and employment: The Constitution recognises the right to livelihood as an essential aspect of a citizen’s right to life under Article 21. The replacement of human workers by AI systems in certain sectors could potentially infringe upon this right. If the widespread implementation of AI results in mass unemployment or disproportionately affects certain communities, it may lead to social and economic inequalities, which go against the principles of justice and equality enshrined in the Constitution.

Also Read | Technology shouldn’t create fear in the minds of users: CJI D Y Chandrachud

Right to privacy and data protection: AI systems rely on vast amounts of data for training and decision-making. The right to privacy, recognised as a fundamental right under Article 21, imposes an obligation on the state to protect an individual’s personal information. The collection, storage and utilisation of personal data by AI systems should adhere to the principles of informed consent, data minimisation, purpose limitation, and security to safeguard the privacy rights of individuals.

Right to human dignity and autonomy: The Constitution upholds the right to dignity and personal autonomy as inherent to human beings. AI systems, while capable of performing tasks efficiently, lack the ability to truly comprehend human dignity and respect individual autonomy. The replacement of humans by AI in certain domains may lead to impersonal interactions, devaluing the significance of human connection and undermining the principles of dignity and autonomy.

Social and economic justice: The Constitution strives for social and economic justice, aiming to ensure equitable distribution of resources, opportunities and benefits to all citizens. The deployment of AI should be guided by principles that prioritise the welfare of all sections of society, especially marginalised communities. Measures must be taken to bridge the digital divide, provide reskilling opportunities and mitigate the potential adverse impacts of AI on vulnerable groups.

Machines can’t always win

While AI tools would obviously face the above-said constitutional challenges in courts, it is essential to recognise the unique qualities that humans bring to the table. There are still some reasons why humans should not be replaced by ChatGPT or any other AI-based conversational system.

Emotional intelligence and empathy: One of the most significant limitations of AI chatbots is their inability to genuinely understand and empathise with human emotions. Humans possess emotional intelligence, which enables us to comprehend complex emotions, provide support and build meaningful connections. In contrast, ChatGPT lacks the capacity to genuinely empathise, leading to impersonal and potentially unsatisfying interactions.

In various fields such as counselling, healthcare and customer service, human empathy is crucial. Empathetic interactions foster trust, comfort and emotional support, which are fundamental for addressing the diverse needs and concerns of individuals. Replacing humans with AI chatbots would risk compromising the quality of these essential human connections.

Human conversation involves a nuanced understanding of context, cultural nuances and subtle cues. Humans possess the ability to adapt their communication style based on the individual they are interacting with, making the conversation more engaging and personalised. ChatGPT, while impressive in its capabilities, lacks the contextual understanding and adaptability that humans inherently possess. In complex situations that require critical thinking, creative problem-solving and flexibility, human intervention is irreplaceable. Humans can analyse unique circumstances, ask probing questions and navigate ambiguity effectively. The diverse experiences and perspectives we bring to conversations enable us to provide tailored solutions and adapt our approach as necessary.

AI systems like ChatGPT operate based on pre-existing algorithms and data, which raises concerns about bias, fairness and ethical decision-making. These systems can inadvertently perpetuate existing biases present in the training data, leading to discriminatory outcomes. Human oversight and intervention are essential to ensure that conversations remain unbiased, fair and adhere to ethical standards.

Furthermore, humans can be held accountable for their actions and decisions. If a human makes a mistake or behaves unethically, they can be held responsible and face consequences. In contrast, holding AI systems accountable for their actions is significantly more challenging due to their complex algorithms and opaque decision-making processes. The absence of human oversight in conversations could lead to potential harm or misinformation going unchecked.

Human beings possess unique qualities such as creativity, intuition and innovation, which have fuelled progress throughout history. These qualities enable us to think outside the box, generate novel ideas and find unconventional solutions to complex problems. AI chatbots, constrained by their programming and data, lack the creative and intuitive capabilities that humans possess.

In fields such as marketing, design and strategic planning, human creativity and intuition are invaluable.

The ability to understand abstract concepts, interpret symbolism and make imaginative connections cannot be replicated by AI chatbots. By embracing and harnessing human creativity, we can continue to push the boundaries of innovation and drive societal progress.

As we observed, we can create more meaningful and impactful interactions that cater to the diverse needs of individuals by combining the strengths of AI technology with the inherent qualities of human beings.

Therefore, there is a need for a legislation that proposes to have some minimum number of human employees in every entity. By doing so, employers would have the combination of AI’s capabilities and human qualities to produce the best results and, at the same time, it would minimise the constitutional concerns we discussed above.

(Authors are practicing advocates at the Delhi High Court)