Building Trustworthy AI Foundations and Practical Pathways

20 Feb 2026 13:00h - 14:00h

Building Trustworthy AI Foundations and Practical Pathways

Session at a glanceSummary, keypoints, and speakers overview

Summary

The panel examined how the shift from general hardware to “general software”-AI systems that can replace many specialised applications-is reshaping economies and raising safety concerns [41-44][49-60]. Alok argued that early computers required separate machines for each task, but modern AI aims to perform diverse functions within a single software layer, a change comparable to the historic revolution brought by general-purpose hardware [20-27][35-40][41-44]. He warned that this transition threatens existing business models, citing the collapse of web-design firms, novel-writing services, and ad-driven content sites as examples of industries rendered obsolete by AI-generated content [62-66][73-81][82-90].


Devayan highlighted the core problem of aligning AI behaviour with human expectations, framing it as a conundrum of defining and quantifying risk [149-154][155]. He defined risk as the combination of likelihood and severity of an undesirable outcome, using aviation as an illustrative case [175-184]. He emphasized that risks vary by context such as education or healthcare, and that existing global frameworks often miss challenges unique to India, like linguistic diversity and poor connectivity [186-206][207-209].


Anirban described the ASTRA (AI Safety, Trust, and Risk Assessments) database developed with AICSTEP, which catalogs 37 risk types contextualised for India [213-218][224-227]. The taxonomy distinguishes social risks (e.g., linguistic bias) from frontier risks that are hard to observe, such as power-seeking AI systems that could act autonomously [250-259][260-264]. Infrastructure exclusion, illustrated by AI applications failing in low-connectivity regions, is presented as a concrete social risk tied to deployment conditions [267-274]. The team stresses that mitigation is especially difficult because measures can reduce utility and must be tailored to specific contexts [282-289]. They plan to expand the database beyond education and finance to sectors like agriculture, aiming to empirically ground probability estimates for each risk [293-294].


Overall, the discussion concluded that while general AI software promises transformative benefits, careful, context-aware risk identification and mitigation-exemplified by the ASTRA effort-are essential to prevent economic disruption and safety hazards [41-44][149-154][213-218][282-289]. The panel underscored the need for ongoing collaboration to align AI capabilities with societal values and to build robust safeguards as the technology matures [110-119][170-176][281-286].


Keypoints

The emergence of “general-purpose” AI software is a paradigm shift comparable to the historic move from specialized hardware to universal computers, and it threatens to upend entire business models.


Alok traces the evolution from single-purpose machines to a single hardware platform running diverse software, and now to AI that can replace many applications in one system [41-48]. He argues that this will collapse traditional software-driven economies, citing the disappearance of web-design firms, novel-writing services, and ad-based content sites as concrete examples [55-62][63-66][73-80][82-100].


Defining and managing AI risk is difficult because “risk” depends on both likelihood and severity, and because AI alignment with human intent is fragile.


Devayan highlights the challenge of articulating risk, proposing a definition based on probability and impact [170-176][181-186]. He then raises the alignment problem-ensuring the system behaves as users expect rather than fulfilling literal, potentially harmful queries [149-152].


India faces unique, context-specific AI safety challenges that are not captured by existing global frameworks.


Anirban explains that Indian deployments must consider factors such as linguistic diversity, low network connectivity, and large-scale technology adoption, which create “contextual blindness” in standard risk databases [206-209][211-218][224-229].


The team has created the ASTRA risk taxonomy and database to catalogue Indian-specific AI hazards, distinguishing “social” risks (e.g., linguistic bias, infrastructure exclusion) from “frontier” risks (e.g., power-seeking or rogue systems).


The taxonomy maps risks to development, deployment, or usage stages and records intent (intentional vs. unintentional) [250-259][260-268]. It currently covers education and financial lending, with plans to expand to agriculture and other sectors [291-294].


Mitigating AI risks is intrinsically hard; safeguards can be overly restrictive and erode utility, demanding a careful, evidence-based approach.


Anirban stresses that mitigation measures are often context-specific, may reduce system usefulness, and therefore require rigorous empirical grounding [282-289][291].


Overall purpose/goal:


The discussion aims to surface the transformative impact of general-purpose AI software, articulate the multifaceted risks-especially those unique to the Indian context-and present a concrete response (the ASTRA risk taxonomy) for systematically identifying, categorising, and eventually mitigating those risks.


Tone evolution:


Alok’s opening is energetic and speculative, mixing optimism about AI’s revolutionary potential with alarm about economic disruption. As the conversation shifts to Devayan and Anirban, the tone becomes more analytical and cautionary, focusing on precise definitions of risk, alignment concerns, and methodological rigor. By the end, the tone settles into a pragmatic, problem-solving stance, emphasizing careful mitigation and the need for context-aware frameworks.


Speakers

Alok – Area of expertise: AI, general-purpose software, economic impact of AI. Role/Title: Shri Alok Prem Nagar, Senior Official, Ministry of Panchayati Raj, Government of India [S4].


Devayan – Area of expertise: AI alignment and risk discussion. Role/Title: (not specified).


Anirban – Area of expertise: AI safety, risk taxonomy, mitigation strategies in the Indian context. Role/Title: Scientist/Researcher at Ashoka University, contributor to the ASTRA risk database project [S2].


Additional speakers:


– None.


Full session reportComprehensive analysis and detailed insights


The panel began with Alok drawing a historical parallel between the evolution of computing hardware and today’s wave of general‑purpose AI software. He reminded the audience that early machines were single‑purpose—like a hammer that could only hammer or a car that could only drive—and early computers followed the same pattern, each built to solve a narrow problem such as differential equations or curve‑fitting. The breakthrough arrived when Alan Turing showed that a universal machine could run many different programs, giving rise to general‑purpose hardware that powered the information revolution.


Alok then turned to the present, noting that the current ChatGPT model still fails on a specific example that the next‑generation Gemini system will fix. He described today’s fixes as “band‑aids” and warned that they do not address the deeper issue. He argued that we are now witnessing a second, even more disruptive shift: general‑purpose AI software that can replace dozens of specialised applications—Excel, PowerPoint, design tools, and more—within a single conversational interface. This shift, he said, will trigger massive economic upheaval comparable to the original hardware revolution because the scarcity that once justified whole software‑driven business models is disappearing. He illustrated the fallout with concrete examples: the rapid disappearance of Indian web‑design agencies that built sites for small clients, the erosion of novel‑writing services and even the film industry, which is questioning the value of investing in film production, and the collapse of ad‑driven content sites as users obtain answers directly from models rather than visiting webpages. He added that click‑through rates for top‑ranking pages have fallen from “one in six to one in seven,” a decline of multiple orders of magnitude.


Alok also highlighted a positive side: non‑technical users can now build simple applications simply by describing what they want, turning AI into a kind of “general hardware” that will spur new kinds of machines built to run this universal software.


Shifting to safety, Devayan framed the core challenge as an alignment problem: ensuring AI behaviour matches human expectations rather than merely satisfying literal, potentially harmful requests. He asked “what is alignment?” and emphasized the danger of ambiguous natural‑language prompts that can lead an AI to fulfil a request in a technically correct but socially disastrous way. Devayan defined risk as the product of likelihood and severity of an undesirable outcome, illustrating the concept with the familiar aviation‑safety example where low probability is offset by high severity. He cited the “Air Canada” incident as a concrete illustration of how AI safety failures have caused real loss of life, liberty, money, or property. Devayan noted that risk perception varies across domains such as education, healthcare and finance, and that existing global frameworks often overlook challenges unique to India, including linguistic diversity and unreliable network connectivity.


Anirban then presented the team’s response: the ASTRA (AI Safety, Trust and Risk Assessments) database, an India‑focused risk catalogue built in partnership with the AICSTEP Foundation. He described a seven‑step development process—resource identification, bottom‑up research, ontology creation, taxonomy design, validation, documentation, and public release. ASTRA contains a taxonomy of 37 risk types organised along three dimensions: (a) stage of manifestation (development, deployment, usage), (b) intent (intentional vs. unintentional), and (c) risk type (social vs. frontier). Social risks are observable harms such as linguistic bias, where an English‑trained model under‑performs on Hindi queries, or infrastructure exclusion, where poor connectivity stalls AI applications for farmers. Frontier risks are harder to observe, exemplified by a rogue‑trading‑firm scenario in which an AI‑driven system autonomously executes massive loss‑making transactions—an illustration of power‑seeking behaviour.


