Human Rights In The Age Of Algorithms: Rethinking AI As A Global Public Good

The Paradox of AI

There is a wide spectrum of AI usage that can be mapped across multiple industries. Its prowess can be traced from sophisticated AI models tracking pollutants and forecasting weather patterns to defending critical infrastructure. While AI enables unprecedented progress, it also deepens the divide between the global North and South. The imbalance perpetuates a cycle where technological progress enriches those already at the forefront while leaving behind those who arguably need it most.

The extreme consequences of this digital divide are encapsulated and coined through the term “digidicide” by the authors. The term encapsulates a digital age through its first part digi, di mirrors the broader occurrence of the ongoing divide in the digital era across sectors, and cide is traced as a suffix for the 'act of killing'. The epistemology is rooted in a projected phenomenon where the lack of access to essential digital technologies, including AI, would contribute to systemic disparities so severe that it becomes a leading cause of societal collapse.

Although the claim currently lacks empirical backing, the authors rely on traceable trends as discussed below, to fuel their argument of an oncoming digidicide.

Digi-Solidarity

The disparity in terms of access to AI technologies is not just global, it is localised and sectoral. The European Union's Copernicus Climate Change Service is an example where AI is intricately woven into the region's climate policy. Meanwhile, countries like Bangladesh, remain among the most vulnerable nations facing the risks of rising sea levels. Such nations continue to lack the digital infrastructure to adopt similar solutions, leaving them exposed to avoidable catastrophe.

AI-powered technologies like the Digital Twin, Da Vinci robotic surgical system have revolutionized healthcare delivery. However, these tools are prohibitively expensive. We do not see low-income countries adopting AI driven healthcare setup. It largely comes down to political will and national priorities of each nation. While public hospitals continue to struggle with basic equipment, the unequal distribution of AI in healthcare intensifies the existing disparities, leaving the majority of low-income populations disconnected from life-saving innovations.

Even in the educational domain, platforms like the DreamBox and Smart Sparrow personalize learning experiences for students globally. However, their access mandates the existence of digital infrastructure, internet connectivity, and basic literacy, a privilege which cannot be assumed to be universally available. Taking the case of Sub-Saharan Africa, a 2020 UNICEF report projected nearly 90% of school-age children lack internet access. This reflects a sharp digital divide that leaves millions of individuals without the tools needed to thrive in a digital age economy. As a natural corollary, even the job market in the coming decades is going to see a significant shift and inclination towards AI assisted tasks and the hiring of a workforce that has such digital skill sets.

These persistent sectoral inequalities are not isolated failures but interlinked injustices. Without a deliberate shift towards what may be called 'digi-solidarity', a global commitment to equitable AI access and usage across sectors, the risk of severe systemic digital exclusion or digidicide, would be inevitable. Thus, it is imperative that we measure the digital age's technological progress not just by the number of innovations and their patents, but by its reach and global inclusivity.

AI as the New Commons

International law has long recognized certain resources as the shared heritage of mankind, like the usage of high seas, governed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the use and exploration of outer space under the Outer Space Treaty (OST), and Antarctica regulated by the Antarctic Treaty System under the Antarctic Treaty of 1959. These frameworks are rooted in principles of equitable access, sustainability, and the prohibition of national appropriation. Despite the proliferation of declarations, resolutions, and compacts such as the UN's Global Digital Compact (GDC) and the recent Doha Declaration on AI and Human Rights, most digital rights commitments remain non-binding. While these initiatives represent critical normative steps forward, they are often couched in aspirational language and lack enforcement mechanisms.

AI is also a resource which holds significant implications for global progress. Although its transformative potential transcends borders, its benefits are seemingly unequally distributed. To treat AI as a global commons would call for a paradigm shift that would require AI to be treated no longer as a proprietary tool, but to be recognized as a shared resource essential for humanity's collective welfare. The authors propose to call for an AI Commons Framework (AICF) that aims to converge the moral and legal imperative of ensuring equitable access to AI technologies.

Global AI Policy & The AI Commons Framework

To enable and objectively operationalise AICF, a robust global policy must address three key dimensions:

First, it must ensure equitable access to key AI tools, software that are being used globally within priority sectors. The authors propose a phased sectoral approach. Sectors which would be first affected by climate change, where human rights are at stake, etc. should be co-opted for this purpose. After identification, international funding mechanisms, like the provision of Green Climate Fund, should subsidize AI research and deployment in developing nations. Open-source AI platforms can democratize access, which in turn ensures that marginalized communities benefit from technological advancements.

Secondly, the policy should encourage Public-Private Partnerships (PPP). Initiatives like AI for Earth by Microsoft have demonstrated how corporate resources support global sustainability efforts. Mandates could be made regarding investments in technologies that directly enhance priority sectors in underprivileged regions to prevent digidicide.

Thirdly, such a policy must protect fundamental human rights under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The application of AI in education and healthcare must be prioritized.

The proposed AICF could provide a blueprint for this vision which is ingrained in the collective responsibility of nations to harness AI for humanity's collective good.

Global economies must play a proactive role in ensuring AI technologies for socio-economically disadvantaged populations. This requires prioritizing public investments in AI over other expenditures. For example, India's Ayushman Bharat Digital Mission aims to digitize healthcare records and improve service delivery through technology. States must increase the reach of such initiatives to integrate AI to significantly enhance their impact and efficacy.

An argument may be raised that treating AI as a global commons would infringe on intellectual property rights and undermine national sovereignty. However, these concerns can be addressed through tailored solutions like usage of licensing agreements which ensures proprietary AI tools are accessible by low-income nations without compromising the rights of innovators. Additionally, States need to come together to form a global AI governance body, modeled after the International Telecommunication Union, which could mediate disputes and ensure compliance of the AICF.

The GDC presents a critical opportunity, but only if it is reimagined as a binding international covenant on digital rights. While the world navigates the complexities of the ongoing AI revolution, it must be remembered that technology's true measure lies not in its sophistication but in its capacity to uplift the most vulnerable among us.

Anamika Shukla is an Assistant Professor of Law at Gujarat National Law University, India & Tarun, is an Assistant Professor (Research) at Gujarat National Law University, India. Views are personal.