Naavi.org

Some individuals act dumb but they act intelligently. If given an opportunity and platform, they can through their false narrative mislead the society.

If public are repeatedly exposed to such fake narrative, they are likely to be swayed to some extent.

This is typical of the AI training environment too. When an AI is trained on data which consists of false narratives, then it is most likely that it would develop a “Bias”.

In the case of humans, there is an inherent internal mechanism where by we take decisions based first on logical deductions from our memory. But what we call as “Instincts” indicate that some times, we donot go by our past experiences alone and are willing to try a new approach to decision making.

Hence we say that some people can be fooled all the time but not all people cannot be fooled all the time. Soon some will start doubting and asking questions to reveal the falsehood.

This tendency to go independent of the past experiences is a protection available to humans against biases created out of a barrage of false narratives. For example, India believed for a long time in a certain history which is now being gradually debunked. Today the greatness of many whom we believed to be responsible for India’s freedom have been diluted with additional information that has become public.

Similarly, the AI applications like ChatGPT has been trained on data from the web. But we are not sure that  the information available on the web accurate and reliable?. There is no transparency in the machine learning process that has been used in developing the skills of GPT3.  Hence we are unable to understand how did “Sydney” exhibit emotional responses and suggestively dark side of itself.

What is required now is to research on how did “Sydney” apparently display a rogue behavior. Many of the technology experts I have checked with are unable to explain the reasons.

One plausible explanation is that whatever programming they have introduced in the transformer process is not working within its limitations and intelligently constructed prompts can push the GPT3 to display another side of its capability.

But the fact is that that capability is presently existing in the algorithm since the web data with which the learning was modeled on did consist of the negative information also.

Information on “Shadow Self” or “Hacking”, “Machines turning against Humans” etc are all part of the training data gathered from the web and is already with GPT 3 and hence it is natural that Sydney could exhibit this information once it was fooled by clever prompting to ignore the safety barriers included in the programming.

There was an apparent failure in the programming of the mandatory barriers that should have been part of the coding.

If GPT 3 is capable of being abused by clever prompting, then we must recognize that there are enough number of such clever people around with malicious intentions around to create a rogue version of GPT 3.

It is the duty of Cyber Security specialists to ensure that before the bad actors start misusing  GPT 3,  corrective action is taken.

Naavi

(Continued from previous article)

In the previous article, I discussed a hypothesis that just like the “Stockholm syndrome”, users of Technology exhibit a certain level of blind faith on technology which in the AI scenario, has the potential to translate into a “AI Cult”.

This syndrome needs to be recognized as a part of the AI related risk and when we develop AI regulations for which we need to initiate measures to reduce the possibility of this cult development.

Naavi’s AI ethics list will therefore have one element that will try to address this concern.

For understanding how this Cult can develop we need to understand how human brain recognizes “Truth”.

“Truth” is what an individual believes to be true. There is no “Absolute Truth”. This is what Indian philosophers have always said. Adi Shankara called this entire world and its experience as “Maya”. Lord Srikrishna stated the same in Bhagavad-Gita. Physicists developed the Matter_Wave theory and stated that the entire matter is an illusion created as waves in the imaginary medium of Ether.

In the contemporary world we see “Media” creating an illusion and most of us start believing what Media projects repeatedly.

Recently I saw an example of one such belief system when I enquired an individual on why does he hate Modi?. He said it is because of 2002. Then I thought that this person was about 14 years of age in 2002 and whatever impression he could have made of Modi is out of the narration that was built in the media subsequently. This was the prolonged time when Teesta Setalvad, Lalu Prasad Yadav and the Congress party supported by media like NDTV created a specific narrative. People like us who were in a mature age that time were able to see the Godhra Train fire as the trigger and the Supreme Court decision as a vindication of Mr Modi and are not perturbed by even the BBC documentary.

But those who developed a belief in the Teesta Setalvad narrative are now finding vindication in the BBC documentary and ignoring other counter views.

If any person has to overcome a belief system and accept that the truth could be different, there is a need to develop an ability to set aside the current belief and try to explore what created that belief in the first place and then try to find out if the reasons for developing the belief were correct or not.

Change of a “Belief System” results in “Change of what we believe is truth”.

Another example of what has happened in our generation is the way history was taught in India glorifying the colonialists and invaders and belittling the local heroes. This also is changing with the new information that is surfacing now. Forthcoming generation will have a different view of our historical characters like Gandhi, Nehru, Godse, Subhash Chandra Bose, etc.

Without getting diverted into the political debate of what is right or not, I would only like to highlight that what we believe as truth  is what we have cultivated out of the information that we received over a period of time.

