daniyasiddiquiEditor’s Choice
Asked: 15/10/2025In: ,

design assessments in the age of AI

academic integrityai in educationassessment designauthentic assessmentedtechfuture of assessment
  1. daniyasiddiqui
    daniyasiddiqui Editor’s Choice

    How to Design Tests in the Age of AI In this era of learning, everything has changed — not only the manner in which students learn but also the manner in which they prove that they have learned. Students today employ tools such as ChatGPT, Grammarly, or math solution AI tools as an integral part ofRead more

    How to Design Tests in the Age of AI

    In this era of learning, everything has changed — not only the manner in which students learn but also the manner in which they prove that they have learned. Students today employ tools such as ChatGPT, Grammarly, or math solution AI tools as an integral part of their daily chores. While technology enables learning, it also renders the conventional models of assessment through memorization, essays, or homework monotonous.

    So the challenge that educators today are facing is:

    How do we create fair, substantial, and authentic tests in a world where AI can spew up “perfect” answers in seconds?

    The solution isn’t to prohibit AI — it’s to redefine the assessment process itself. Let’s start on how.

    1. Redefining What We’re Assessing

    For generations, education has questioned students about what they know — formulas, facts, definitions. But machines can memorize anything at the blink of an eye, so tests based on memorization are becoming increasingly irrelevant.

    In the AI era, we must test what AI does not do well:

    • Critical thinking — Do students understand AI-presents information?
    • Creativity — Can they leverage AI as a tool to make new things?
    • Ethical thinking — Do they know when and how to apply AI in an ethical manner?
    • Problem setting — Can they establish a problem first before looking for a solution?

    Attempt replacing the following questions: Rather than asking “Explain causes of World War I,” ask “If AI composed an essay on WWI causes, how would you analyze its argument or position?”

    This shifts the attention away from memorization.

     2. Creating “AI-Resilient” Tests

    An AI-resilient assessment is one where even if a student uses AI, the tool can’t fully answer the question — because the task requires human judgment, personal context, or live reasoning.

    Here are a few effective formats:

    • Oral and interactive assessments:Ask students to explain their thought process verbally. You’ll see instantly if they understand the concept or just relied on AI.
    •  Process-based assessment:Rather than grading the final product alone, grade the process — brainstorm, drafts, feedback, revisions.

    Have students record how they utilized AI tools ethically (e.g., “I used AI to grammar-check but wrote the analysis myself”).

    •  Scenario or situational activities:Provide real-world dilemmas that need interpretation, empathy, and ethical thinking — areas where AI is not yet there.

    Choose students for the competition based on how many tasks they have been able to accomplish.

    Example: “You are an instructor in a heterogeneously structured class. How do you use AI in helping learners of various backgrounds without infusing bias?”

    Thinking activities:

    Instruct students to compare or criticize AI responses with their own ideas. This compels students to think about thinking — an important metacognition activity.

     3. Designing Tests “AI-Inclusive” Not “AI-Proof”

    it’s a futile exercise trying to make everything “AI-proof.” Students will always find new methods of using the tools. What needs to happen instead is that tests need to accept AI as part of the process.

    • Teach AI literacy: Demonstrate how to use AI to research, summarize, or brainstorm — responsibly.
    • Request disclosure: Have students report when and how they utilized AI. It encourages honesty and introspection.

    Mark not only the result, but their thought process as well: Have students discuss why they accepted or rejected AI suggestions.

    Example prompt:

    • “Use AI to create three possible solutions to this problem. Then critique them and let me know which one you would use and why.”

    This makes AI a study buddy, and not a cheat code.

     4. Immersing Technology with Human Touch

    Teachers should not be driven away from students by AI — but drawn closer by making assessment more human-friendly and participatory.

    Ideas:

    • Blend virtual portfolios (AI-written writing, programmed coding, or designed design) with face-to-face discussion of the student’s process.
    • Tap into peer review sessions — students critique each other’s work, with human judgment set against AI-produced output.
    • Mix live, interactive quizzes — in which the questions change depending on what students answer, so the tests are lifelike and surprising.