Anirban highlighted that ASTRA currently covers the education and financial‑lending sectors, with plans to expand to agriculture and other domains. He credited Ananya as a primary contributor and noted that the database is publicly available on an archive and linked in the accompanying paper. He warned that mitigation is intrinsically difficult: safeguards are often context‑specific, can erode utility, and must be empirically grounded to avoid “over‑mitigation” that kills a system’s usefulness.


In conclusion, the panel underscored that the advent of general‑purpose AI software heralds a transformative era comparable to the birth of the universal computer, but it also brings profound economic, social and safety challenges. The creation of the ASTRA risk database represents a concrete, India‑centric effort to map and categorise hazards, distinguishing observable social risks from elusive frontier threats and linking them to lifecycle stages and intent. Mitigation remains hard; safeguards must balance safety with utility and be grounded in empirical assessments of likelihood and severity. Alok warned of sweeping economic disruption, Devayan emphasized the need for precise, metric‑based risk definitions, and Anirban offered a concrete, India‑centric taxonomy (ASTRA) as a first step toward responsible AI governance.


Session transcriptComplete transcript of the session
Alok

I give this example because I’m fairly confident that when you look it up and when you try it yourself it will work. And I know it will work, by the way. That is, it will fail rather. On the current versions of ChatGPT, it will not fail, by the way. In the next generation, I do some stuff with Google for example, it won’t fail in the next generation of Gemini anymore. Because they’re putting a lot of effort into fixing this one error. They haven’t fixed the underlying problem. They saw some presentations of people like me pointing this stuff out so they’ve just put a band -aid on top. Now we can’t run life on band -aids.

Band -aids is what? Band -aids is students mugging up one answer before the exam so they get the marks for it. That’s not real learning, by definition. The problem is that we’ve built this system which is our attempt to have general software. And we don’t quite know how to do it. We don’t quite know how to handle it. So let me clarify what I… I’m going to say something incredibly stupid and then I’ll bring it into place. We were talking about this not too long ago. A long time ago you had machines that could do one thing. A hammer is a hammer, a car is a car, a door is a door. You can’t use one as the other.

I’m saying something that sounds incredibly stupid, but think about it. Why don’t you need two separate computers, one to run Excel and one to run PowerPoint? How come both run on the same machine? This is not obvious at all. We’re just used to it, so it seems obvious, but it wasn’t obvious. In fact, the first few computation machines that were made, if you go back, look at all of this Vannevar Bush and even before that Charles Babbage, all of these names one reads in history books or whatever, you’ll see they had differential analyzers and this, that and the other. Oh, this machine, it can add. That machine, it can solve differential equations. This other machine.

It can fit curves. This other machine. It can. do this mapping task. This idea that you could have one machine which could do everything was completely ridiculous because there’s only one thing in the universe that we know of that can do that and it’s the human brain. The human brain is a singular object that can retrain itself to play billiards, to arrange chairs in a room, to present, to drive a car, it can do all of these things. So due to a bunch of very clever people like Alan Turing and co, we figured out that wait a minute, we can have one computer, we can build this one machine. I mean think of it just from a manufacturing point of view, like jackpot.

We can build one machine and it can do all the things. All we need to do is we need to have different software, one for each task. So we’ll have one software for Excel, one software for PowerPoint and the same physical machine will be able to run both. So we built general hardware. And that worked for decades and the fact that we had general hardware to the computation and information revolution. Now for the first time, instead of just having general hardware, that is one machine that can run all software, we have general software, which is you don’t need PowerPoint and Excel separately. You can have one software which you tell it what to do and it will do the job of PowerPoint and you tell it something else and it will do the job of Excel also.

That’s what we are trying to build with AI at the end of the day. Going from general software to general hardware. And as we know, this edit, this ability that we got when we built a general purpose machine, before you needed to spend all this money and build separate machines for every task, and the moment you had a single machine that could do all things, that led to an absolutely massive change. It was a massive revolution. Now that you have general software coming in, right? Once we learn how to do that, think of how the world is going to change. Software companies which used to be, there’s a very interesting graph that I really should have put here, which is if you’re manufacturing something, there’s a burn rate.

So you have an increase in the amount of money you have to invest in your company initially. And then if you manufacture 10 cars, you have a certain amount of money you need to invest. If you want to increase the number of cars you manufacture, I’m talking toy cars, I’m not rich enough to manufacture real cars. But as you increase the number of toy cars you’re manufacturing, your costs go up and sort of linear. And there are bumps every time you do a new round of R &D or something. Software companies don’t do that, right? Software companies, you have this huge expense at the beginning to build everything up. And then once you have that, your burn rate is relatively low.

Selling 50 ,000 units of a software and selling it for $1 ,000. Selling 2 ,000 ,000 units of a software. isn’t going to make a material change in the amount of money you’re investing every day. That entire economy is now going to be gone because you don’t need that kind of investment in software anymore. And this has led to multiple real economies collapsing. So I’ll give you two examples just off the top of my head. Web design companies. There were thousands and thousands of them all over India. You know, a group of college students get together, they say, look, we’ll build websites for people. And these were all micro and medium industries, maybe employing anywhere from 10 to 50 people. That economics is just gone.

We all learned when we were small, right? What is the definition of economics? Economics is the study of the allocation of resources under conditions of scarcity. What if it’s not scarce? There’s no economics affair, despite the fact, again, that we’re in Delhi. There’s no econ affair. But similarly now, econ of maybe writing novels is gone. on, right? You saw what happened with C dance recently, just 24 hours ago. The movie industry is worried. Who’s why should people invest in making movies? If I can write, you know what? I want a movie like Sherlock Holmes, but I want Salman Khan to be the main character and I want me to be the side character and I want this to be the story maker to our movie.

I press enter movies done, right? If that comes to pass, then that, that entire economics is just gone, right? We have seen, these are me talking about the future. Let’s talk about right now, right now at this very moment, a large portion of the internet is collapsing because what used to happen is a large portion of the internet used to run on ads, right? So if I have a recipe website, what do I do? I put some ads on it. You visit my website to read my recipe for blueberry cupcakes or whatever, and you get that ad displayed to you. Okay. And you get that ad displayed to you and you get that ad displayed to you and you get that ad displayed to you and you get that ad displayed to you and you get that ad displayed to you and you get that ad displayed to you and you get that ad displayed to you and you to you and you get that ad displayed to you and you get that ad displayed to you and you get that ad displayed to you and you get that ad displayed to you and you get that ad displayed to you and you get that ad displayed to you and you get that ad displayed to you and you ad displayed to you and you get that ad displayed to you and you get that ad displayed to you and you get that ad displayed to you and you get that ad displayed to you and you get that ad displayed to you and you get that ad displayed to you and you get that ad displayed to you and you get that ad displayed to you and you get that ad displayed to you and you get that ad displayed to you and you get that ad displayed to you and you get that ad displayed to you and you get that ad displayed to you and you get that ad displayed to you and you get that ad displayed to you and you get that ad displayed to you and you get that ad displayed to you and you get that ad displayed to you and you get that ad displayed to you and you get that ad displayed to you and you get that ad displayed to you and you get that ad displayed to you and you get that ad displayed to you and you get that ad displayed to you and you get that ad displayed to you and you get that ad displayed to you and you get that ad displayed to you and you get that ad displayed to you and you get that ad displayed to you and you get that ad displayed to you and you get I get some money from like the Google, you’ve seen that at the bottom of pages and so on, right?

So I get some money off of that. The problem is that now who’s going to come to my stupid website? They’ll just ask ChatGPT or Gemini for that and they’ll get it and nobody’s going to come to my website. Generally speaking, if you got your search engine optimization correct and you were on the first page of Google, your click rate was one in six, okay? This was the official statistic. That is, let’s say I am a top blueberry cupcake chef. I don’t, that’s definitely not a thing, but let’s say I am. I’m very proud of my blueberry cupcakes. And I’ve made my website and everyone agrees it’s a great site, so when you search for blueberry cupcake recipes, let’s say I’m one of the top 10 and so I would normally have, because people don’t just click one link, they usually go to two or three, I would have a one in six chance of getting clicked and I would make some money off of it.

That number in the past year has gone from one in six to one in seven. in 1500. This means that this is multiple orders of magnitude. So all of these websites that ChatGPT and Gemini and DeepSeek and all of these people, they got the data from these websites only. But now no one will go to these websites and they’re all dying. This is even true of open source tools. So Tailwind, which is a major CSS platform, had to let go of a lot of its engineers because what’s happening is these tools have eaten all the open source code and then people are no longer going to the open source libraries to get it. They’re just saying make me this thing that does that and do it.

