Could you briefly explain how you got started in AI? What drew you to this area of study?

It's not an easy question to answer because "AI" is a term that's been around for a while to describe systems and practices that have been evolving; I've been working on technology policy for more than ten years, both domestically and internationally, and I've seen firsthand how everything was about "big data" before it became all about "AI." However, the fundamental questions we were asking about the effects of data-driven industries and technology on society still stand.Early on in law school in India, I was drawn to these concerns because, in the midst of a sea of decades-old precedent—at times even centuries old—I found it inspiring to work in a field where the normative, or "pre-policy," questions of what kind of world we want to live in remain paramount. What part does technology have to play in it? Continue to be contested and open-ended. There were intense discussions about whether a biometric ID database of the entire population in India was creating a dangerous vector of social control at the same time as the global debate about whether the internet could be regulated at all at the national level (which now seems like an obvious yes!).
 

Which of your AI-related works are you most proud of?

In the middle of a chatGPT-fueled AI frenzy, our 2023 AI Landscape report was unveiled in April. It was intended to be both an action-oriented manifesto for the larger civil society community and a diagnostic of the issues surrounding the AI economy that should keep us up at night. It came at a time when stories about AI's omniscience and inevitable development had replaced the diagnosis and appropriate course of action. I believe we were effective in cutting through the hype to refocus attention on AI's effects on society and the economy and not assume any of this was inevitable. We emphasised that the AI boom was further entrenching the concentration of power within a very tiny portion of the tech industry.

How do you deal with the obstacles presented by the male-dominated IT sector, which also affects the male-dominated AI sector?

The tech sector, and AI in particular, is still primarily male and white, with its geographic concentration in affluent urban bubbles. However, I like to reframe the discussion away from AI's white dude problem because, although it is now widely recognised, it can also give the impression of quick fixes or diversity theatre, neither of which can address the systemic power imbalances and inequalities that are ingrained in the way the tech industry currently functions. It doesn't address the ingrained "solutionism" that underlies many destructive or exploitative technological applications.

How would you advise women looking to pursue careers in artificial intelligence?

The finest advise I could give is to stand your ground, not only to women but also to any marginalised identities or views looking to offer criticism from outside the AI business. Particularly when criticism originates from non-STEM backgrounds, this area will frequently and methodically try to deny it. This is easy to accomplish because AI is such an opaque field that may make you feel as though you're constantly pushing back from the outside. Strong voices in the industry will attempt to discredit you and your legitimate criticism, even if you have worked in the profession for decades as I have, just because you are questioning the status quo.

Since AI will affect all of us and may have a particularly negative impact on those with marginalised identities, you and I have just as much influence over its destiny as does Sam Altman. We are currently engaged in a conflict over who in society has the right to assert knowledge and authority regarding technological issues, therefore we must seize this opportunity and maintain our position.