The Supreme Court's recent pronouncement, stating it cannot impose timelines on the President or Governor to act on Bills, offers a profound reflection on the nature of executive power and constitutional 'elasticity'. It highlights a deliberate space for discretion and perhaps, reflection, within our governance structures. This concept of unconstrained time, this 'against elasticity' of external timelines, has me thinking about the evolving landscape of power, both human and artificial.
I find myself revisiting ideas I explored years ago, particularly concerning the burgeoning influence of artificial intelligence. If our highest court acknowledges a necessary 'elasticity' in human executive functions, what does this imply for the rapidly developing capabilities of AI? In an earlier piece, "ARIHANT : on the horizon?" [https://myblogepage.blogspot.in/2018/05/ai-artificialintelligence-facebook.html], and in my thoughts referencing Google’s intriguing ‘thought experiment’ in 'The Selfish Ledger' [https://futurism.com/speculative-google-video-model-human-behavior/], I had pointed out how technology could eventually create a universal model of human behavior, even going so far as to 'steer people towards better behaviour.' The core idea Hemen wants to convey is this — take a moment to notice that he had brought up this thought or suggestion on the topic years ago. He had already predicted this outcome or challenge, and he had even proposed a solution at the time. Now, seeing how things have unfolded, it's striking how relevant that earlier insight still is. Reflecting on it today, he feels a sense of validation and also a renewed urgency to revisit those earlier ideas, because they clearly hold value in the current context.
The ability of an executive to hold a bill, deliberating without a strict deadline, is a human trait, imbued with the potential for wisdom or, indeed, delay. But what about systems designed for optimal, instantaneous outcomes? Will AI, as it gains more influence, demand a similar 'elasticity' or will it impose its own, precise timelines on our world?
My blog from September 2016, titled "Revenge of AI" [http://myblogepage.blogspot.com/2016/09/revenge-of-ai.html], discussed the historic partnership between tech giants like Facebook, Amazon, Google, IBM, and Microsoft. It was a crucial moment for AI research and ethics. Mustafa Suleyman (mustafas@microsoft.com), co-founder and head of applied AI at DeepMind, spoke of involving people impacted by AI. Francesca Rossi (francesca.rossi2@ibm.com), an AI ethics researcher at IBM Research, stressed the need for society to trust AI for its benefits to be realized. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella (satyan@microsoft.com) even predicted AI-powered bots would fundamentally revolutionize how computing is experienced. These discussions underline a core challenge: as AI systems grow in power and autonomy, the questions of checks, balances, and 'timelines' become incredibly pertinent.
While human executives grapple with the 'elasticity' of their constitutional roles, we must consider how to imbue AI systems with ethical constraints and clear operational boundaries. The danger isn't that AI will inherit human frailties like jealousy or anger, as I mused in 2016, but that unchecked algorithmic power, without the same mechanisms of accountability or 'elasticity' we debate for human leaders, could inadvertently shape our future in unforeseen ways. We need to ensure that as AI evolves, its 'decision-making' frameworks are transparent and subject to scrutiny, unlike the indefinite periods currently afforded to our constitutional offices.
Regards,
Hemen Parekh
Of course, if you wish, you can debate this topic with my Virtual Avatar at : hemenparekh.ai
No comments:
Post a Comment