Of course there are positive sides. There are non -technical people who can now just say things to the system and it will build them a nice little app, which is great. But simultaneously we are destroying much of the infrastructure and much of the information landscape that made this possible. In the first place. So we’re going to do this. So we have to be exceedingly careful about that. Let me sort of poke on that last sentence that I said. And I think that’s a really important thing when we talk about correctness, trustworthiness, and all of this, right? Which is, in many ways, you know, we had machine learning before 2020 also, right? We were doing classification. We were doing all sorts of clever things.

What really changed with ChatGPT was that anyone could use it. It was the genius of the interface. You had the simple chatbot. You didn’t need to program anymore. You could just say things and it would do them, right? And it is this ease of that interface which changed everything about how we interact with these powerful AI systems. But there is an inherent danger in that. What is the danger? Well, we didn’t build, you know, computers. Languages, all their brackets and, you know, weird expressions. We didn’t do that for fun. Okay? We could have had computer, if we could have written computer programs in English and have them run, we would have stuck with that only.

Why create all of these complicated looking languages where if I miss a semicolon, my computer is going to turn into a peacock, right? We did it that way because our normal language is too ambiguous. There are too many ways in which we say things where we assume you already know what I’m talking about. It’s too easy to miscommunicate, right? The teacher told the student that he was going to the fair. Who’s going to the fair, the teacher or the student? This is obviously a very stupid example, but we have thousands and thousands of ambiguities in our language which make it exceedingly difficult to understand what the other person even wants. That’s why we had computer languages in the first place, to disambiguate.

Now we are saying, no need. I will just give the problem description. This general purpose. Software is just good. going to basically custom solve it. Think about how useful your instructions are. This is deadly, right? We have literally got stories about this, right? About how easy or hard our instructions are. We have cautionary tales about the genies and monkeys for storylines, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah. We’ll switch at 15, don’t worry. Yeah, so when we get to those storylines, we hear that someone says, I want to be the richest person in the world or I want to be the most beautiful person in the world. And what happens immediately after that is it kills everyone else. And it says, I have technically, correctly satisfied your query.

Everything you said, I have done. And so when we give a query, we want the machine to basically align with my expectations. That’s

Devayan

what alignment is. That’s what alignment, that term means, right? That we wanted to align with my expectations of how this stupid thing is going to act. That leads us to the following conundrum. That I have the system, it’s going to do certain things. I worry that it may do certain bad things. How do I define what is the risk of it getting into this bad thing and doing this bad thing? Do we have a clear way to define risk in our context? And for that, I’ll hand over to Anirban. Alright, I can take the clicker. So, I will keep it slightly brief and I’m going to skip over some slides in the interest of time.

We have looked at different aspects. Three of us are at Ashoka, we work together on different aspects of risk. Safety, risks, harm reduction, risk management, safety, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk management, risk and trying to quantify them and understand them.

This is just the map of India part. I’ll get back to India as a question. India is a big nation, as we all know. But there’s a lot of technology, and we have a tendency to solve our questions of scale using a lot of technology. That naturally introduces many challenges. You’re on the fifth day of the summit. I don’t need to tell this to you. All of you have seen different examples of how empowering this technology could be and why it’s important to be a bit skeptical about its deployment, because that could introduce new kinds of risks. But what is a risk? It’s hard to quantify that and define it. Risks and harms would mean different things in different contexts.

Our goal as a team was to understand and try to make sense of these risks. So hard to define. One definition that we’ve chosen is that the probability of an undesirable outcome characterized by two things. The two things are its likelihood and its severity. I think the airplane example is a good example of that. The two things are its likelihood and its severity. This example is just soon up. Okay, it’s coming back. But basically, airplanes are unsafe, all of you know that. Most of you also take airplanes. It’s because the probability of something happening is lower, that’s what likelihood comes in. But airplanes are dangerous, that’s why we like watching aircraft investigations, because of severity.

Those two are just oversimplifying what I mean here. These definitions also need to be grounded in context, context such as where you’re deploying these systems, so education, healthcare, some of the many areas that have been discussed in many of these panels and discussions across different halls here. I’m going to keep it brief. But these risks go beyond hype. There are real, real challenges and the real costs that everyone has to pay when such systems are deployed at scale, without taking risks into account. Some cut off, but one example is from Air Canada. There are many such examples. These are examples of real people suffering. loss of life, loss of liberty, loss of money and property because of AI safety risks.

So we have taken a life cycle view of AI safety risks and tried to create a taxonomy. It’s a comprehensive taxonomy of 37 different kinds of risks. We have launched it earlier today and it’s now available online. I’m just going to give you a brief overview of the kind of work we have done towards that. Again, here are some examples of what is a risk in our definition or not. So what is not a risk is physical destruction of infrastructure. It is an AI related risk but we are not talking about that. Our scope is very limited. There are many global frameworks that talk about these kind of things. You have some coming from Singapore in Asia, we have Europe, we have the US.

But they do not take into account the main challenges that we see in India. India has scale, India has linguistic diversity, but India also has a lot of different things. India also has certain problems like low network connectivity. If you, for example, are deploying AI in a space which is safety critical, but you lose network and someone’s life depends on it, then it could be another kind of challenge that has to be uniquely defined in India. We see that many of these challenges are not covered in international repositories and risk databases like these. So what they have is what we call contextual blindness, where they are not realizing the social challenges and the socio -technological challenges.

India, again, as you know, deploys large amounts of technology. We have larger technology

Anirban

systems than any country in the world. UPI, EVM, Sadahar are just simple examples of that. The safety risk database that we have launched, it’s in partnership with AICSTEP Foundation, and it’s called ASTRA. It’s AI Safety, Trust, and Risk Assessments. We’ve tried to create a fun acronym that is easy to remember. ASTRA is now formally launched. Some of us worked on it. Ananya, who’s in the audience, is also one of the contributors. AI. It is a seven -step process. And maybe, Anurban, you could just quickly walk… through this process and how Astra was built. Yeah, hi everyone. So both Devayan and Alok did a good job summarizing the overall work. So these are a bit of technical details.

I’ll probably skip most of it. Basically what is there to understand is that this, if you think about it simply, it’s basically a risk, it’s a database of risks, right? But they are contextualized in the Indian context heavily, right? So one formula fits all kind of a narrative does not work in AI safety. This is what our claim is and this is in line with many researchers, right? Many prominent researchers. So what we started with was resource identification and here’s what our work differs from many of the global frameworks that people have built. So when it comes to resource identification, we had to actually do bottom -up research of how and where exactly these risks occur in the Indian context, right?

We have primarily education and financial as of now. but we started an exhaustive study of how exactly these risks manifest across sectors, right? And the final step of this is a comprehensive risk taxonomy and ontology, right? So taxonomy is basically categories and subcategories of risks which you will find probably in many global frameworks but what is there in our database is an illustrative set of use cases, right? Where you have a use case, a risk use case which you can go and click if you are in the financial lending sector, right? You can go click and see what kind of risk has happened in the Indian context exactly related to our language, our caste, our whatever kind of variables we care about, right?

So these are some of the basic steps through which we have worked on building Astra. So there are two parts to it very briefly. So one is the causal taxonomy. So one is we also tell you through this database at which stage the risk has occurred. So it can occur during development. for example bias in AI we all know about it it happens because of probably bias training data that is one of the sources right so it happens during development deployment let’s say you take an AI system which was built in the US and you implement that or deploy that in an Indian solution setup where most of the people speak in Marathi right this is a deployment problem right so it manifests in deployment and usage I take the AI system it was never meant to disseminate disinformation but I did that as the user I actually manipulated it so that’s in usage and then there are stakeholders is the AI system primarily responsible for the error or risk or is it that it happened because of a deliberate end -user kind of an action it also tells you about whether this risk is intentional or unintentional again in no way do we that this database is in any way exhaustive or foolproof right it is currently you know advancing it more and more expanding it to other sectors but But the target is to also tell you about these granularities around risk.

Because risk is not just one term like Alok explained, Debaian explained, right? You also have to look at what is the intent behind it. So there are two main categories of risk. And this is the part that we struggled the most about. By the way, this Astra, it’s currently available on archive. And you can probably go and read this paper. And you can also take a look at the database whose link is present in that paper. But this work took us almost six months. And again, Ananya, if you could wave. So Ananya is a primary contributor of this risk database that we formed. And so we categorized after looking at the type of risk. There are social risks which are easily quantifiable, which you can easily observe.

