Answer

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly being adopted in administrative decision-making due to its potential to enhance efficiency, accuracy, and objectivity. However, its application raises ethical debates around transparency, accountability, and potential biases. The introduction of AI in administration requires careful consideration of its impact on human rights and equity, making it a debatable issue in the realm of public governance.

Application of AI for as a Dependable Source of Input for Administrative Rational Decision Making:

Positives:

• Data-Driven Efficiency: AI processes vast amounts of data quickly, allowing administrators to make more informed decisions with real-time insights and accurate projections.
  For instance: AI-driven data analysis has improved urban planning in cities like Singapore, optimising traffic management and resource allocation.
• Cost Reduction: By automating routine tasks and improving decision accuracy, AI helps reduce administrative costs and increase productivity.
  For example: AI-driven chatbots and systems used in e-governance reduced administrative burden and operational costs.
• Predictive Analytics: AI’s predictive capabilities help administrators foresee trends and prepare for future challenges, aiding in proactive decision-making.
  For example: AI forecasting models were used to predict COVID-19 spread, helping governments allocate medical resources more effectively.
• Enhanced Consistency in Public Resource Allocation: AI ensures uniformity in decisions, reducing inconsistencies in service delivery.
  For example: AI in direct benefit transfer (DBT) schemes ensures efficient disbursement, but errors in identifying beneficiaries may spark ethical concerns.
• Reduction of Human Bias in Judicial Decisions: AI can help reduce human bias in judicial processes by making data-driven decisions.
  For example: AI tools like Supreme Court AI Portal SUPACE are used for legal research, though critics fear a lack of human empathy in AI-generated outcomes.

Application of AI a Debatable Issue: Negatives

• Risk of Algorithmic Bias: AI systems can unintentionally reinforce existing biases if trained on biassed datasets, leading to flawed or unfair decisions.
  For example: In the S., AI algorithms used in predictive policing have been criticised for disproportionately targeting minority communities due to biassed historical data.
• Lack of Accountability: AI decisions can lack human accountability, making it difficult to hold any party responsible for errors or unjust outcomes.
  For example: The use of AI in automated welfare decisions in the UK faced backlash when erroneous denials of benefits went unaccounted for.
• Ethical Dilemmas: AI systems may face ethical challenges when making decisions that affect human lives, as they cannot fully understand moral contexts or nuances.
  For example: The use of AI in healthcare decision-making, such as prioritising patients for critical care, raises ethical questions about value judgments.
• Dependence on Technology: Overreliance on AI may lead to reduced human oversight and critical thinking, increasing vulnerability to system errors or cyberattacks.
• Job Displacement: AI implementation can lead to job displacement in administrative sectors, affecting livelihoods and increasing socio-economic inequality.
  For example: Automation in local government offices can reduce the need for administrative clerks, sparking concerns over job losses in public service sectors.
• Concerns over Privacy and Data Protection: AI systems require vast amounts of data, leading to concerns about data privacy and surveillance.
  For example: India’s National AI Strategy emphasises the use of data for public welfare, but critics argue for stronger safeguards against potential misuse.

Use of AI for Administrative Rational Decision Making in a Prudent Manner:

• Integrating Informed Consent: Individuals should be made aware of how AI will use their data, ensuring transparency and fairness in its application.
  For example: In Aarogya Setu, concerns about consent and privacy were addressed by enhancing user data control after public scrutiny.
• Regular Audits: AI systems should undergo regular ethical audits to ensure accountability and mitigate risks of bias.
  For example: NITI Aayog’s AI Strategy includes a focus on regular audits to ensure fairness and accountability in AI applications.
• Promoting Public Discourse and Policy Development: Engaging the public and policymakers in discussions on AI’s role in decision-making can ensure ethical use.
  For example: The Responsible AI for All initiative by NITI Aayog fosters awareness about AI’s impact, encouraging public discourse on its ethical implications.
• Ensuring Ethical Training for AI Developers: Developers should be trained in ethical considerations to minimise bias and unethical outcomes in AI systems.
  For example: The National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence emphasises ethical AI development, addressing biases in AI applications for healthcare and education.
• Balancing Human Oversight: AI should assist, not replace, human decision-making, ensuring a balanced approach that includes human judgement.
  For example: In AI-driven medical diagnosis, human doctors provide final evaluations, ensuring a blend of AI precision with human empathy.

The application of Artificial Intelligence in administrative decision-making is both an opportunity and a challenge. While AI can enhance efficiency and reduce biases, it also raises ethical concerns like accountability, transparency, and privacy. A prudent approach, with proper oversight, ethical standards, and human involvement, is essential for ensuring AI serves public welfare without compromising rights.

DOWNLOAD PDF