    Human element: A student may use AI to redo his report, but a live presentation tells him how deep he really is.

     5. Justice and Integrity

    Academic integrity in the age of AI is novel. Cheating isn’t plagiarizing anymore but using crutches too much without comprehending them.

    Teachers can promote equity by:

    • Having clear AI policies: Establishing what is acceptable (e.g., grammar assistance) and not acceptable (e.g., writing entire essays).

    Employing AI-detecting software responsibly — not to sanction, but to encourage an open discussion.

    • Requesting reflection statements: “Tell us how you employed AI on the completion of this assignment.”

    It builds trust, not fear, and shows teachers care more about effort and integrity than being great.

     6. Remixing Feedback in the AI Era

    • AI can speed up grading, but feedback must be human. Students learn optimally when feedback is personal, empathetic, and constructive.
    • Teachers can use AI to produce first-draft feedback reports, then revise with empathy and personal insight.
    • Have students use AI to edit their work — but ask them to explain what they learned from the process.
    • Focus on growth feedback — learning skills, not grades.

     Example: Instead of a “AI plagiarism detected” alert, give a “Let’s discuss how you can responsibly use AI to enhance your writing instead of replacing it.” message.

     7. From Testing to Learning

    The most powerful change can be this one:

    • Testing no longer has to be a judgment — it can be an odyssey.

    AI eliminates the myth that tests are the sole measure of demonstrating what is learned. Tests, instead, become an act of self-discovery and learning skills.

    Teachers can:

    • Substitute high-stakes testing with continuous formative assessment.
    • Incentivize creativity, critical thinking, and ethical use of AI.
    • Students, rather than dreading AI, learn from it.

    Final Thought

    • The era of AI is not the end of actual learning — it’s the start of a new era of testing.
    • A time when students won’t be tested on what they’ve memorized, but how they think, question, and create.
    • An era where teachers are mentors and artists, leading students through a virtual world with sense and sensibility.
    • When exams encourage curiosity rather than relevance, thinking rather than repetition, judgment rather than imitation — then AI is not the enemy but the ally.

    Not to be smarter than AI. To make students smarter, more moral, and more human in a world of AI.

    See less
daniyasiddiquiEditor’s Choice
Asked: 11/10/2025In:

a country improve its terms of trade

international tradelarge country assumptiontariffsterms of tradetrade policywelfare economics
  1. daniyasiddiqui
    daniyasiddiqui Editor’s Choice

     What "Terms of Trade" Actually Is Terms of trade (ToT) quantify the value of a nation's exports in relation to its imports. Simply put, it is the rate at which you exchange what you sell to the world for what you purchase from it. Terms of Trade  Export Prices Import Prices Terms of Trade Import PrRead more

     What “Terms of Trade” Actually Is

    Terms of trade (ToT) quantify the value of a nation’s exports in relation to its imports. Simply put, it is the rate at which you exchange what you sell to the world for what you purchase from it.
    Terms of Trade 
    1. Export Prices
    2. Import Prices
    3. Terms of Trade
    4. Import Prices
    5. Export Prices
    If your prices for exporting are higher or your prices for importing are lower, your terms of trade are better — i.e., you can purchase more imports with the same number of exports.
    Increasing your terms of trade is essentially negotiating a better bargain in international trade — you pay less and receive more. All countries would be happy about that.

     The Theory: The “Optimal Tariff” Argument

    That’s where economics comes in with the concept of the optimal tariff — an idea that goes back to the early 20th century, with economists such as Bickerdike and Johnson.
    The thinking is this:
    • Assume your nation is big enough in global trade to make a difference in world prices (such as the U.S., EU, or China).
    • You put a tariff on imports — 10%, for example.
    • Foreign exporters have increased obstacles to selling into your market.
    • To maintain their commodities competitive, they may reduce their export prices.
    If that is the case, your nation pays less for imports, but your exports remain at about the same price.

    Your terms of trade are better.