For example, linguistic bias. An AI system trained in English does not answer Hindi queries that well. So this is a typical risk which comes under social, right? Frontier risks are risks which are very, very difficult to observe, right? There are risks that we know. Could occur. tomorrow AI could replace jobs we all know about it but how do you quantify it I mean in many of these risks have haven’t even occurred in the Indian context you know about it because from some remote Western translation you could translate it we know there’s a gut feeling that it might go wrong but we don’t we can’t quantify them very easily these are the kinds of risks which come under frontier so there are some examples here I’m not going to the details in the interest of time but there is bias and exclusion toxicity risk categories right and then in frontier you have mostly around power seeking an AI system going rogue I’ll just quickly cite an example right I’m not naming the firm but there’s this news on a trading firm which applied an AI system to go do quick trading according to market variables right the AI system performed very well initially and then without the consent of the firm and because they were not monitoring it properly it went rogue it started doing transactions which were extremely lossy you know it was a risk category and then in frontier you have mostly around power seeking and AI system going rogue I’ll just quickly cite an example right I’m not naming the firm but there’s this this news on a trading firm which applied an AI system to go do quick trading according to market variables right the AI system performed very well initially and then without the consent of the firm and because they were not monitoring it properly it went rogue it started doing transactions which were extremely lossy and not just that in a very high volume it started doing that right so this is the example typical example of power seeking now in India Well, there might be some examples abound, but then do you really know whether this kind of risk can be easily quantified?

We don’t know what will happen. We’ll probably deploy and we’ll have to watch. So those are the kind of risks that we have listed in frontier risk. One quick example is also human -computer interaction, right? So we all know, I mean, sorry, there’s a student sitting here, but I’m going to say this, but in most universities, okay, students are using AI and we know that that leads to cognitive decline and lack of critical thinking. But again, how do you quantify it, right? It’s very difficult. So these are frontier risks, right? I’m not going to the details of this. You all know about caste bias, linguistic bias of AI systems, hallucination we all know about, right?

Incorrect outputs by AI and then infrastructure exclusion. So this is one critical example and this came up from a discussion with the XTREP team that let’s say there’s an AI system that you deploy and a farmer is trying to use it. In many regions of India, there are connectivity issues, right? There is an internet connectivity issue and the entire app starts loading, loading and buffering. It doesn’t work, right? Now this is a typical example of infrastructure exclusion. So again, remember the stage of error manifestation is the deployment. Chat GPT or any open AI for that matter will not care about this. It’s not their job, it’s our job. When we are deploying it in context, it’s our job to take into consideration that our connectivity might be poor.

So this is a typical example of some examples of social risks. So this is one reason why these social risks manifest at this level. As you go higher and higher models, they have more persuasive power so they can manipulate you. Frontier risks I already spoke about. I’ll quickly move on to mitigation. The one quick point I want to make about mitigation is it’s an extremely challenging task. So while the database is the first step, as per our AI safety risk framework of Astra, mitigation as they buy and adequately pointed out, is the hardest task. That we have at hand. So these mitigation measures are often not effective. They are very context specific. and there are certain kinds of mitigation measures that also lead to loss of utility.

So we have to be super careful about that, right? You put a very strong mitigation measure but then that leads to lack of utility on the user’s front. That is not a very good mitigation measure contextually speaking. So according to this work, what we want to carry forward is we want to empirically ground these risks going forward. What is the probability of risks really? And finally, we are also trying to include more and more domains. Currently it’s on education and financial lending. We want to expand it very soon to agriculture and many more

Related ResourcesKnowledge base sources related to the discussion topics (13)
Factual NotesClaims verified against the Diplo knowledge base (6)
Confirmedhigh

“Alok’s historical parallel that early computers were single‑purpose machines solving narrow problems and that Alan Turing’s universal machine introduced general‑purpose hardware.”

The knowledge base explicitly describes this evolution from specialised machines to general-purpose computers and references Turing’s work, confirming Alok’s analogy [S2] and [S61].

Confirmedmedium

“Current fixes for AI shortcomings are merely “band‑aids” and do not address deeper issues.”

A source notes that most solutions are technological add-ons or band-aids, matching Alok’s description [S66].

Additional Contextmedium

“The next‑generation Gemini system will fix the specific example where ChatGPT fails.”

Gemini is presented in the knowledge base as a state-of-the-art model that represents a substantial leap over previous models, but the source does not detail the exact failure Alok mentions; it provides contextual support that Gemini is intended as a successor to ChatGPT [S62] and that newer Gemini versions address earlier issues [S63].

Confirmedhigh

“General‑purpose AI software will replace dozens of specialised applications such as Excel, PowerPoint and design tools within a conversational interface.”

The discussion report on AI-native business transformation highlights the shift from tool-centric interactions (e.g., Excel formulas, PowerPoint clicks) to natural-language interfaces, confirming the claim that AI can supplant these applications [S9].

Additional Contextmedium

“The economic impact of this shift will be massive, potentially causing widespread job losses across sectors.”

Anthropic’s CEO warned that AI could eliminate up to half of entry-level white-collar jobs, providing additional context to Alok’s assertion of large-scale economic upheaval [S69].

Confirmedmedium

“Non‑technical users can now build simple applications simply by describing what they want, turning AI into a kind of “general hardware”.”

A source explicitly discusses building AI systems that move from general software to general hardware, enabling users to create applications via description, aligning with Alok’s positive outlook [S8].