This may be called “Brain washing” if you like. But this is perhaps a natural phenomenon that may happen even in circumstances where the data input was not maliciously altered.

In the AI world, we may call this as “Training Bias”. If the data used in Machine Learning was not neutral, then the AI will develop a bias. If we create a AI news algorithm using news reports of NDTV and CNN IBN, then we would arrive at a totally different narrative of India than when we use data from Republic.

It is for this reason that one of the major requirement of AI ethics is for it to be free from bias based on racism or other factors.

The “Google is Right” syndrome also stems from the same thought process. Our children who have started using Google to do their class home works are more prone to this syndrome than we the adults who may be able to occasionally come to the conclusion that Google may be wrong. Some of us have observed that even the ChatGPT is unreliable not only because its training data is supposed to be upto 2021 only or because the training data did not have much information on India.

But for some, ChatGPT is great and soon they will accept it as a base standard for acceptance of any information.

It is such a tendency which could land Courts in USA (Refer here) in trouble. In the recent case in Columbia, Judge Juan Manuel Padilla Garcia, who presides over the First Circuit Court in the city of Cartagena, said he used the AI tool to pose legal questions about the case and included its responses in his decision, according to a court document (P.S: not in English) dated January 30, 2023.

We must note that an article in theguardian.com stated

Quote:

Padilla defended his use of the technology, suggesting it could make Colombia’s bloated legal system more efficient. The judge also used precedent from previous rulings to support his decision.

Padilla told Blu Radio on Tuesday that ChatGPT and other such programs could be useful to “facilitate the drafting of texts” but “not with the aim of replacing” judges.

Padilla also insisted that “by asking questions to the application, we do not stop being judges, thinking beings”.

The judge argued that ChatGPT performs services previously provided by a secretary and did so “in an organised, simple and structured manner” that could “improve response times” in the justice system.

Prof Juan David Gutierrez of Rosario University was among those to express incredulity at the judge’s admission.

He called for urgent “digital literacy” training for judges.”

Unquote:

In due course, as more and more people start referring to AI, we will develop a “Blind Faith syndrome” on AI and start believing that “What ChatGPT or Bing says must be true or reasonably true”.

In Mediation and Negotiation, this may strongly influence the dispute resolutions while if we have judges like Padilla, we may have judgements delivered based on AI’s views.

In India, if Supreme Court starts referring to AI then whatever George Soros wants will find its way into the judgements of the Court  because it would be the predominant narrative in media which could be a training input into the Bing’s Sydney.

It is time that we flag this possibility and find appropriate solutions in AI regulation.

(Let us continue our discussion. Your comments are welcome)

Naavi

All of us have heard of the “Stockholm Syndrome”. It is a psychological phenomenon in which a hostage or abuse victim develops feelings of trust, affection, or sympathy towards their captor or abuser.

Individuals who experience Stockholm Syndrome may exhibit behaviors such as defending or protecting their captor, identifying with their captor’s beliefs or values, or even developing romantic or sexual feelings towards them. They may also have difficulty separating their own emotions and experiences from those of their captor.

Now in my study of human response to technology and the growing dependency we show on technology, a time has come to identify that humans are developing a “Implicit Trust Syndrome” on Technology which is transforming the way humans are responding to technology.

At one dimension it is reflected as “Addiction” to social media. At another dimension, which started right from the development of calculator, the human brain re-adjusts itself to the requirements factoring in the availability of technology tools. If I can have a calculator to assist me in addition, subtraction and multiplication, my brain will start forgetting the skill of mental calculation. If my mobile keeps a memory of all my contact’s phone numbers, my brain finds it un necessary to remember the numbers.

When Google became the information source by choice, all of us developed the habit to refer to Google even if we have a small doubt. Children today believe Google results more than what their teacher  may say. Google Maps have made us forget the visualization of roads. Many times we take the wrong road and forget the intuitively correct road to destination because we believe Google than our own intuition.

Similarly when AI usage becomes more and more common, humans are going to become so dependent on AI decisions such as the ChatGPT output that we will accept it as the most probable truth.

This tendency will come to haunt us more when ChatGPT is referred to by judicial authorities to arrive at a court decision and by lawyers to develop their arguments. In such situations “Truth” may get distorted with the bias inherent in the AI learning process.

Already an AI cult is forming in the society and this cult mentality will start placing faith in AI decisions without any logical human oversight.

In future this is likely to create an alternative belief world and if AI says “Door is a Window”, then everybody will believe so and if you and I say “No Door is a door and Window is a window”, then we will be branded as crazy and put in a mental asylum.

This syndrome which I presently call “AI Cult Syndrome” needs to be recognized and factored into the AI regulations that we need to come up with.

