Need for a more holistic and global approach to tech governance

(MainsGS2:Effect of policies and politics of developed and developing countries on India’s interests, Indian diaspora.)

Context:

The sudden arrival of groundbreaking AI tools has created an urgent need for a more holistic and global approach to tech governance.

Dual nature of technology:

For centuries, breakthrough innovations like the invention of the printing press and the steam engine to the rise of air travel and the internet have propelled economic development, expanded access to information, and vastly improved health care and other essential services.
But such transformative developments have also had negative implications, and the rapid deployment of AI tools will be no different.
AI can deliver education and health care to millions of people who are neglected under existing frameworks.
And it can greatly enhance research and development, potentially ushering in a new golden age of innovation.
But it also can supercharge the production and dissemination of fake news; displace human labor on a large scale; and create dangerous, disruptive tools that are potentially inimical to our very existence.

Required better governance:

AI and other emerging technologies call for better governance, especially at the global level but diplomats and international policymakers have historically treated technology as a “sectoral” matter best left to energy, finance, or defense ministries.
It is a myopic perspective that is reminiscent of how, until recently, climate governance was viewed as the exclusive preserve of scientific and technical experts.
Now, with climate debates commanding center stage, climate governance is seen as a superordinate domain that comprises many others, including foreign policy.
Accordingly, today’s governance architecture aims to reflect the global nature of the issue, with all its nuances and complexities.

Forge new agreements:

Technologies such as AI will have a substantial impact on fundamental rights and freedoms, our relationships, the issues we care about, and even our most dearly held beliefs.
With its feedback loops and reliance on our own data, AI models will exacerbate existing biases and strain many countries’ already tenuous social contracts.
That means our response must include numerous international accords, thus ideally we need to forge new agreements (at the level of the United Nations) to limit the use of certain technologies on the battlefield.
A treaty banning lethal autonomous weapons outright would be a good start; agreements to regulate cyberspace – especially offensive actions conducted by autonomous bots – will also be necessary.

Global Charter of Digital Rights:

As G7 leaders already seem to recognize, with the stability of open societies possibly at stake, it is in democratic countries’ interest to develop a common approach to AI regulation.
Governments are now acquiring unprecedented abilities to manufacture consent and manipulate opinion.
Thus it is important not only to support UNESCO’s efforts to create a global framework for AI ethics, but also to push for a global Charter of Digital Rights.

Conclusion:

The thematic focus of tech diplomacy implies the need for new strategies of engagement with emerging powers.
Thus engaging with India is a priority for both the US and the European Union to achieve a prosperous and secure digital future.