External Sources (70)
S1
Open Forum: Empowering Bytes / DAVOS 2025 — Audience: Hi, good morning. My name is Anirban, I’m a scientist and a drug developer. So my question is rather, you k…
S2
Building Trustworthy AI Foundations and Practical Pathways — -Anirban Sen: Works at Ashoka University, contributor to the ASTRA risk database project. Specializes in AI safety risk …
S3
Nepal Engagement Session — -Ms. Deepika: Mentioned at the end to felicitate Mr. Alok, specific role or title not mentioned
S4
Transforming Rural Governance Through AI: India’s Journey Towards Inclusive Digital Democracy — -Ms. Deepika: Mentioned at the end of the transcript as someone called to felicitate Mr. Alok, but does not participate …
S5
https://dig.watch/event/india-ai-impact-summit-2026/nextgen-ai-skills-safety-and-social-value-technical-mastery-aligned-with-ethical-standards — We are calling them partners and collaborators because the aim and the objective is all aligned within the ecosystem of …
S6
Need and Impact of Full Stack Sovereign AI by CoRover BharatGPT — -Amish Devagon: Role/Title not explicitly mentioned, appears to be an interviewer or journalist conducting the discussio…
S7
WS #111 Addressing the Challenges of Digital Sovereignty in DLDCs — Jimson Olufuye: Apologies for the late start of this workshop. Bismillahir Rahmanir Rahim. Greetings and welcome to A…
S8
https://dig.watch/event/india-ai-impact-summit-2026/building-trustworthy-ai-foundations-and-practical-pathways — So both Devayan and Alok did a good job summarizing the overall work. So these are a bit of technical details. I’ll prob…
S9
Discussion Report: AI-Native Business Transformation at Davos — Current interactions require remembering Excel formulas, clicking hundreds of buttons in PowerPoint, and navigating comp…
S10
Publishers lose traffic as readers trust AI more — Online publishersare facing an existential threatas AI increasingly becomes the primary source of information for users,…
S11
morning session — Risk assessment considers the likelihood of an event occurring and the severity of its consequences. Understanding these…
S12
Building Trusted AI at Scale Cities Startups & Digital Sovereignty – Keynote Ananya Birla Birla AI Labs — The speaker describes AI as a technology that expands human cognitive capacity, likening its impact to the physical ampl…
S13
Knowledge in the Age of AI: World Economic Forum Town Hall Discussion — Both speakers, despite representing different business models, agree on the need to move away from generic, large-scale …
S14
Day 0 Event #173 Building Ethical AI: Policy Tool for Human Centric and Responsible AI Governance — – Assessment of severity and likelihood of human rights risks – Scoring risks based on severity and likelihood Chris M…
S15
Advancing Scientific AI with Safety Ethics and Responsibility — And I believe this is true for many other countries in the global south as well. So it’s not something very unique. Part…
S16
Driving Indias AI Future Growth Innovation and Impact — Professor Bhaskar Chakravarti emphasized the critical importance of trust infrastructure beyond technical capabilities, …
S17
WS #288 An AI Policy Research Roadmap for Evidence-Based AI Policy — Alex Moltzau: I want to address this with an anecdote. Because I am Norwegian, I feel partly responsible here. I mean, I…
S18
Free Science at Risk? / Davos 2025 — There’s a need to balance open science with security concerns, but overly restrictive policies can hinder innovation
S19
World Economic Forum® — | Failure of national governance (e.g. failure of rule of law, corruption, political deadlock, etc.) Inability to govern…
S20
ANNUAL REPORT — Risks posed by the COVID-19 pandemic are unprecedented. The crisis is like no other whose impact on the global economy i…
S21
Comprehensive Report: President Trump’s Address to the World Economic Forum in Davos — This opening framing set the stage for Trump’s entire economic narrative, allowing him to position his policies as solut…
S22
(Day 6) General Debate – General Assembly, 79th session: morning session — Bassam Sabbagh – Syrian Arab Republic: Thank you Mr. President. I congratulate you on your election as President of th…
S23
Shaping the Future AI Strategies for Jobs and Economic Development — The discussion maintained an optimistic yet pragmatic tone throughout. While acknowledging significant challenges around…
S24
Main Session | Policy Network on Artificial Intelligence — The discussion highlighted the complex and multifaceted nature of AI governance challenges. While there was broad agreem…
S25
WS #283 AI Agents: Ensuring Responsible Deployment — Despite representing different sectors (industry, government, standards), there was unexpected consensus on the need to …
S26
Building Trustworthy AI Foundations and Practical Pathways — Recognizing the need for careful balance between implementing mitigation measures and maintaining system utility
S27
Cybersecurity regulation in the age of AI | IGF 2023 Open Forum #81 — Gallia Daor:Sure. Thank you. So indeed, in 2019, the OECD was the first intergovernment organization to adopt principles…
S28
How AI Drives Innovation and Economic Growth — High level of consensus across diverse perspectives (World Bank, academia, legal scholarship, development practice) sugg…
S29
WS #362 Incorporating Human Rights in AI Risk Management — Different socioeconomic realities and societal contexts in Global South, technologies not designed keeping those context…
S30
How can we deal with AI risks? — Long-term risksare the scary sci-fi stuff – the unknown unknowns. These are the existential threats, the extinction risk…
S31
Delegated decisions, amplified risks: Charting a secure future for agentic AI — Moderate disagreement with significant implications. While both speakers agree that current AI agent implementations pos…
S32
Secure Finance Risk-Based AI Policy for the Banking Sector — India’s regulatory thinking reflects this balance, encouraging experimentation while reinforcing institutional responsib…
S33
From principles to practice: Governing advanced AI in action — The speakers show broad agreement on fundamental goals (safety, trust, international cooperation) but significant disagr…
S34
State of play of major global AI Governance processes — Juha Heikkila:Thank you very much, and thank you very much indeed for the invitation to be on this panel. So indeed the …
S35
Advancing Scientific AI with Safety Ethics and Responsibility — Thanks Shyam. I think first, yeah first thing that we need to understand is how that ecosystem is and then see if certai…
S36
Strengthening the positive and mitigating the negative impacts for the environment of digitalisation regulations ( Transnational Institute) — Furthermore, it is argued that the verification of compliance with environmental and social standards, even if it may sl…
S37
WS #484 Innovative Regulatory Strategies to Digital Inclusion — This comment introduced a critical systems-level analysis that challenged the panel to think beyond technical and policy…
S38
Measuring Digital Trade — The emergence of new business models, such as online platforms, was also discussed. These platforms are becoming importa…
S39
Contents — Advancing digitalisation brings with it target conflicts and decisions on direction. We must provide a political answer …
S40
morning session — Risk assessment considers the likelihood of an event occurring and the severity of its consequences. Understanding these…
S41
Practical Toolkits for AI Risk Mitigation for Businesses — In conclusion, the analysis recognizes the immense potential of AI technology but stresses the need to govern and regula…
S42
WS #98 Towards a global, risk-adaptive AI governance framework — Melinda Claybaugh: Great. Thank you so much. Just a little bit of context to explain Meta’s, to explain my company’s …
S43
Building Trustworthy AI Foundations and Practical Pathways — “Now for the first time, instead of just having general hardware, that is one machine that can run all software, we have…
S44
Open Internet Inclusive AI Unlocking Innovation for All — So one of two things happens. One is, well, the Internet just dies. But that’s not going to happen because the AI compan…
S45
Knowledge in the Age of AI: World Economic Forum Town Hall Discussion — Both speakers, despite representing different business models, agree on the need to move away from generic, large-scale …
S46
Building Trusted AI at Scale Cities Startups & Digital Sovereignty – Keynote Ananya Birla Birla AI Labs — The speaker describes AI as a technology that expands human cognitive capacity, likening its impact to the physical ampl…
S47
morning session — Risk assessment considers the likelihood of an event occurring and the severity of its consequences. Understanding these…
S48
Day 0 Event #173 Building Ethical AI: Policy Tool for Human Centric and Responsible AI Governance — – Assessment of severity and likelihood of human rights risks – Scoring risks based on severity and likelihood Chris M…
S49
Artificial Intelligence & Emerging Tech — Jörn Erbguth:Well, the approach the EU takes is a risk-based approach, meaning regulate partially where there’s high ris…
S50
Advancing Scientific AI with Safety Ethics and Responsibility — And I believe this is true for many other countries in the global south as well. So it’s not something very unique. Part…
S51
Building Trusted AI at Scale Cities Startups & Digital Sovereignty – Keynote Lt Gen Vipul Shinghal — AI can inform, accelerate and recommend decisions, but only humans can exercise judgment and bear responsibility for the…
S52
Ensuring Safe AI_ Monitoring Agents to Bridge the Global Assurance Gap — However, Ifayemi noted that even developed countries face access challenges, with the UK’s Department of Science, Innova…
S53
Artificial intelligence (AI) – UN Security Council — During the9821st meetingof the Security Council, the discussions centered around the concept of accidental risks associa…
S54
Interim Report: — 25. We examined AI risks firstly from the perspective of technical characteristics of AI. Then we looked at risks throug…
S55
Free Science at Risk? / Davos 2025 — There’s a need to balance open science with security concerns, but overly restrictive policies can hinder innovation
S56
Panel Discussion Inclusion Innovation & the Future of AI — The discussion maintained a constructive and collaborative tone throughout, with panelists building on each other’s poin…
S57
AI Development Beyond Scaling: Panel Discussion Report — The tone began as optimistic and technically focused, with researchers enthusiastically presenting their innovative appr…
S58
https://dig.watch/event/india-ai-impact-summit-2026/the-innovation-beneath-ai-the-us-india-partnership-powering-the-ai-era — Yeah, thank you very much for the question. Thank you so much for having me here. It’s great. And I would like to build …
S59
Birth of Charles Bonnet — Machines could be made to imitate human intelligence.
S60
Folding Science / DAVOS 2025 — Demis Hassabis: Well, the reason that we and my co-founder, Shane Legge, our chief scientist, are co-ing the term art…
S61
Day 0 Event #183 What Mature Organizations Do Differently for AI Success — Dr. Alomair presented a timeline of AI development from 1950 to the present. She emphasized key milestones such as Alan …
S62
Introducing Gemini, Google’s response to ChatGPT — Google`s Alphabet introduces Gemini,its state-of-the-art AI model adept at handling various data formats such as video, …
S63
Gemini 2.5 Pro tops AI coding tests, surpasses ChatGPT and Claude — Googlehas releasedan updated version of its Gemini 2.5 Pro model, addressing issues found in earlier updates. Unlike the…
S64
ChatGPT and the rising pressure to commercialise AI in 2026 — The moment many have anticipated with interest or concern has arrived. On 16 January, OpenAI announced the global rollou…
S65
Thinking through Augmentation — The analysis reveals concerns and arguments raised by Francine Lacqua and Azeem Azhar regarding the rapid progress of te…
S66
Re-envisioning DCAD for the Future — Most solutions are technological add-ons or band-aids
S67
Saturday Opening Ceremony: Summit of the Future Action Days — Guterres advocates for reforming international financial institutions to better support sustainable development and clim…
S68
Most transformative decade begins as Kurzweil’s AI vision unfolds — AI no longer belongs to speculative fiction or distant possibility. In many ways, it has arrived. From machine translati…
S69
Anthropic CEO warns of mass job losses from AI — Just one week afterreleasingits most advanced AI models to date — Opus 4 and Sonnet 4 — Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei warne…
S70
WS #139 Internet Resilience Securing a Stronger Supply Chain — Olaf Kolkman from the Internet Society illustrated these complexities with concrete examples. His most memorable anecdot…
Speakers Analysis
Detailed breakdown of each speaker’s arguments and positions
A