    In this case, some of the burden of the tariff is placed on foreign producers instead of your domestic consumers. You receive better prices from overseas, and the revenue from the tariff contributes to your national income.
    In the theoretical economic world alone, that’s a win-win — at least for your nation.

    Why It Only Works for “Large” Economies

    The important assumption here is that the nation has market power — the capacity to influence world prices.
    • A small economy (such as Nepal or Costa Rica) can’t; world prices are determined by much bigger markets. Any tariff it levies simply increases local prices and penalizes its own citizens.
    • A big economy (such as the U.S., China, or the EU) can shape world demand sufficiently that foreign producers may pass on some of the tariff by reducing prices.

    That’s why this concept is referred to as the “optimal tariff” — it’s the tariff that optimizes the welfare of a country by enhancing its terms of trade just sufficient to cover the loss of efficiency from restricting trade.

    But There’s a Catch: Retaliation

    In real life, the world economy is not a game with one player. When one large nation applies tariffs, others retaliate.
    • This reprisal negates any initial gain due to improved terms of trade and usually leads to a trade war, lowering world welfare for all.
    • Throughout the U.S.–China trade war (2018–2020), both countries applied tariffs to shield their own industries and enhance bargaining leverage.
    • Rather than enhancing terms of trade, both countries incurred greater import prices, dislocated supply chains, and reduced growth.
    • Economists subsequently calculated the alleged “gains” from better trade terms as entirely offset by losses to consumers and exporters.
    So, theory may tell us that an optimal tariff makes things better, but the reality is that retaliation murders the gain.

    Contemporary Complexity: Global Value Chains

    One other reason the theory falls apart today is the nature of contemporary trade.
    • Years ago, nations primarily exchanged finished goods: one country sold cars, another textiles. Nowadays, production is splintered across borders — a product can travel 5–6 countries before it is delivered to consumers.
    • Placing a tariff on “imports” usually means levying taxes on components and materials your industries require. That increases costs for manufacturers at home, undermines exports, and can deteriorate your terms of trade instead of enhancing them.
    So, something that could have succeeded in the 1950s no longer works for the highly interdependent 2025 world economy.

     The Human Angle: Winners and Losers

    Even in theory, when a nation improves its national terms of trade by raising a tariff, not all are winners.
    • Consumers pay more — they lose purchasing power.
    • Protected industries win in the short term, with less foreign competition.
    • Exporters usually lose when trading nations retaliate.
    Poor families will hurt the most, as tariffs usually target first imported necessities (fuel, food, or technology).
    So, although the country’s overall well-being may appear healthier on paper, the effects on distribution can prove to be politically charged.

    Historical Examples

    The American Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act (1930): Meant to defend American farmers and enhance terms of trade, it actually unleashed a worldwide retaliation that further exacerbated the Great Depression.
    The U.S.–China Tariffs (2018–2020): Designed to better America’s trade position, they increased consumer prices and damaged manufacturing exports. Analysis concluded that there was nearly no net gain in U.S. terms of trade after allowing for retaliation.
    India’s selective import tariffs in recent years demonstrate that low, sector-specific duties can short-term spur domestic production, but the overall benefits are frequently balanced by more expensive imports and reduced export growth.

    In Summary

    So, can a nation enhance its terms of trade by raising a tariff?
    In theory, yes — if it’s a large economy, if the tariff is small, and if other countries don’t retaliate.
     In practice, nearly never — because international interdependence and political reaction undo those gains.
    The reality is:
    Tariffs are like painkillers — they may provide temporary relief, but excessive use creates greater long-term harm.
    Whereas a wisely calibrated tariff could temporarily adjust trade terms to benefit a dominant country, consumer welfare, global trust, and economic efficiency costs are typically far greater than the gains. Cooperation and open trade continue to be the longer-run run more sustainable way to raise welfare and prosperity in today’s global economy.
    See less
daniyasiddiquiEditor’s Choice
Asked: 07/09/2025In: ,

“AI kid modes,” or will it harm socia ...

aidigital healthtechnology
  1. daniyasiddiqui
    daniyasiddiqui Editor’s Choice

    What Are "AI Kid Modes"? Think of AI kid modes as friendly, child-oriented versions of artificial intelligence. They are designed to block objectionable material, talk in an age-appropriate manner, and provide education in an interactive format. For example: A bedtime story companion that generatesRead more

    What Are “AI Kid Modes”?

