Delhi High Court Judges Call For Embracing Technology With Caution: Insights From SILF’s AI Conference

Delhi High Court Judges Call For Embracing Technology With Caution: Insights From SILF’s AI Conference

At the recent AI Conference hosted by the Society of Indian Law Firms (SILF), distinguished judges of the Delhi High Court, including Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Pratibha M. Singh, delved into the pivotal intersection of technology and law.

Justice Shakdher emphasized the need for prudent integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies, stressing the importance of cautious adoption while advocating for continued exploration. He remarked, "We should look at the technology with caution and not give up on it," underscoring the imperative for individuals to possess adequate technological literacy to pose pertinent questions.

Similarly, Justice Singh echoed concerns about the evolving technological landscape, highlighting the urgency for legal reforms to effectively regulate AI-related advancements. She warned of the potential obsolescence of laws if not updated to align with the rapid pace of technological progress, stating, "Tech is on a marathon; laws need to catch up or mankind will reach a point where laws will become irrelevant."

Justice Rajiv Shakdher expressed that the current hullabaloo surrounding technology is essentially an endeavour to replicate human capabilities and stressed that "technology needs to be dominated by human beings because if you don’t do it, you would actually make something which is not in control of human beings".

“We should look at the technology with caution and not give up on it,” Justice Shakdher said as he shared his perspective on AI and the opportunities and challenges it poses.

Speaking at the AI Conference, Justice Shakdher remarked, “What you find in technology is a little less than what God would do. It has the strengths and weaknesses of a human being. Therefore, we see that the machine lies,” referencing the Mata case, the first instance of AI hallucinations. He continued, emphasizing the need for human beings to understand technology sufficiently to ask the right questions.

He stressed, “When it comes to areas involving discretion, areas involving empathy, can the machine do it for us. I am not too sure. It may get to that point. If it gets to that point, we may become completely redundant, but till then, we have to have a framework and use technology in a controlled environment.” Adding, “As lawyers who defend the rights of the marginalized, you must ask these critical questions – what is that the technology would do for us which will assist us but not take away our power of critical thinking.”

Earlier in the day, Justice Prathiba M. Singh delivered a keynote address at the conference, sharing insights into the regulation of AI-related technologies. “It is nice to be stupid and not always intelligent,” said Justice Singh, humorously alluding to a viral joke about Artificial Intelligence and human stupidity. She emphasized the need for legal reforms, stating, “If laws do not change, we might reach a point where laws become irrelevant. Because technology is on a marathon already. It is not going to stop.”

“The way I look at it, AI will take over almost everything we have understood about technology, known about technology,” she continued, highlighting the transformative potential of AI. Reflecting on the rapid convergence of technology, Justice Singh envisioned a future where AI shapes various aspects of society, including medicine and judicial processes.

Drawing attention to the legal implications of AI, Justice Singh discussed the role of AI in inventions, stating, “Provisions as they exist doesn't permit AI to be an inventor. I believe there will be a time when law would need rethinking to accept AI as an inventor.” She emphasized the moral and ethical dimensions of intellectual property, expressing concerns about the implications of denying patents to AI-generated inventions.

Addressing the importance of responsible AI, Justice Singh cautioned against AI hallucinations and stressed the need for careful analysis when utilizing AI for legal research. Discussing the potential of AI in healthcare, she highlighted its role in addressing the shortage of medical professionals in rural areas.

“Let us ensure that the tapestry we create remains intact, preserving these vital threads,” Justice Singh urged, underscoring the importance of upholding intellectual property rights and human values in AI innovation. Regarding the limitations of AI, she acknowledged the uncertainties surrounding the accuracy and reliability of AI-generated data.

In conclusion, Justice Singh emphasized that while AI can aid in preliminary research, it cannot replace human intelligence or the human element in the adjudicatory process.

The AI Conference organized by SILF, under the presidentship of Dr. Lalit Bhasin, attracted participation from 12 national and international law firms and featured 44 speakers, including experts from legal, tech, industry, and policy domains.

“Government policies and programs are inspired by the spirit of AI for all. So the use of AI should not be limited to those who are elite, and technologically empowered, but it has to percolate down to the last man in the queue,” stated Dr. Rajiv Mani, Secretary, Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice.

Dr. Mani emphasized the importance of inclusivity in government tech initiatives, highlighting the goal of reaching every individual, irrespective of their socioeconomic status.

“The initiative of the government, the digital revolution, which we have witnessed in the last 10 years, nearly, you know, reach down to the last man in the queue,” Dr. Mani added, underscoring the government's commitment to inclusivity through technological advancements.

During a technical session on Day 2 of the conference, Saikrishna Rajagopal, Managing Partner of Saikrishna & Associate, delved into the treatment of copyright in works generated via AI across different jurisdictions.

Dr. Ryan Abbott, a Partner at Brown, Neri, Smith & Khan, LLP, expressed his perspective on the debate surrounding AI and authorship, describing it as an “absolutely hot mess,” particularly in the US due to its focus on inventorship. He emphasized the importance of prioritizing innovation over the methods of invention, stating, “The real problem is we should not care how people are inventing things...we should focus on inventing things.”

In another session centered on 'Artificial Intelligence and IP: Beyond TRIPS', Dr. Raghavender GR, Senior Consultant (IPR) at the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT), Government of India, shared his insights during the conference, stating, “Just like criminal laws and Patent laws are amended, we might have laws amended to make space for AI-assisted inventions.”

However, Dr. Raghavender dismissed the necessity for granting intellectual property (IP) rights on AI-generated inventions or those co-created with AI.

During the panel discussion, Pravin Anand, Managing Partner at Anand and Anand, raised the question of whether Indian courts could grant legal rights to non-living entities like deities, forests, wildlife, etc., and pondered if a similar approach could be extended to machines.

In response, Dr. Raghavender asserted, “There should be no Anthro morphism, putting life into machines. Joint authorship is a bad idea.”

Dr. Pushpendra Rai, Former Director of the World Intellectual Property Organization, supported this viewpoint, stating that it was still premature to grant rights to entities other than humans. He cautioned against overemphasizing the significance of AI, which scientists have labeled as ‘unintelligent’.

The panel at the conference delved into the utilitarian theory to incentivize inventions that benefit society, rather than solely focusing on whether they were created with AI.

Matt Hervey, Partner and Head of Artificial Intelligence Law at Gowling Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co., UK, remarked, “No public good is worth eroding the human creativity or livelihood of human creators.” He also highlighted that AI inventions have no intellectual property (IP) protection in the UK, contrasting with corporations, which, as non-living entities, do have IP rights.

Representatives from the US, Denmark, UK, and Australia engaged in discussions about AI regulations and the IP regime in their respective countries.

The conference concluded with a session titled “Evolving International Legal and Regulatory AI Landscape; Challenges and Way Forward.”

In this final session, the focus was on India's leading role in the Global South concerning AI development and governance.

Rohan Gupta, Director and Advisor to the Government of India for the Global Partnership on AI, highlighted the variations in regulations and governance across different regions.

He explained that while the developed world tends to focus on privacy and other AI-related aspects, the global south prioritizes the developmental aspects of AI and addresses sector-specific needs such as healthcare, pharmaceuticals, and agriculture.

“Currently, the emphasis is on ensuring the safety and security of AI. Only China is actively discussing the deployment of AI. However, the fundamental risks associated with AI remain consistent globally. AI transcends borders, but each country adopts its own approach. For instance, India's initiatives like the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) demonstrate leadership, as evidenced by our participation in the G20 discussions.” he added.