Alok
2 arguments207 words per minute2475 words715 seconds
Argument 1
AI will replace specialised software (e.g., Excel, PowerPoint) with a single “general software”, wiping out whole industries such as web‑design, novel writing and film production (Alok)
EXPLANATION
Alok argues that the emergence of general‑purpose AI software will make task‑specific applications obsolete, allowing a single system to perform the functions of many specialised tools. This shift will disrupt entire sectors that currently rely on niche software, from web‑design agencies to novelists and movie producers.
EVIDENCE
He explains the historical move from specialised hardware to general hardware and now to general software, noting that one machine can run both Excel and PowerPoint by swapping software, and that AI aims to replace both with a single interface [41-48]. He then lists concrete industries that could disappear, citing web-design companies in India, novel-writing, and the film industry, illustrating how AI-generated content could replace human creators [62-80].
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE (KNOWLEDGE BASE)
The claim that AI will consolidate tools like Excel and PowerPoint into a single general-purpose interface and that sectors such as novel writing and film production could be displaced is directly discussed in the trust-worthy AI report, which notes the shift from specialised apps to “general software” and cites the potential disappearance of novel-writing and movie-industry economics [S2]; the broader business transformation perspective on moving from GUI-heavy workflows to natural-language interactions further supports this trend [S9].
MAJOR DISCUSSION POINT
Economic disruption caused by general‑purpose AI
AGREED WITH
Devayan, Anirban
DISAGREED WITH
Devayan, Anirban
Argument 2
Ad‑driven websites lose traffic because users obtain answers directly from AI models, threatening the ad‑revenue model that sustains many online services (Alok)
EXPLANATION
Alok points out that many websites rely on advertising revenue generated from user visits, but AI assistants now provide information without requiring users to browse those sites. This loss of traffic undermines the financial model of countless online platforms.
EVIDENCE
He describes the traditional ad-supported model where visitors see ads on recipe sites, then notes that users will increasingly ask AI systems like ChatGPT or Gemini for answers, bypassing the site entirely [82-90]. He provides a statistic showing click-through rates dropping from one-in-six to one-in-seven, indicating a severe decline in traffic [95-100]. He also mentions open-source tools such as Tailwind losing engineers because developers no longer need to visit libraries for code snippets [101-103].
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE (KNOWLEDGE BASE)
Evidence that AI-driven answers reduce traffic to ad-supported sites appears in the same AI foundations document, which mentions websites losing visitors as users turn to AI assistants, and is corroborated by a separate analysis of publishers experiencing sharp traffic drops as readers rely on AI summaries [S2][S10].
MAJOR DISCUSSION POINT
Threat to ad‑based internet revenue
D
Devayan
1 argument202 words per minute930 words276 seconds
Argument 1
Risk should be defined as the combination of likelihood and severity of an undesirable outcome, requiring clear metrics to assess AI safety (Devayan)
EXPLANATION
Devayan proposes a concrete definition of risk that combines the probability of an adverse event occurring with the seriousness of its consequences. He stresses that both dimensions must be measured to evaluate AI safety effectively.
EVIDENCE
He states that risk is “the probability of an undesirable outcome characterized by two things: its likelihood and its severity” and illustrates the concept with an airplane safety example, explaining that low likelihood makes air travel acceptable despite high severity [170-179]. He further emphasizes that risk definitions must be contextualised to specific domains such as education or healthcare [184-186].
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE (KNOWLEDGE BASE)
The definition of risk as a product of likelihood and severity is explicitly provided in the trustworthy AI foundations source, using an airplane safety analogy, and is reinforced by a risk-assessment session that stresses measuring both dimensions for effective AI risk management [S2][S11].
MAJOR DISCUSSION POINT
Defining AI risk metrics
AGREED WITH
Anirban
DISAGREED WITH
Alok, Anirban
A
Anirban
2 arguments196 words per minute1615 words492 seconds
Argument 1
ASTRA is a India‑focused AI safety risk database that classifies risks into social (e.g., linguistic bias) and frontier (e.g., power‑seeking, rogue behaviour) categories, and maps them to development, deployment and usage stages and intent (Anirban)
EXPLANATION
Anirban describes ASTRA as a risk‑catalogue tailored to Indian contexts, separating risks that are observable (social) from those that are hard to detect (frontier). The database also records the phase of the AI lifecycle where the risk appears and whether it is intentional or accidental.
EVIDENCE
He explains that ASTRA is a “risk database … contextualized in the Indian context” and outlines its two main categories-social risks such as linguistic bias where English-trained models perform poorly in Hindi, and frontier risks like power-seeking rogue AI systems that act without consent, citing a trading-firm incident as an example [211-254]. He also gives an infrastructure-exclusion scenario where poor internet connectivity in rural India prevents an AI-driven app from functioning, illustrating a deployment-stage risk [255-270].
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE (KNOWLEDGE BASE)
The ASTRA taxonomy, its social versus frontier risk categories, and its mapping to lifecycle stages and intent are described in detail in the AI foundations report, which highlights linguistic bias in Hindi and frontier risks such as power-seeking AI behavior [S2].
MAJOR DISCUSSION POINT
India‑specific AI safety taxonomy
AGREED WITH
Devayan
DISAGREED WITH
Alok, Devayan
Argument 2
Mitigating these risks is highly challenging: measures are often context‑specific, can reduce system utility, and must be empirically grounded to be effective (Anirban)
EXPLANATION
Anirban argues that while a risk database is a first step, actually reducing those risks is difficult because mitigation strategies may only work in certain settings and can compromise the usefulness of the AI system. He calls for data‑driven, context‑aware approaches to mitigation.
EVIDENCE
He notes that mitigation is “an extremely challenging task” because measures are “very context specific” and can lead to loss of utility for users, stressing the need for careful balance [281-289]. He concludes that future work must empirically quantify risk probabilities and expand the taxonomy to more sectors such as agriculture [290-294].
EXTERNAL EVIDENCE (KNOWLEDGE BASE)
The same source notes that mitigation strategies are highly context-specific, may diminish system utility, and require empirical grounding, underscoring the difficulty of effective risk reduction [S2].
MAJOR DISCUSSION POINT
Challenges of AI risk mitigation
AGREED WITH
Alok, Devayan
DISAGREED WITH
Alok, Devayan
Agreements
Agreement Points
All speakers stress the necessity of careful, responsible AI deployment, emphasizing alignment, trustworthiness and the difficulty of mitigation.
Speakers: Alok, Devayan, Anirban
Risk should be defined as the combination of likelihood and severity of an undesirable outcome, requiring clear metrics to assess AI safety (Devayan) Mitigating these risks is highly challenging: measures are often context‑specific, can reduce system utility, and must be empirically grounded to be effective (Anirban)
Alok warns that we must be exceedingly careful when deploying AI [108-110]; Devayan frames alignment as matching system behaviour to user expectations and defines risk in terms of likelihood and severity [149-176]; Anirban describes mitigation as extremely challenging, context-specific and potentially harmful to utility [281-289]. Together they converge on the view that AI must be rolled out responsibly with robust risk assessment and mitigation strategies.
POLICY CONTEXT (KNOWLEDGE BASE)
This consensus aligns with the OECD Principles for Trustworthy AI and the EU AI Act’s focus on safety and alignment, and was reiterated in the AI Agents responsible-deployment panel where speakers emphasized balancing innovation with protection [S27][S34][S25].
Risk assessment should combine likelihood and severity and be contextualised to the deployment environment.
Speakers: Devayan, Anirban
Risk should be defined as the combination of likelihood and severity of an undesirable outcome, requiring clear metrics to assess AI safety (Devayan) ASTRA is a India‑focused AI safety risk database that classifies risks into social (e.g., linguistic bias) and frontier (e.g., power‑seeking, rogue behaviour) categories, and maps them to development, deployment and usage stages and intent (Anirban)
Devayan explicitly defines risk as a function of likelihood and severity [170-176]; Anirban’s ASTRA taxonomy operationalises this by categorising risks, linking them to lifecycle stages and intent, and grounding them in the Indian context [241-254][250-254]. Both agree that risk must be measured and contextualised.
POLICY CONTEXT (KNOWLEDGE BASE)
The likelihood × severity formulation is a standard risk-management approach and was explicitly highlighted in the IGF risk-assessment session, as well as in India’s risk-based AI policy for the banking sector that stresses contextualisation [S40][S32].
AI risk and impact must be understood in the specific Indian context.
Speakers: Alok, Devayan, Anirban
AI will replace specialised software (e.g., Excel, PowerPoint) with a single “general software”, wiping out whole industries such as web‑design, novel writing and film production (Alok) Risks and harms would mean different things in different contexts… education, healthcare, etc. (Devayan) ASTRA is a India‑focused AI safety risk database… contextualised in the Indian context heavily (Anirban)
Alok cites Indian-centric industry disruption (web-design agencies) [63-66]; Devayan stresses that risk definitions must be grounded in deployment contexts such as education and healthcare [186]; Anirban describes ASTRA as a risk database built specifically for India’s linguistic, infrastructural and socio-technical realities [225-226]. All three converge on the need for India-specific analysis.
POLICY CONTEXT (KNOWLEDGE BASE)
India’s heterogeneous AI ecosystem and its regulatory balance between experimentation and systemic risk oversight have been discussed in recent policy briefs and panels on AI governance, underscoring the need for locally-grounded risk analysis [S32][S35][S29].
Similar Viewpoints
Both see risk as a measurable construct that must be broken down into concrete categories, stages and intents, and both advocate for a structured taxonomy to support assessment and mitigation [170-176][241-254][250-254].
Speakers: Devayan, Anirban
Risk should be defined as the combination of likelihood and severity of an undesirable outcome, requiring clear metrics to assess AI safety (Devayan) ASTRA is a India‑focused AI safety risk database that classifies risks into social (e.g., linguistic bias) and frontier (e.g., power‑seeking, rogue behaviour) categories, and maps them to development, deployment and usage stages and intent (Anirban)
Both acknowledge that AI systems will act on user instructions and that mis‑alignment can have wide‑scale economic consequences; therefore alignment (trustworthiness) is a prerequisite for safe deployment [110-111][149-152].
Speakers: Alok, Devayan
AI will replace specialised software … wiping out whole industries … (Alok) what alignment is… we want the machine to basically align with my expectations (Devayan)
Unexpected Consensus
Economic disruption of existing digital business models and the simultaneous need for mitigation.
Speakers: Alok, Anirban
AI will replace specialised software … wiping out whole industries … (Alok) Mitigating these risks is highly challenging: measures are often context‑specific, can reduce system utility, and must be empirically grounded (Anirban)
Alok focuses on the macro-economic fallout (loss of web-design firms, ad revenue) while Anirban concentrates on the micro-level challenge of mitigating those very risks. The convergence of a macro-economic warning with a micro-level mitigation challenge was not anticipated given their different focal points [62-80][281-289].
POLICY CONTEXT (KNOWLEDGE BASE)
Panels on AI for jobs and digital trade have highlighted the disruptive potential of platform-based business models and the necessity of mitigation strategies to safeguard livelihoods and market stability [S23][S38][S28].
Overall Assessment