    Think of AI kid modes as friendly, child-oriented versions of artificial intelligence. They are designed to block objectionable material, talk in an age-appropriate manner, and provide education in an interactive format. For example:

    • A bedtime story companion that generates made-up bedtime stories on the fly.
    • A math aid that works through it step by step at a child’s own pace.
    • A query sidekick able to answer “why is the sky blue?” 100 times and still keep their sanity.
    • As far as appearances go, AI kid modes look like the ultimate parent dream secure, instructive, and ever-at-hand.

    The Potential Advantages

    AI kid modes could unleash some positives in young minds:

    • Personalized Learning – As AI is not limited by the class size, it will learn according to a child’s own pace, style, and interest. When a child is struggling with fractions, the AI will explain it in dozens of ways for as long as it takes until there is the “lightbulb” moment.
    • Endless Curiosity Partner – Children are question-machines by nature. An AI that never gets tired of “why” questions can nurture curiosity instead of crushing it.
    • Accessibility – Disabled or language-impaired children can be greatly assisted by customized AI support.
    • Safe Digital Spaces – A properly designed kid mode may be able to shield children from seeing internet material that is not suitable for their age level, rendering the digital space enjoyable and secure.

    In these manners, AI kid modes would become less toy-like and more facilitative companion-like.

    The Risks and Red Flags

    But there is another half to the tale of parents, teachers, and therapists.

    • More Human Interdependence – Children acquire people skills—empathy, compromise, tolerance—through dirty, messy interactions with people, not ideal algorithms. Relying on AI could substitute mothers and fathers, siblings, friends with screens.
    • Creativity in Jeopardy – A child who is always having an AI generate stories, pictures, or thoughts loses contact with being able to dream on their own. With responses readily presented at the push of a question, the frustration that powers creativity starts to weaken.
    • Emotional Dependence – Kids will start to depend upon AI as an object of comfort, self-verifying influence, or friend. It might be comforting but destroys the ability to build deep human relationships.
    • Innate Biases – Even “safe” AI is built using human information. Imagine whatever stories it tells always reflect some cultural bias or reinforce stereotypes?

    So while AI kid modes are enchanted, they can subtly redefine how kids grow up.

    The Middle Path: Balance and Boundaries

    Perhaps the answer lies not in banning or completely embracing AI kid modes, but in putting boundaries in place.

    • As a Resource, Not a Substitute: AI can be used to help with homework explanations, but can never replace playdates, teachers, or family stories.
    • Co-Use with Adults: AI may be shared between children and parents or educators, converting screen time into collaborative activities rather than solitary viewing.
    • Creative Spurts, Not Endpoints: Instead of giving pre-completed answers, AI could pose a question like, “What do you imagine happens next in the story?”

    In this manner, AI is a trampoline that opens up imagination, not a couch that tempts sloth.

    The Human Dimension

    Imagine two childhoods:

    In another, a child spends hours a day chatting with an AI friend, creating AI-assisted art, and listening to AI-generated stories. They’re safe, educated, and entertained—but their social life is anaemic.

    In the first, a child spends some time with AI to perform story idea generation, read every day, or complete puzzles but otherwise is playing with other kids, parents, and teachers. AI here is a tool, not a replacement.

    Which of these children feels more complete? Most likely, the second.

    Last Thoughts

    AI kid modes are neither magic nor threat—no matter whether they’re a choice about how we use them. As a tool to complement childhood, instead of replace it, they can ignite awe, provide safeguarding, and open up new possibilities. Let loose, however, they may disintegrate the very qualities—creativity, empathy, resilience—that define us as human.