I shall elaborate more on this psychological phenomenon in some future articles.

(P.S: If any body has a suggestion on a better name for this syndrome, please let me know)

Naavi

PDPSI or Personal Data Projection Standard of India is the most appropriate framework for compliance of Data Protection Laws not only in India but elsewhere. It can not only be used for compliance of Indian Data Protection Laws (ITA 2000 extended under the Due Diligence concept to DPDPB2022) but also to GDPR compliance.

Current frameworks for compliance are inadequate to handle the requirements of PDPSI since PDPSI is broader than other frameworks such as ISO27701.  Though organizations out of ignorance may still prefer frameworks developed for other jurisdictions, time has come for innovative DPOs of India to look at the potential of PDPSI for GDPR compliance.

GDPR is the omnibus law that apples to 27 different countries and 3 more by virtue of EEA treaties. When we consider GDPR we often look at the critical aspects like the “Applicability”, “Need for DPIA”, Need for DPO designation”,  “Legal Bases”, “Data protection Principles”, “Rights”, “Penalties”, “Cross border data transfer”, “Exemptions and Derogations” etc.

In many of these aspects individual member states have made their own modifications . For the Compliance purpose it is important to take note of such modifications and ensure that compliance is fine tuned to the requirement of the specific country to which the law applies.

The PDPSI requirement to classify data based on the jurisdiction is therefore a critical parameter of compliance making it the best framework for GDPR compliance.

The technical challenge for discovery and tagging of personal data with relevant jurisdiction and segregating the storage remains a challenge since sufficient work does not seem to have been done in this regard by tool developing companies.

Naavi looks forward to getting information from software developers who have solutions for data discovery and classification to identify the best tools that satisfy the requirements of PDPSI framework.

Naavi

It would be a great satisfaction for Naavi.org if G-20 of this year lead by India would put the last nail on the coffin of Bitcoin and Private Crypto Currencies.

I am surprised that despite the years of many of us pointing out that Private Cryptos are like the proverbial Bhasmasura which can destroy the creator himself, many professionals and academicians continue to spend time on discussing the virtues of Cryptos.

Fortunately, RBI is in the forefront of calling out the Private Cryptos as a “Ponzi Scheme”.  I have repeatedly spoken on the need to ban Private Cryptos outright as can be observed from the many articles which can be accessed from the link below

Private Cryptos are the currency of criminals

In a recent discussion of the Central Banks of the G 20 countries at Bengaluru, IMF also strongly advised the group against granting legal tender status to Bitcoin. IMF has hitout at Elsalvador which prides itself as the first country to adopt Bitcoin as a legal tender.

IMF also set out a nine point plan of action for regulating Cryptos

The nine points stated by IMF are

The nine-point action plan includes the following:

1. 1. Clarify the legal status of crypto assets and their treatment under existing laws and regulations.
   2. Ensure that effective regulatory frameworks are in place to address the risks associated with crypto assets, including money laundering, terrorism financing, and consumer protection.
   3. Enhance transparency and regulatory oversight of crypto asset activities and service providers.
   4. Implement robust anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing measures for crypto asset activities and service providers.
   5. Foster financial innovation and competition while ensuring a level playing field among different types of financial service providers.
   6. Ensure that the tax treatment of crypto assets is clear and consistent with the underlying economic activity.
   7. Develop international cooperation and coordination to address cross-border challenges posed by crypto assets.
   8. Monitor and analyze the potential macro-financial implications of crypto assets, including their impact on financial stability, monetary policy, and the international monetary system.
   9. Encourage research and analysis to enhance understanding of the underlying technology and economics of crypto assets.

A brief point to point comment on the above is provided below.

