Directions (): Read the following passage and answer the following questions. Some words are highlighted to help you answer some of the questions.
AI has several positive applications but the capability of AI systems to learn from experience and to perform autonomously for humans makes AI the most disruptive and self-transformative technology of the 21st century. If AI is not regulated properly, it is bound to have unmanageable implications. Imagine, for instance, the electricity supply suddenly stops while a robot is performing a surgery, and access to a doctor is lost? And what if a drone hits a human being? These questions have already confronted courts in the U.S. and Germany. All countries, including India, need to be legally prepared to face such kind of disruptive technology.
Predicting and analysing legal issues and their solutions, however, is not that simple. For instance, criminal law is going to face drastic challenges. What if an AI-based driverless car gets into an accident that causes harm to humans or damages property? Who should the courts hold liable for the same? In the U.S., there is a lot of discussion about regulation of AI. Germany is working on blemish present in it, like certain ethical rules for autonomous vehicles stipulating that human life should always have priority over property or animal life. China, Japan and Korea are following Germany in developing a law on self-driven cars. In India, NITI Aayog released a policy paper, ‘National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence’, in June 2018, which considered the importance of AI in different sectors. The Budget 2019 also proposed to launch a national programme on AI. While all these developments are taking place on the technological front, no comprehensive legislation to regulate this growing industry has been formulated in the country till date.
Apart from these aspects, strategists have also offered sober explorations of the future relationship between AI and nuclear weapons. Some of the most widely received musings on the issue, including a recent call for an AI-enabled “dead hand” to update America’s aging nuclear command, control, and communications infrastructure, tend to obscure more than they ______________ due to an insufficient understanding of the technologies involved. An appreciation for technical detail, however, is necessary to arrive at realistic assessments of any new technology, and particularly consequential where nuclear weapons are concerned. Some have warned that advances in AI could erode the fundamental logic of nuclear deterrence by enabling counter-force attacks against heretofore concealed and mobile nuclear forces. Such secure second-strike forces are considered the backbone of effective nuclear deterrence by assuring retaliation. Were they to become vulnerable to pre-emption, nuclear weapons would lose their deterrent value.
The exponential growth of sensors and data sources across all warfighting domains has analysts today facing an overabundance of information. Some strategists warn that the same AI-infused capabilities that allow for more prompt and precise strikes against time-critical conventional targets could also undermine deterrence stability and increase the risk of nuclear use. Specifically, AI-driven improvements to intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance would threaten the survivability of heretofore secure second-strike nuclear forces by providing technologically advanced nations with the ability to find, identify, track, and destroy their adversaries’ mobile and concealed launch platforms. Transporter-erector launchers and ballistic missile submarines, traditionally used by nuclear powers to enhance the survivability of their deterrent forces, would be at greater risk. A country that acquired such an exquisite counter-force capability could not only hope to limit damage in case of a spiraling nuclear crisis but also negate its adversaries’ nuclear deterrence “in one swift blow.” Such an ability would undermine the nuclear deterrence calculus
whereby the costs of imminent nuclear retaliation far outweigh any conceivable gains from aggression.