    The real test is not whether or not kids will have access to AI kid modes, but whether or not grown-ups can use that access responsibly. Ultimately, it is less a question about what we can offer children through AI, and more a question of what we want their childhood to be.

    See less
daniyasiddiquiEditor’s Choice
Asked: 08/10/2025In:

the global economic recovery in 2026

economic recoveryglobal tradeinflationsupply chain disruptionstariffstrade policy
  1. daniyasiddiqui
    daniyasiddiqui Editor’s Choice

    How tariffs slow an economy (the simple mechanics) Higher import prices → weaker demand. Tariffs raise the cost of imported inputs and final goods. Companies either pay more for raw materials and intermediate goods (squeezing margins) or pass costs to consumers (reducing purchasing power). That combRead more

    How tariffs slow an economy (the simple mechanics)

    • Higher import prices → weaker demand. Tariffs raise the cost of imported inputs and final goods. Companies either pay more for raw materials and intermediate goods (squeezing margins) or pass costs to consumers (reducing purchasing power). That combination cools consumption and industrial activity.
    • Supply-chain disruption & re-shoring costs. Firms respond by reconfiguring supply chains (finding new suppliers, on-shoring, or stockpiling). Those adjustments are expensive and slow to pay off — in the near term they reduce investment and efficiency.
    • Investment chill from uncertainty. The prospect of escalating or unpredictable tariffs raises policy uncertainty. Businesses delay or scale back capital projects until trade policy stabilizes.
    • Retaliation and cascading barriers. Tariffs often trigger retaliatory measures. When many countries raise barriers, global trade volumes fall, which hits export-dependent economies and global value chains.

    These channels are exactly why multilateral agencies and market analysts say tariffs and trade restrictions can lower growth even when headline GDP still looks “resilient.”

    What the major institutions say (quick reality check)

    • The IMF’s recent updates show modest global growth in 2025–26 but flag tariff-driven uncertainty as a downside risk. Their 2025 WEO update projects global growth near 3.0% for 2025 and 3.1% for 2026 while explicitly warning that higher tariffs and policy uncertainty are important risks.
    • The OECD and several analysts argue the full force of recent tariff shocks hasn’t been felt yet — and they project growth weakening in 2026 as front-loading of imports ahead of tariffs wears off and higher effective tariff rates bite. The OECD’s interim outlook expects a slowdown in 2026 tied to these effects.
    • The WTO and World Bank also report trade-volume weakness and flag trade barriers as a material drag on trade growth — which feeds into lower global GDP.
    • These institutions are not predicting a single global recession just from tariffs, but they do expect measurable downward pressure on trade and investment, which slows recovery momentum.

    How big could the hit be? (it depends — but here are the drivers)

    Magnitude depends on policy breadth and persistence. Small, narrow tariffs on a few goods will only nudge growth; widespread, high tariffs across major economies (or sustained tit-for-tat escalation) can shave sizable tenths of a percentage point off global growth. Analysts point out that front-loading (firms buying ahead of tariff implementation) can temporarily buoy trade, but once that fades the negative effects appear.

    Timing matters. If tariffs are announced and then held in place for years, businesses will invest in duplicative capacity and the re-allocation costs accumulate. That’s the scenario most likely to slow growth into 2026.
    Bloomberg

    Who loses most

    • Export-dependent emerging markets (small open economies and commodity exporters) suffer when demand falls in advanced markets or when their inputs become more expensive.
    • Complex-value-chain industries (autos, electronics, semiconductors) where components cross borders many times are particularly vulnerable to tariffs and retaliations.
    • Low-income countries feel second-round effects: slower global growth → weaker commodity prices → less fiscal space and elevated debt stress. The World Bank notes growth downgrades when trade restrictions rise.
      World Bank

    Knock-on effects for inflation and policy

    Tariffs can be inflationary (higher import prices), which puts central banks in a bind: tighten to fight inflation and risk choking off growth, or tolerate higher inflation and risk de-anchored expectations. Either choice complicates recovery and could reduce real incomes and investment. Several policymakers have voiced concern that the mix of tariffs plus high policy uncertainty creates a stagflation-like risk in vulnerable economies.