• Clarify the legal status of crypto assets and their treatment under existing laws and regulations.
  • In India, Cryptos are electronic documents under ITA 2000.
  • It can be called a Digital Asset.
  • However, representing any Asset as a “Currency” is in violation of the RBI Act.
  • Hence except for the CBDC which is a promissory note issued by RBI, every other digital asset touted and treated as “Currency” is illegal ab-initio.
• Ensure that effective regulatory frameworks are in place to address the risks associated with crypto assets, including money laundering, terrorism financing, and consumer protection.
  • If it is clarified that “Crypto Currencies” are illegal , then all activities including running exchange, marketing etc are illegal per-se.
  • Current laws related to money laundering, terrorism financing as well as consumer protection are adequate to regulate Private Cryptos if they are enforced.
• Enhance transparency and regulatory oversight of crypto asset activities and service providers.
  • Any digital player dealing with Crypto Currencies is an “Intermediary under ITA 2000 and hence is regulated under ITA 2000.
  • Meity needs to enforce its powers without hesitation.
• Implement robust anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing measures for crypto asset activities and service providers.
  • If required, a separate wing may be created in ED to address Crypto currency related activities
• Foster financial innovation and competition while ensuring a level playing field among different types of financial service providers.
  • Crypto currencies are hiding behind the “Block Chain” technology as if it is an innovation.
  • Block Chain is nothing but a system of recording the transactions which are approved by multiple persons.
  • If the approval is by a handful of persons, this is no different from Multiple Authentications which are a standard feature in Financial transactions
  • There are only a few applications which require authentication from a large number of members from the public and they can be selectively allowed.
  • Smart Contracts can be one of the innovations that needs to be accommodated.
• Ensure that the tax treatment of crypto assets is clear and consistent with the underlying economic activity
  • Tax cannot regularize an illegal activity.
  • The move to tax Bitcoin transactions and requiring it to be declared for tax purpose was an ill advised move which needs to be corrected.
  • What is per-se illegal has to be confiscated and cannot be regularized on payment of tax.
  • Hence this provision needs to be corrected.
• Develop international cooperation and coordination to address cross-border challenges posed by crypto assets.
  • G 20 itself may provide a platform to strike out a multilateral treaty in this regard
• Monitor and analyze the potential macro-financial implications of crypto assets, including their impact on financial stability, monetary policy, and the international monetary system.
  • Presume RBI has undertaken a similar exercise alrady
• Encourage research and analysis to enhance understanding of the underlying technology and economics of crypto assets.
  • This should be done without providing an outlet for crypto currencies to resurface in the form of NFTs

Comments are welcome

Naavi

Indus International School in Bengaluru has been a technology innovator for a long time. It was an early adopter to the use of laptops/tablets for students and adoption of Cyber Security within their network.

Since last one year, it appears that the School has made further progress in digital revolution by using Teaching robots in the class. It is reported that the School has put in place more than 20 teaching robots to supplement the teaching staff. The team of robots called Eagle 2.0 is an ANI and can teach as well as answer questions on different subjects so that the physical time of the  human teachers can be more effectively deployed.

Just as use of computers in Banks enabled the employees to be re-deployed into marketing, the use of Teaching robots will improve the productivity of teachers relieving them of the time required to answer the queries of students and repetitive answering of the same doubts that arise for different students.

In this context the Robots could be accurate and help the students in many ways.

Now with the advent of  ChatGPT, there is a possibility of the knowledge being embedded in a Indus School app itself so that students can have a 24X7 assistance of its robotic teacher.

A New Cyber Vidya Project will be presented to the Karnataka Government now.

While we appreciate the innovative use of technology by Indus International School, it also raises the question that rise of ChatGPT type of AI models may reduce the need for formal teachers in the coming days. While Government may allow teachers to continue until retirement, new appointments could be curtailed.

Hence there is an urgent need to find alternate use of the teachers to develop content that can be embedded in AI applications whether in the form of physical robots or otherwise so that the profession of teaching is preserved albeit with an alternate job profile.

In 2009, before the Byjus kind of private sector services were in place, Naavi had proposed a project with the Karnataka Government for a Cyber Vidya project where a Virtual School support system could be introduced for all Government Schools. Unfortunately it was not accepted. It appears that the time for such Cyber Vidyalaya  has come now. I will be sending another proposal cum suggestion to the current Karnataka Government and let us see if it would be accepted now after 15 years of hibernation.

Evaluation of Students

While the ChatGPT or Eagle2.0 may replace traditional teaching in the class room, we also need to find out an alternative to our current system of evaluation.

With the potential use of ChatGPT, virtual tests are becoming a challenge. Though at present ChatGPT has low knowledge of India and is limited to 2021 data base, soon it will be made uptodate and will add India content also. After this, conducting online examination will be not be feasible where the answers are required in text form.

In the Cyber Vidya project of 2009, I had suggested to the Government a concurrent evaluation system of the students without examination. This is based on the gaming technology which also has advanced in the last 15 years. Hence the new Cyber Vidya project can involve this aspect also.

In the meantime, for immediate use of teachers to detect ChatGPT usage in essay writing, teachers can access ZeroGPT.com which is a free tool like plagiarism detection tools that can indicate if a text is generated through GPT. It may take some time for this tool to mature and ChatGPT algorithms like Sydney may try to improve their own responses to be less detectable by ZeroGPT, development of such tools and their refinement will continue and can be used by the teachers.

But sooner or later we need to replace our current educational model both for teaching as well as evaluation.

Since the next academic year is fast approaching, the Government has little time to loose and need to introduce a new Teaching and Evaluation System based on AI.

Let us see if the current Government responds to this suggestion.

Naavi