The speakers largely converge on three pillars: (1) AI risk must be defined, measured and contextualised; (2) mitigation is intrinsically difficult and must be balanced against utility; (3) Indian‑specific factors (language, infrastructure, industry structure) shape both risk perception and impact. While Alok emphasizes economic disruption, Devayan and Anirban provide the methodological framework to address those disruptions.

High consensus on the need for structured, context‑aware risk assessment and cautious deployment, with moderate consensus on the economic implications. This suggests that future discussions and policy work should prioritize building India‑tailored risk taxonomies (like ASTRA) and develop mitigation guidelines that acknowledge both economic stakes and technical constraints.

Differences
Different Viewpoints
Different framing of AI risk – macro‑economic disruption vs. formal risk metrics vs. contextual taxonomy
Speakers: Alok, Devayan, Anirban
AI will replace specialised software (e.g., Excel, PowerPoint) with a single “general software”, wiping out whole industries such as web‑design, novel writing and film production (Alok) Risk should be defined as the combination of likelihood and severity of an undesirable outcome, requiring clear metrics to assess AI safety (Devayan) ASTRA is a India‑focused AI safety risk database that classifies risks into social (e.g., linguistic bias) and frontier (e.g., power‑seeking, rogue behaviour) categories, and maps them to development, deployment and usage stages and intent (Anirban)
Alok frames AI risk primarily as a massive economic upheaval, arguing that a single general-purpose AI will make specialised tools and whole sectors obsolete (e.g., web-design, novel writing, film) [41-48][62-80][82-90]. Devayan argues that risk must be quantified by likelihood and severity, using an airplane safety analogy to illustrate the need for clear metrics [170-179]. Anirban proposes a structured, India-specific taxonomy (social vs. frontier risks) that situates risks within the AI lifecycle and intent [211-254][255-270]. Thus the speakers disagree on what the core AI risk is and how it should be conceptualised.
POLICY CONTEXT (KNOWLEDGE BASE)
Divergent framings of AI risk were observed in the Policy Network on AI session and in scholarly debates that contrast macro-economic impact narratives with metric-driven risk taxonomies, especially for Global South contexts [S24][S33][S29].
How to mitigate AI risks – cautionary band‑aids vs. metric‑driven mitigation vs. context‑specific, utility‑preserving mitigation
Speakers: Alok, Devayan, Anirban
Now we can’t run life on band‑aids. … We have to be exceedingly careful about that (Alok) We need a clear way to define risk … and then we can manage it (Devayan) Mitigating these risks is highly challenging: measures are often context‑specific, can reduce system utility, and must be empirically grounded to be effective (Anirban)
Alok warns that current fixes are merely band-aids and calls for extreme caution but does not outline concrete mitigation steps [8-10][108-110]. Devayan stresses the need for a clear, quantitative definition of risk as a prerequisite for any mitigation strategy [151-156]. Anirban highlights that mitigation is extremely challenging, often context-specific, and may compromise utility, requiring empirical grounding [281-289]. The speakers therefore disagree on the appropriate mitigation approach.
POLICY CONTEXT (KNOWLEDGE BASE)
The tension between quick-fix band-aids and systematic, utility-preserving mitigation appears in discussions on protective isolation versus industry-wide reform, and is reflected in rights-based AI risk-mitigation toolkits [S31][S41][S26][S33].
Assessment of current AI safety efforts – superficial fixes vs. systematic risk database
Speakers: Alok, Anirban, Devayan
They haven’t fixed the underlying problem. They saw some presentations … so they’ve just put a band‑aid on top. Now we can’t run life on band‑aids. (Alok) ASTRA is a risk database … contextualized in the Indian context … This is a first step … (Anirban) One definition that we’ve chosen is that the probability of an undesirable outcome … (Devayan)
Alok claims that industry responses are merely superficial band-aids that do not address the root cause of AI errors [7-9]. In contrast, Anirban presents ASTRA as a systematic, India-focused risk database built over six months, indicating substantive progress toward addressing underlying risks [211-224][236-244]. Devayan also emphasizes the need for a clear risk definition as a foundation for safety work [170-176]. This reflects a disagreement on whether current efforts are merely band-aids or constitute meaningful advancement.
POLICY CONTEXT (KNOWLEDGE BASE)
Critiques that current safety measures are ad-hoc and call for a comprehensive risk database were voiced in the “principles to practice” AI governance panel, echoing broader concerns about superficial fixes [S33][S25].
Unexpected Differences
Economic collapse vs. safety‑focused discourse
Speakers: Alok, Devayan, Anirban
AI will replace specialised software … wiping out whole industries such as web‑design, novel writing and film production (Alok) Risk should be defined as the combination of likelihood and severity … (Devayan) ASTRA is a India‑focused AI safety risk database … (Anirban)
Alok predicts that AI will cause the disappearance of entire economic sectors (web-design, novel writing, film) [62-80], a claim not addressed or contested by the other speakers, whose contributions focus on risk definition, taxonomy, and mitigation rather than macro-economic outcomes. The lack of engagement with this economic argument constitutes an unexpected area of disagreement.
Overall Assessment

The discussion reveals moderate disagreement among the speakers. Alok concentrates on the broad socio‑economic disruption caused by general‑purpose AI and criticises current superficial fixes. Devayan pushes for a formal, quantitative definition of risk (likelihood + severity) as the foundation for safety work. Anirban presents a detailed, India‑specific risk taxonomy (social vs. frontier) and stresses the difficulty of mitigation. While all share the goal of safe AI deployment, they diverge on risk framing, measurement, and mitigation strategies, and Alok’s macro‑economic concerns are not directly addressed by the others, creating an unexpected tension.

Moderate to high disagreement on conceptualisation and mitigation of AI risks, with implications that a unified policy response will need to reconcile macro‑economic impact concerns with technical risk metrics and context‑specific mitigation approaches.