    Offsets and reasons the slowdown may be limited

    • Front-loading and substitution. Businesses sometimes build inventories or substitute suppliers — that mutes immediate trade declines. IMF and other agencies note that some front-loading actually supported 2024–2025 trade figures, but this effect runs out.
    • Fiscal and monetary support. Governments can cushion the blow with targeted fiscal spending, subsidies, or trade facilitation. But those measures have limits (fiscal space, political will) and can’t fully replace cross-border trade flows.
    • Near-term resilience in consumption. Private sectors in some major economies have remained resilient, which helps growth hold up even as trade cools. But resilience erodes if tariffs persist and investment dries up.
      Reuters

    Practical indicators to watch in 2025–26 (what will tell us the story)

    • Trade volumes (WTO merchandise trade stats): a sustained drop signals broad tariff damage.
    • Business investment and capex plans: continued delays or cancellations point to a deeper investment chill.
    • Manufacturing PMI and global supply-chain bottlenecks: weakening PMIs across manufacturing hubs show cascading effects.
    • Inflation vs. growth trade-offs and central bank minutes: whether monetary policy tightens in response to tariff-driven inflation.
    • Announcements of trade retaliation or new tariff rounds: escalation increases downside risk; diplomatic rollbacks reduce it.

    Bottom line — a human takeaway

    Tariffs won’t necessarily cause an immediate, synchronized global recession in 2026, but they are a clear and credible downside risk to the fragile recovery. They act like a slow-moving tax on trade: higher costs, muddled investment decisions, and weaker demand — combined effects that shave growth and worsen inequalities between export-dependent and more closed economies. Policymakers can limit the damage with diplomacy, targeted support for affected industries and countries, and clear timelines — but if protectionism persists or escalates, the global recovery will be noticeably weaker in 2026 than it might otherwise have been.

    If you want, I can:

    • Turn this into a one-page slide for a briefing (executive summary + 3 charts of trade volume, investment plans, and projected growth scenarios); or
    • Pull the most recent WTO/OECD/IMF bullets (with dates and one-sentence takeaways) to cite in a short memo.

    See less
daniyasiddiquiEditor’s Choice
Asked: 12/10/2025In:

India upgrading its engagement with t ...

diplomatic recognitionembassy reopeningforeign policyindia–afghanistan relationss. jaishankartaliban government
  1. daniyasiddiqui
    daniyasiddiqui Editor’s Choice

    India’s Renewed Outreach to Afghanistan: A Delicate Diplomatic Shift Yes, India is indeed upgrading its engagement with the Taliban government in Afghanistan and is reportedly planning to reopen its embassy in Kabul after more than three years of limited operations. This marks a significant — and caRead more

    India’s Renewed Outreach to Afghanistan: A Delicate Diplomatic Shift

    Yes, India is indeed upgrading its engagement with the Taliban government in Afghanistan and is reportedly planning to reopen its embassy in Kabul after more than three years of limited operations. This marks a significant — and cautious — recalibration in New Delhi’s foreign policy toward a country with which it shares deep historical, cultural, and economic ties.

    Background: From Withdrawal to

    Reconnection

    When the Taliban seized power in August 2021, India, like most other nations, swiftly evacuated its diplomats and suspended its official presence in Kabul. At that time, New Delhi’s stance was one of wait and watch, reflecting deep concern about the Taliban’s past links to terrorism and their implications for India’s security interests, particularly regarding Pakistan-based extremist groups.

    But ever since the past two years, ground realities have shifted. The Taliban, as it sought world legitimacy and economic relief, was more amenable to initiate negotiations. India, for its part, realizes that it is neither strategically nor long-term viable to fully isolate Afghanistan — especially since China, Pakistan, Iran, and Russia have all maintained or expanded their presence in Afghanistan.

     Plans to Reopen the Embassy

    It is said that India has been making logistical and security preparations to re-establish its full-fledged embassy in Kabul, which has been operating in a limited form since 2022 under a “technical mission.”

