On March 1, 2024, just a few months after the Lok Sabha election, the IT Ministry issued a consultation requiring the artificial intelligence (AI) platform to seek government permission before launching a “test, unreliable, unreliable” service and return only after two weeks. While the guidance has attracted public criticism from some AI founders and foreign investors, India’s technology industry has also raised concerns privately. Indian Express As part of the Right to Information (RTI) application.
Within a week, on March 7, 2024, the National Association of Software and Service Companies or India’s largest technology industry group, NASSCOM, represents technology companies (SaaS) companies such as Meta, Google, Google, Amazon, Microsoft and Other Software (SAAS) companies (SAAS) companies (SAAS) companies – written to IT departments and limits the scope of the scope: file reports, status reports, according to RTI checks.
NASSCOM and IT Department did not respond to requests for comment.
The consulting firm also faces public opposition from some startups in the field of generating AI. Aravind Srinivas, founder of Confused AI, called the consultation a “bad move in India”, while Martin Casado, general partner of the U.S.-based investment firm Andreessen Horowitz, called the move a “travesty”, which is “trans” and “anti-public” and “anti-public”.
With such unfavorable feedback, the government changed its efforts, and in a subsequent consultation on March 15, the IT department changed its recommendations from industry agencies and AI founders – it removed the controversial provisions, required the government to license it before making an “untested, unreliable” AI service, limiting the scope of guidance to limiting any report to certain Intermediaries, and removing a report from the company.
Why the government dilute consultation
After Nasscom told the government the purpose of the statement that the purpose of obtaining more information was “lost” because the “methods and drafting” of “consultation” was “methods and drafting”, the IT department removed the permissions required by the provision to be allowed before launching “untested, unreliable” AI services, limiting the scope of the guidelines to certain intermediaries, and removing any companies that needed to prepare a status report.
Nasscom said in a letter that the government’s stated goal is to provide users with more information about their AI services to “lost” because of the “methods and drafting” of the consultation.
At the heart of the debate, in the future of safe harbor protection measures, a quarrel between lawmakers and tech companies (legal immunity from their custodial content) to Geentive AI platforms such as Gemini and Chatgpt. In India, the fight began last year when AI platforms responded to questions from various world leaders, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi, a government believes that this is inconsistent.
The story continues below
This triggers the lack of data on specific data in the basic models of these platforms, which may lead to reactions that may bias the state, politics and history.
However, it requires companies to seek licensed solutions before launching the system has been driven by the industry. “The overall goal of consulting is to enable end users to get enough information so that they can make informed decisions when using synthetic media tools. However, we found that this goal was lost because the methodology and drafting of consulting has sparked national concern and concern,” Nasscom said in a March 7 correspondence.
Nascombe said the government is asked to “issue follow-up consultation” rather than to “all intermediaries” but to “will apply to people who make synthetic media tools.”
“…Clarify that the Indian government does not authorize any explicit permission to make any AI model/software/algorithm available for public access. Instead, the relevant intermediaries will publish reports on the features/limitations of synthetic media tools, providing users with powerful controls that provide real-time feedback,” NASSCOM proposed.
The story continues below
The Lobby Group recommends: “The consultation may not take action and status report, but can point out that the Government of India wants to convene a dialogue with relevant intermediaries to ensure that the voluntary commitment is obtained from it.” The consultation should also clarify that “is not for start-up publishers, promoters, content creators, B2B providers”.
Although the latest guidance did not make this clear, former Secretary of State Rajeev Chandrasekhar issued clarifications in media reports at the time.
