Daily RC and Vocabulary 30th December

Model Conduct — Editorial Analysis (UPSC-Oriented)

Theme: India must improve access to AI resources and upskill its workforce

Core Argument (Essence of the Editorial)

India’s current approach to Artificial Intelligence regulation is fragmented and reactive, relying on existing legal frameworks rather than a dedicated AI consumer safety and duty-of-care regime. While this keeps regulation less intrusive than China’s model, it leaves critical gaps—especially regarding psychological harms and AI product safety. Simultaneously, India risks falling into a “regulate first, build later” trap, despite lacking domestic frontier AI capacity. The editorial argues for a balanced strategy: build AI capability first, while assertively regulating high-risk downstream use.

India’s Current Regulatory Posture

India regulates AI indirectly, through adjacent laws:

• IT Act & IT Rules
• Due diligence obligations on platforms
• Labeling of synthetically generated content
• Action against deepfakes and AI-enabled fraud
• Financial Sector Regulations
• Reserve Bank of India
• Model risk governance in credit decisions
• Development of the FREE-AI framework
• Securities and Exchange Board of India
• Accountability norms for AI use by regulated entities
• Data Protection & Privacy
• Focus on consent, purpose limitation, and safeguards

🔎 Limitation:
These measures regulate risks around AI, not AI itself. There is no explicit consumer safety or duty-of-care framework, particularly for non-tangible harms like emotional or psychological dependence.

Comparative Perspective: China vs India

• China:
• Draft AI rules targeting emotionally interactive services
• Mandatory warnings, intervention on emotional distress
• Concern: May encourage intrusive surveillance and emotional profiling
• India:
• Less intrusive, but regulatorily incomplete
• Depends on general laws not designed for AI-specific harms

➡️ India avoids overreach but risks under-regulation of emerging harms.

Strategic Gap: Capability vs Control

India:

• Has a large AI adoption ecosystem
• Is far behind the U.S. and China in frontier model development

⚠️ Key Warning from the Editorial:
Over-regulation before building domestic capacity can:

• Increase dependence on foreign AI models
• Lock India into a passive “AI consumer” role

What India Should Do — Two-Pronged Strategy

1️⃣ Build Domestic AI Capability (Upstream Focus)

India should prioritise:

• Access to computational resources (GPUs, data centres)
• Upskilling the workforce (AI engineers, researchers, auditors)
• Public procurement of AI solutions to create demand
• Translation of academic research to industry
• Avoid “paralysis by consensus” in policymaking

🎯 Goal: Nurture at least one frontier model ecosystem, reducing long-term dependence.

2️⃣ Regulate High-Risk AI Use (Downstream Focus)

Instead of monitoring user emotions, India should:

• Impose additional obligations in high-risk sectors (finance, health, elections)
• Require:
• Incident reporting
• Post-deployment monitoring
• Clear accountability for AI behaviour
• Integrate AI-specific duties into:
• Consumer protection laws
• Privacy and data protection rules

🧠 This ensures safety without stifling innovation.

Why This Approach Works

• Respects India’s institutional and constitutional culture
• Avoids intrusive surveillance
• Aligns with India’s current technological position
• Allows regulation to shape usage, not global innovation trajectories

Conclusion (One-Line Takeaway)

India must build AI capacity before over-regulating, while assertively governing high-risk AI use, ensuring innovation, autonomy, and consumer safety evolve together.

Top 10 Difficult Vocabulary (from the Editorial)

1. Due diligence (noun)
Meaning: Reasonable steps taken to avoid harm or legal liability
Example: Platforms are expected to exercise due diligence while deploying AI tools.

2. Intrusive (adjective)
Meaning: Involving excessive or unjustified interference
Example: China’s AI rules may become intrusive by encouraging emotional surveillance.

3. Fragmented (adjective)
Meaning: Broken into parts; lacking coherence or unity
Example: India’s AI regulatory framework remains fragmented across multiple laws.

4. Psychological dependence (noun)
Meaning: Excessive emotional or mental reliance on something
Example: Emotionally interactive AI services can create psychological dependence among users.

5. Frontier models (noun)
Meaning: Most advanced and cutting-edge AI models
Example: India lags behind the U.S. and China in developing frontier models.

6. Preemptive (adjective)
Meaning: Intended to prevent a problem before it arises
Example: Some AI regulations are preemptive, aiming to control future risks.

7. Reactive (adjective)
Meaning: Acting only after a problem has occurred
Example: India’s response to AI risks has largely been reactive.

8. Paralysis by consensus (phrase)
Meaning: Inaction caused by excessive consultation and lack of agreement
Example: Over-consultation on AI policy could lead to paralysis by consensus.

9. Assertively (adverb)
Meaning: Confidently and firmly
Example: India should assertively regulate AI use in high-risk sectors.

10. Choking (innovation) (verb/adjective – figurative)
Meaning: Severely restricting growth or progress
Example: Over-regulation risks choking upstream AI innovation.

High-Level RC MCQs (Based on the Editorial)

(UPSC / Bank PO / SSC – Advanced Inference & Reasoning)

Q1.

The author’s reference to China’s draft rules on emotionally interactive AI services primarily serves to:

A. Highlight China’s technological superiority over India
B. Illustrate the ethical risks of over-regulating AI behaviour
C. Contrast intrusive AI regulation with India’s incomplete framework
D. Argue that emotional monitoring is essential for AI safety

Q2.

Which of the following best captures the author’s concern about expecting AI providers to identify users’ emotional states?

A. It may reduce user engagement with AI platforms
B. It could incentivise excessive and intimate surveillance
C. It might make AI regulation economically unviable
D. It will slow down AI adoption in developing countries

Q3.

The phrase “regulate first, build later” is criticised in the passage mainly because it:

A. Undermines democratic oversight of technology
B. Conflicts with India’s constitutional framework
C. Risks deepening dependence on foreign AI models
D. Encourages monopolisation by domestic firms

Q4.

According to the passage, India’s current AI regulatory approach can best be described as:

A. Comprehensive but excessively intrusive
B. Centralised and forward-looking
C. Minimalist and innovation-driven
D. Indirect and largely reactive

Q5.

Which of the following regulatory measures does the author consider a more balanced alternative to emotional surveillance of users?

A. Mandatory psychological profiling of AI users
B. Blanket bans on emotionally interactive AI services
C. Requiring companies to submit incident reports on AI behaviour
D. Restricting all foreign AI models from Indian markets

Q6.

The author’s underlying assumption in advocating stronger downstream regulation without choking upstream capability is that:

A. AI innovation will naturally self-regulate over time
B. Global AI development trajectories are fixed and immutable
C. India can shape AI use domestically even if models are foreign-built
D. Domestic AI research will soon overtake global leaders

Answer Key with Explanations

Q1. → C
The comparison with China is used to show that while China’s regime is intrusive, India’s framework is less intrusive but incomplete—highlighting a contrast rather than praising or condemning either outright.

Q2. → B
The passage explicitly warns that identifying users’ emotional states may “incentivise more intimate monitoring,” indicating surveillance concerns rather than engagement or economics.

Q3. → C
The author cautions that regulating before building domestic capacity could increase India’s reliance on foreign AI models, weakening technological autonomy.

Q4. → D
India regulates AI through existing laws (IT Rules, financial regulations) rather than a dedicated framework, and MeitY’s approach is described as largely reactive.

Q5. → C
The author suggests incident reporting and monitoring model behaviour as a way to regulate AI risks without intrusive emotional surveillance.

Q6. → C
The passage assumes that even if AI models are globally developed, India can still regulate their use within its markets through downstream governance.