    It has largely handled the distribution of humanitarian assistance, monitoring of development projects, and visas for Afghan students and patients traveling to India.

    A formal re-opening would be India’s most openly diplomatic engagement with the Taliban government so far — an exercise of pragmatism and symbolism. It signifies India’s desire to exercise influence over Afghanistan and protect its investments, which amount to over $3 billion in infrastructure and relief activities since 2001.

     India’s Strategic Motivations

    India’s fresh initiative is driven by a mix of security, economic, and geopolitical interests:

    • Counteracting Pakistani Influence: Pakistan has dominated Kabul for decades. Reopening an embassy enables India to restore a foothold and ensure that Afghan ground is not used against India.
    • Humanitarian Obligation: India has supplied wheat, medicine, and COVID-19 shots to Afghanistan despite the Taliban regime. Strengthening diplomatic ties enables smoother delivery of aid to Afghans.
    • Regional Stability: A stable Afghanistan is beneficial to India’s connectivity and trade interests in Central Asia, particularly under projects like the Chabahar Port and the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC).
    • Engagement over Isolation: India prefers to engage the de facto powers to influence developments rather than letting a vacuum fall into the lap of their rivals like China or Pakistan.

    Diplomatic Tightrope: Recognition vs. Engagement

    It must be noted that India has not yet recognized the Taliban regime officially, but nor will it do so at this time. It’s an issue of practical engagement more than political approval in order to restore its embassy.

    • New Delhi continues to hold out for inclusive politics, women’s empowerment, and counter-terror commitments as the terms of full diplomatic recognition.

    This realistic approach allows India to defend its interests without deviating from the general international belief of action under the leadership of the United Nations.

    Broader Implications & International Reactions

    • The international community has largely interpreted India’s action as a pragmatic and necessary step. The Western nations, many of whom have limited contact with the Taliban, view India as a trusted interlocutor who can help moderate the regime’s attitude.
    • While Afghans themselves, above all those recipients of Indian scholarships, medical aid, and development initiatives — have in general been welcoming the shift as one made by a friend over a long time, rather than an exchange ally.
    • India’s re-engagement with Afghanistan during the Taliban period is a diplomatic balance of the tightrope kind — a balancing act that is a mix of realism and humanitarian sensitivities. By reopening its embassy and upgrading relations, New Delhi aims to be a player in the changing political landscape of Afghanistan, protect its people-to-people ties, and prevent the country slipping further into isolation.

    It is a modest but important shift — one that reflects India’s growing self-assurance as a regional power that can promote its national interests without compromising moral and strategic imperatives.

    See less
daniyasiddiquiEditor’s Choice
Asked: 27/12/2025In: ,

AI tool causes a clinical error

artificial intelligence regulationclinical decision support systemshealthcare law and ethicsmedical accountabilitymedical negligencepatient safety
  1. daniyasiddiqui
    daniyasiddiqui Editor’s Choice

    AI in Healthcare: What Healthcare Providers Should Know Clinical AI systems are not autonomous. They are designed, developed, validated, deployed, and used by human stakeholders. A clinical diagnosis or triage suggestion made by an AI model has several layers before being acted upon. There is, thereRead more

    AI in Healthcare: What Healthcare Providers Should Know

    Clinical AI systems are not autonomous. They are designed, developed, validated, deployed, and used by human stakeholders. A clinical diagnosis or triage suggestion made by an AI model has several layers before being acted upon.

    There is, therefore, an underlying question:

    Was the damage caused by the technology itself, by the way it was implemented, or by the way it was used?

    The answer determines liability.

    1. The Clinician: Primary Duty of Care

    In today’s health care setup, health care providers’ decisions, even in those supported by AI, do not exempt them from legal liability.

    If a recommendation is offered by an AI and the following conditions are met by the clinician, then:

    • Accepts it without appropriate clinical judgment, or
    • Neglects obvious signs that go against the result produced by AI,

    So, in many instances, the liability may rest with the clinician. AI systems are not considered autonomous decision-makers but rather decision-support systems by courts.

