The growing adoption of Artificial Intelligence and its intervention in the legal sphere has been a welcome sight for everyone in the industry. From judicial institutions to corporations, AI has rapidly shown an overarching effect on judicial functioning. However, with this bargaining effect, what comes is the danger of Artificial intelligence. Due to the lack of regulatory mechanisms and compliance laws, a varied but unexpected stream of jeopardy is underway for all of us. This is somehow related to the growing correspondence being provided by human beings and the pervasive acceptance not just by the elite class of the world but across all classes. The only laws that are currently under the purview of this domain are the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, for privacy and personal data, the Information Technology Act, 2000 for cyber offences and intermediary liability, and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. With this dissertation, I shall try to lay down an intricate evaluation of the recent AI interception and reflect on the dire need to incorporate it with a proper legal regulatory system. Although the term \\\"artificial intelligence\\\" is not used in the DPDP act, one crucial word mentioned therein is \\\"automated,\\\" which refers to a digital procedure that can process data automatically. That is the closest the Act gets to discussing artificial intelligence. The act does not specifically address algorithmic bias, deepfakes, facial recognition, automated decision-making, AI explainability, or generative AI training data. There are a lot of inconsistencies in the law itself, and the dystopian tone of the act adds insult to injury.
Kumar et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: