Collective AI for Indian Society

Abstract

The panel explored the promise and perils of Collective AI – AI systems designed to serve whole populations rather than isolated users. Panelists used superhero analogies to introduce their perspectives and then debated technical and sociotechnical challenges across domains such as multi‑agent coordination, recommendation‑system bias, civic engagement, government regulation, economic impacts, and the effect of AI on youth and education. The discussion highlighted the need for interdisciplinary partnerships, transparent governance, and concrete use‑cases (e.g., the Maharashtra citizen‑feedback chatbot) to realise AI’s societal benefits while guarding against unintended harms.

Detailed Summary

• Moderator John Heavy opened with a light‑hearted “Avengers” analogy, casting each panelist as a superhero that embodies a particular AI / societal trait:

  • Prof. Seth Bullock as Captain America (principled, values‑driven coordination).
  • Prof. Dr. Nirav Ajmeri as Spider‑Man (network‑centric, quick‑adapting).
  • Antaraa Vasudev as Captain Marvel (scale‑focused, citizen‑voice amplifier).
  • Kushe Bahl as Iron Man (execution‑focused, real‑world impact).
  • Prof. D. Manjunath as Bruce Banner (cautious about AI’s raw power).

• The moderator posed the central question: “Will AI become humanity’s ally or its ‘great snap’?” and set the stage for a discussion on Collective AI—systems that coordinate information and actions for an entire population (e.g., flood response, disease management, tax filing).

2. Collective AI vs. Individual‑User AI

• Prof. Seth argued that many societal problems stem not from a lack of data but from coordination failures. He emphasized that intelligence and coordination are inseparable for collective outcomes.
• Antaraa Vasudev highlighted the shift from “AI answering a single question” to AI‑enabled coordination platforms that can serve whole communities during crises. She stressed that achieving this scale requires cross‑sector partnerships (research, private industry, NGOs, government).

3. Multi‑Agent Systems & Socio‑Technical Problems

• Prof. Dr. Nirav Ajmeri explained his work on multi‑agent systems, where intelligence emerges from many interacting agents (people, organizations, software).
• He illustrated the concept with ride‑hailing: optimizing for each rider individually yields a local optimum, while a global optimum (social welfare) requires a system‑wide view.
• Key domains identified: epidemic/pandemic response, resource allocation, and any problem where social welfare outweighs individual utility.

4. The Next Wave: Agentic AI

• Kushe Bahl expanded on the idea of agentic AI—autonomous agents with purposive goals that can communicate with one another. He warned that:
  • A single user request could trigger a cascade of inter‑agent activities, consuming resources and potentially creating externalities for other users.
  • Embedding social responsibility into agents is essential to avoid “resource contests” and unintended societal harms.

5. Recommendation Systems, Nudges, and Bias

• Prof. D. Manjunath (the “Banner”) discussed recommendation algorithms as learning agents that infer user preferences and then nudge behavior.
  • He explained the utility‑function concept: platforms optimise for a metric that serves the company, not necessarily the user.
  • Citing research (including a reference to Sarah Vincent‑Williams’ exposé on Facebook), he described how algorithms can dramatically reshape preferences over time.
  • The panel agreed that bias can be hidden (algorithms subtly steer choices) or amplified (when poorly designed utility functions dominate).

6. Civic Engagement & AI‑Enabled Governance

• Antaraa Vasudev presented a concrete case study: Civis’ chatbot for the Government of Maharashtra.

  • Citizens could submit voice notes, text, or handwritten letters to a central chatbot.
  • The system aggregated ≈ 380,000 responses from 37 districts and produced the publicly available “Vichar‑Maharashtra Report.”
  • The state now mandates that every new law incorporate citizen‑generated insights, showcasing a large‑scale participatory AI in practice.

• Prof. Seth warned that government involvement can become over‑controlling, citing two historical failures:

  • India’s C‑DOT project (government micromanagement derailed a promising technology).
  • Japan’s Fifth‑Generation Computing (over‑centralised state‑led AI effort that failed).
  • He advocated for a government role as enabler and monitor, not a micro‑manager.

• Prof. D. Manjunath added that transparent, accountable oversight (e.g., the Indian NPCI model) can foster healthy public‑private collaboration.

7. Economic Impact & Value‑Creation

• Kushe Bahl contrasted cost‑saving AI (e.g., replacing call‑center agents) with value‑unlocking AI that performs tasks humans cannot (personalized customer‑engagement engines).

  • Simple automation often yields short‑term savings but can erode customer satisfaction (e.g., the Klarna case).
  • High‑impact AI—recommendation‑driven personalization—creates 10× higher ROI by generating additional revenue rather than merely cutting costs.

• The panel debated job displacement vs. job transformation:

  • Short‑term: AI may replace routine entry‑level roles.
  • Long‑term: AI can augment human work, allowing people to focus on creative, empathic, or strategic tasks that machines lack.

8. AI for Small‑Business & Gig‑Economy

• Antaraa Vasudev emphasized the unrealised potential for self‑employed/SME sectors (≈ 150 million people in India).
  • She illustrated a low‑cost AI scheduling agent for taxi drivers, lawyers, etc., using WhatsApp‑style chat interfaces and public cloud infrastructure.
  • Such tools could add ≈ ₹600 per month per worker, creating mass‑scale economic uplift without requiring large corporate investment.

9. Education, Youth, and Ethical Concerns

• Prof. D. Manjunath and other panelists discussed how recommendation systems shape learning and the risk of instant‑feedback “shortcut” learning.

  • A student example showed a learner copying AI‑generated data rather than understanding the task.
  • The consensus: Current educational tools lack safeguards against “instant gratification” that undermines deep learning.

• Youth impact was debated:

  • Generational analogy – older generations worried about TV; today’s youth are native AI users.
  • Potential harms: over‑reliance on soulless AI for emotional support; addiction concerns similar to social‑media platforms.
  • Suggested response: engage youth directly, develop AI literacy, and design guardrails (age‑appropriate platforms, content filters).

10. Regulatory Landscape & Global Perspectives

• Prof. Seth cited Australia and Spain’s early social‑media restrictions for minors as experimental guardrails that could inform future AI regulation.
• Prof. D. Manjunath warned that regulation must keep pace with rapid AI deployment; otherwise, governments risk being perpetually “behind the curve.”
• Prof. Nira Ajmeri raised the point that blanket bans may backfire, creating curiosity and underground usage. A balanced, nuanced policy is needed.

11. Rapid‑Fire Q&A (10‑second answers)

Question (Moderator)	Panelist Response (summarised)
AI in governance – shift of power?	Antaraa – Shifts power to citizens (more information asymmetry addressed).
Algorithms – reduce vs. hide bias?	Manjunath – Tend to hide bias (hard to detect).
Worse: malicious intent vs. widespread ignorance?	Manjunath – Both terrible; widespread lack of understanding is more urgent.
Harder: design ethical individuals or systems?	Ajmeri – Ambiguous; ethics depend on definition of “ethical.”
AI in India – replace, reshape, or polarise jobs?	Bahl – Reshape jobs (automation + new tasks).
AI struggles more with people or systems?	Manjunath – People (mis‑interpreting AI output).
Who benefits now – companies or employees?	Bahl – Companies initially; employees later after up‑skilling.
Transparency vs. effectiveness in public AI?	Antaraa – Transparency must come first.
Long‑term vision – what will we feel in 5 years? (panel consensus)	Collective AI will give a greater sense of connection, breaking language, expertise, and distance barriers, enabling richer civic participation.
Small‑business impact – concrete vision?	Antaraa – AI‑driven low‑cost tools could add ₹600/month to each of 150 M self‑employed Indians, a “unicorn‑scale” uplift.
Education – instant‑feedback issue?	Manjunath – No systematic solution yet; current tools often bypass deep learning.

12. Audience Interaction

• Civic‑engagement example – Antaraa fielded questions on how AI can help citizens voice concerns; she reiterated the Maharashtra chatbot success and the importance of transparent, equitable frameworks.
• Management‑consulting impact – Kushe Bahl explained that AI will automate “desk work” while consultants focus on inspiring communication and human‑centric value creation.
• Youth and mental‑health concerns – Panelists concurred that AI chatbots are not substitutes for human relationships; parental engagement and AI‑literacy education are needed.
• Regulation of AI for minors – Several members referenced Australia/Spain bans and suggested age‑appropriate platforms (e.g., “YouTube Kids”) with robust content verification.

13. Closing Remarks

• Prof. Seth called for de‑centralized control mechanisms to democratize AI benefits.
• Antaraa reiterated the vision of a connected, AI‑mediated civic voice that respects consent and transparency.
• Prof. Manjunath expressed hope that students’ AI‑generated outputs will be accurate and understood, not merely perfect on the surface.

The panel concluded with a photo‑op, applause, and light‑hearted banter, signalling the end of the session.

Key Takeaways

• Collective AI shifts focus from individual queries to population‑scale coordination (e.g., disaster response, public‑policy feedback).
• Multi‑agent frameworks are essential for social‑welfare optimisation; local‑optimal solutions often undermine global outcomes.
• Agentic AI introduces cascading resource demands; embedding social responsibility into agents is a prerequisite to avoid systemic conflicts.
• Recommendation systems act as powerful nudges; their utility functions decide whether they hide bias or amplify it.
• Civic‑engagement success story: Civis’ chatbot collected ≈ 380 k citizen inputs for Maharashtra, influencing future legislation.
• Government role should be enabler & monitor, not a micromanaging director; historical failures (C‑DOT, Japan FGCS) illustrate the risk of over‑control.
• Economic potential: AI that creates new value (personalised engagement engines) yields 10× higher ROI than pure cost‑cutting automation.
• Small‑business uplift: Low‑cost AI agents could add ₹600/month per self‑employed Indian, providing a massive, inclusive economic boost.
• Education & youth: Current AI tools encourage instant gratification, undermining deep learning; comprehensive AI‑literacy and guardrails for minors are urgently needed.
• Regulatory outlook: Early, targeted restrictions (Australia/Spain) may guide future AI governance, but blanket bans risk driving curiosity‑driven misuse.

These insights illustrate both the immense promise of collective AI for Indian society and the critical sociotechnical safeguards required to ensure that promise translates into equitable, sustainable outcomes.

See Also:

• democratizing-ai-resources-and-building-inclusive-ai-solutions-for-india
• mahaai-building-safe-secure-and-smart-governance
• keynote-i-to-the-power-of-ai-an-8-year-old-on-aspiring-india-impacting-the-world
• ai-innovators-exchange-accelerating-innovation-through-startup-and-industry-synergy
• ai-for-all-indias-policy-architecture-for-public-interest-ai-and-inclusive-development
• ai-and-children-turning-principles-into-practice-for-safe-inclusive-and-empowering-ai
• ai-for-economic-growth-and-social-good-ai-for-all-driving-economic-advancement-and-societal-well-being
• building-resilient-sustainable-ai-infrastructure-for-people-planet-and-progress
• safe-ai-building-shared-trust-and-accountability-infrastructure
• ai-for-inclusive-societal-development