The consultation, helmed by Union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) additional secretary Abhishek Singh who oversees India AI, was a preliminary meeting that sought to seek inputs on how the Indian AISI should be structured, what should be its mandate, and how it could work with other AISIs across the world.

The UK became the first country in the world to announce an AISI during the AI Safety Summit held in Bletchley Park in November 2023 with an initial investment of £100 million (~ ₹1,100 crore). It was closely followed by the USA which established it as a part of its National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Japan launched its AISI in February 2024.

In May 2024, the European Union and eleven other nations, including the USA, the UK, South Korea, Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, and Singapore signed the Seoul Declaration at the Seoul Summit which, amongst other things, aimed to create or expand AISIs, research programmes and other relevant institutions to promote cooperation on safety research and share best practices.

Ahead of the October 7 meeting, MeitY shared two categories of questions with stakeholders that included companies such as Meta, Google, Microsoft, IBM and OpenAI; industry bodies such as Nasscom, Broadband India Forum, BSA-The Software Alliance; multiple IITs; consulting firms such as The Quantum Hub and Dialogue; and civil society organisations like Digital Empowerment Foundation and Access Now.

The first category of questions asked about AISI’s focus –- its core objectives, the organisational structure best suited for its mission and scalability, how it could develop indigenous AI safety tools “that are contextualized to India’s unique challenges”, and who should be the AISI’s strategic partners.

The second category of questions focused on how AISI could develop “strong partnerships and gain stakeholder support” –- what strategies could engage key stakeholders in supporting AI safety, how could the AISI establish and maintain effective national and international partnerships, and what role should it play in global AI safety discussions and standards.

HT’s conversations with participants suggested that there was consensus in the room that first, the government is serious about setting up AISI; second, AISI is not about regulation but about identifying harms, setting standards, etc. and these could eventually inform future regulations; and third, interoperable systems are required so that silos are not developed.

The AISI could also evolve a risk assessment toolkit, or a voluntary compliance toolkit that the industry could use. However, the government does not intend to set AISI up as a regulatory body and thus none of its frameworks will be binding. Research supported by the AISI could be used to inform any eventual AI policy that the Indian government drafts.

Structure

The stakeholders, in the October 7 meeting, discussed how the Indian AISI could be structured and whether it, or at least its secretariat, should be housed within MeitY. Stakeholders said that the AISI should have reasonable independence and thus could be housed within academic institutions such as IITs.

There was also discussion around what role the states could play, especially as multiple states, such as Telangana, have started using AI in delivery of public services. The AISI could provide guidance (without being prescriptive) and best standards for using AI, stakeholders said.

Budget

In the October 7 meeting, there was a short discussion about budget allocation for the Indian AISI. Singh, it is understood, said that about ₹20 crore has been earmarked for the AISI under the IndiaAI Mission but more money could be repurposed from the different verticals of the IndiaAI Mission.

In March, the cabinet had approved a budget outlay of ₹10,372 crore over five years for the IndiaAI Mission. In its FY25 budget announced in July, the government had allocated ₹551.75 crore for the IndiaAI Mission.

Mandate

Stakeholders also discussed how the AISI needs to have the budget and the flexibility to evolve, both its structure and its mandate. Initially, at least one stakeholder said, the mandate of the AISI could be limited to setting standards for AI, understanding risks associated with its development and deployment, and how to carry out international collaborations. Not limiting the agenda initially could prove to be overwhelming for AISI, stakeholders said.