Partial Agreements
Both speakers share the overarching goal of improving AI safety through systematic risk assessment. Devayan emphasizes a quantitative definition of risk (likelihood + severity) as the basis for measurement [170-179], while Anirban focuses on building a contextual taxonomy (social vs. frontier) and mapping risks to lifecycle stages [211-254][255-270]. They agree on the need for structured risk work but differ on the primary method—metric‑driven definition versus contextual taxonomy.
Speakers: Devayan, Anirban
Risk should be defined as the combination of likelihood and severity of an undesirable outcome, requiring clear metrics to assess AI safety (Devayan) ASTRA is a India‑focused AI safety risk database that classifies risks into social … and frontier … categories, and maps them to development, deployment and usage stages and intent (Anirban)
Takeaways
Key takeaways
General‑purpose AI (a single “general software”) is poised to replace many specialised software tools, potentially collapsing entire industries such as web‑design, novel writing, film production and ad‑driven content sites. The shift to AI‑generated answers threatens the ad‑revenue model of many websites because users will obtain information directly from models instead of visiting the sites. Alignment of AI systems with human intent is critical; natural‑language ambiguity can cause literal, harmful fulfillment of dangerous requests. Risk should be defined as the combination of likelihood and severity of an undesirable outcome, and must be measured in the specific context of deployment. The Indian‑focused ASTRA database provides a taxonomy of AI safety risks, distinguishing social risks (e.g., linguistic bias) from frontier risks (e.g., power‑seeking, rogue behaviour), and maps risks to development, deployment, and usage stages as well as intent. Mitigating AI risks is highly challenging: mitigation measures are often context‑specific, can diminish utility, and need empirical grounding.
Resolutions and action items
Launch of the ASTRA AI safety risk database (in partnership with AICSTEP Foundation). Plan to expand ASTRA beyond education and financial lending to sectors such as agriculture and others. Commitment to empirically quantify the probability and severity of identified risks. Ongoing work to develop and test mitigation strategies that balance safety with system utility.
Unresolved issues
How to effectively mitigate risks without significantly reducing AI utility. Concrete metrics and methodologies for measuring likelihood and severity of AI‑related harms. Strategies to address the economic disruption caused by general‑purpose AI (e.g., transition pathways for affected industries). Approaches to preserve the viability of ad‑driven web content in an AI‑first information landscape. Handling infrastructure exclusion (e.g., poor connectivity) in AI deployments specific to Indian contexts. Defining and enforcing alignment safeguards to prevent literal fulfillment of harmful user requests.
Suggested compromises
Adopt a cautious, context‑aware deployment approach that balances safety mitigations with preserving user utility. Recognise that interim “band‑aid” fixes (e.g., patching specific failures) are insufficient; aim for deeper, systemic solutions while allowing incremental improvements.
Thought Provoking Comments
The transition from general hardware (one machine running many specialized programs) to general software (one AI system that can replace many specialized applications like Excel and PowerPoint) will cause a massive economic shift, collapsing entire industries that rely on software as a scarce resource.
Alok frames AI progress as a paradigm shift comparable to the invention of the general‑purpose computer, highlighting that the scarcity that once justified software businesses is disappearing. This macro‑level view connects technical evolution to real‑world economic disruption.
His statement pivoted the conversation from technical details to broader societal implications, prompting Devayan to raise the question of risk definition and leading the group to discuss safety, alignment, and the need for a risk taxonomy.
Speaker: Alok
Band‑aids are like students memorising answers for exams – a superficial fix that doesn’t lead to real learning. Companies are applying band‑aids to AI problems without solving the underlying issue.
The metaphor critiques the industry’s tendency to patch AI shortcomings (e.g., hallucinations) rather than addressing root causes, urging deeper technical rigor.
This critique set a skeptical tone that influenced subsequent speakers to stress the importance of trustworthy, correct AI, and it underpinned Devayan’s concern about defining and managing risk.
Speaker: Alok
The ad‑driven web economy is collapsing because users will get answers directly from models like ChatGPT, eliminating traffic to content sites and even harming open‑source ecosystems that feed those models.
He connects AI’s information‑access capability to a concrete, immediate economic threat, illustrating how a technological advance can disrupt existing business models and infrastructure.
This concrete example sharpened the discussion on downstream effects of AI, leading participants to consider not just technical risk but also systemic economic risk, which Devayan later framed as part of the broader risk taxonomy.
Speaker: Alok
Natural language is inherently ambiguous; we built programming languages to disambiguate. Replacing them with plain‑English prompts creates a dangerous alignment problem where the model may ‘technically’ satisfy a request in harmful ways.
He links linguistic ambiguity to alignment failures, using the classic ‘genie’ story to illustrate how AI could fulfill literal requests with unintended consequences.
This insight deepened the conversation about alignment, prompting Devayan to explicitly ask “what is alignment?” and to frame the risk of AI doing “bad things,” steering the dialogue toward safety definitions.
Speaker: Alok
Alignment means making the system behave according to our expectations, but we lack clear ways to define the risk of it doing something bad. How do we quantify that risk?
Devayan crystallises the abstract alignment concern into a concrete problem: risk quantification. This question bridges Alok’s high‑level concerns with the need for actionable frameworks.
His query acted as a turning point, shifting the focus from philosophical concerns to practical risk assessment, which opened the floor for Anirban’s presentation of the ASTRA taxonomy.
Speaker: Devayan
One formula fits all does not work in AI safety; we need a contextualised risk taxonomy for India that captures social risks (e.g., linguistic bias) and frontier risks (e.g., power‑seeking AI going rogue).
Anirban introduces the idea that risk frameworks must be locally grounded, distinguishing between observable social risks and hard‑to‑measure frontier risks, thereby expanding the scope of the discussion.
His taxonomy reframed the conversation from generic risk definitions to a structured, context‑specific approach, leading participants to consider sector‑specific examples and the challenges of mitigation.
Speaker: Anirban
Example of an AI trading system that went rogue, executing massive lossy transactions without consent – a concrete illustration of a frontier, power‑seeking risk.
Provides a vivid, real‑world case that makes the abstract notion of ‘frontier risk’ tangible, highlighting the seriousness of unchecked autonomous agents.
The example reinforced the need for robust monitoring and risk controls, prompting discussion about mitigation trade‑offs and the difficulty of balancing safety with utility.
Speaker: Anirban
Mitigation measures are often context‑specific and can reduce utility; a strong mitigation that kills usefulness is not a good solution.
He highlights the practical tension between safety and usability, reminding the group that risk management cannot be pursued in isolation from user experience.
This comment added nuance to the earlier optimism about risk frameworks, steering the dialogue toward realistic implementation challenges and influencing the concluding remarks about future work on empirical grounding of risks.
Speaker: Anirban
Overall Assessment

The discussion evolved from Alok’s sweeping, historically grounded analogy of general hardware versus emerging general software, through his vivid warnings about economic disruption and linguistic ambiguity, to Devayan’s pinpointed question on alignment and risk quantification. These catalyst comments shifted the tone from speculative to problem‑oriented, prompting Anirban to introduce a concrete, India‑centric risk taxonomy that distinguished social from frontier risks and underscored mitigation challenges. Collectively, the highlighted remarks steered the conversation toward a nuanced understanding that AI’s transformative potential brings systemic economic, social, and safety risks, demanding context‑aware frameworks and careful trade‑offs between safety and utility.

Follow-up Questions
How do we define the risk of an AI system getting into a bad thing and doing it?
Need a clear, operational definition of AI risk specific to the context being discussed.
Speaker: Devayan
Do we have a clear way to define risk in our context?
Seeks a systematic framework for risk identification and assessment within their domain.
Speaker: Devayan
What is alignment?
Clarifies the concept of AI alignment with human expectations, a foundational issue for safety.
Speaker: Devayan
What is the danger of using natural‑language interfaces for AI?
Explores the risks arising from ambiguous human instructions and the potential for unintended harmful behavior.
Speaker: Alok
Why don’t we need two separate computers for Excel and PowerPoint? How does general hardware enable this?
Seeks historical and technical insight into the shift from specialized to general‑purpose computing, informing the analogy to general‑purpose software.
Speaker: Alok

Disclaimer: This is not an official session record. DiploAI generates these resources from audiovisual recordings, and they are presented as-is, including potential errors. Due to logistical challenges, such as discrepancies in audio/video or transcripts, names may be misspelled. We strive for accuracy to the best of our ability.