    Legally speaking, the doctor’s duty of care for the patient is not relinquished merely because software was used. This is supported by regulatory bodies, including the FDA in the United States, which considers a majority of the clinical use of AI to be assistive, not autonomous.

    2. The Hospital or Healthcare Organization

    Healthcare providers can be held responsible for damage caused by system-level issues, for instance:

    • Lack of adequate training among staff
    • Poor incorporation of AI in clinical practices
    • Ignoring known limitations of the system or warnings about safety

    For instance, if an AI decision-support system is required by a hospital in terms of triage decisions but an accompanying guideline is lacking regarding under what circumstances an override decision by clinicians is warranted, then the hospital could be held jointly liable for any errors that occur.

    With the aspect of vicarious liability in place, the hospital can be potentially responsible for negligence committed through its in-house professionals utilizing hospital facilities.

    3. AI Vendor or Developer

    Under product liability or negligence, AI developers can be made responsible, especially if negligence occurs in relation to:

    • Inherently Flawed Algorithm/Design Issues in Models
    • Biased or poor quality training data
    • Lack of Pre-Deployment Testing
    • Lack of disclosure of known limitations or risks

    If an AI system is malfunctioning in a manner inconsistent with its approved use, market claims, legal liability could shift toward the vendor. This leaves developers open to legal liability in case their tools end up malfunctioning in a manner inconsistent with their approved use

    But vendors tend to mitigate any responsibility for liability by stating that the use of the AI system should be under clinical supervision, since it is advisory only. Whether this will be valid under any legal system is yet to be tested.

    4. Regulators & Approval Bodies (Indirect Role)

    The regulatory bodies are not responsible for liability pertaining to clinical mistakes, but regulatory standards govern liability.

    The World Health Organization, together with various regulatory bodies, is placing a mounting importance on the following:

    • Transparency and explainability
    • Human-in-loop decision making
    • Continuous monitoring of AI performance

    Non-compliance with legal standards may enhance the validity of legal action against hospitals or suppliers in the event of injuries.

    5. What If the AI Is “Autonomous”?

    This is where the law gets murky.

    This becomes an issue if an AI system behaves independently without much human interference, such as in cases of fully automated triage decisions or treatment choices. The existing liability mechanism becomes strained in this scenario because the current laws were never meant for software that can independently impact medical choices.

    Some jurists have argued for:

    • Contingent liability schemes
    • Mandatory Insurance for AI MitsuruClause Insurance for AI
    • New legal categorizations for autonomous medical technologies

    At least, in today’s world, most medical organizations do not put themselves at risk in this manner, as they do, in fact, mandate supervision by medical staff.

    6. Factors Judged by the Court for Errors Associated with AI

    In applying justice concerning harm caused by artificial intelligence, the courts usually consider:

    • Was the AI used for the intended purpose?
    • Was the practitioner prudent in medical judgment?
    • Was the AI system sufficiently tested and validated?
    • Were limitations well defined?
    • Was there proper training and governance in the organization?

    The absence or presence of AI may not be as crucial to liability but rather its responsible use.

    The Emerging Consensus

    The general world view is that AI does not replace responsibility. Rather, the responsibility is shared in the AI environment in the following ways:

    • Healthcare Organizations: Responsible for the governance & implementation
    • Suppliers of AI systems: liable for secure design and honest representation

    This shared responsibility model acknowledges that AI is not a value-neutral tool or an autonomous system it is a socio-technical system that is situated within healthcare practice.

    Conclusion

    Consequently, it is not only technology errors but also system errors. The issue of blame in assigning liability focuses not on pinning down whose mistake occurred but on making all those in the chain, from the technology developer to the medical practitioner, do their share.

    Until such time as laws catch up to define the specific role of autonomous biomedical AI, being responsible is a decidedly human task. There is no question about the best course in either safety or legal terms. Being human is the key. Keep the responsibility visible, traceable, and human.

    See less
daniyasiddiquiEditor’s Choice
Asked: 09/08/2025In: ,

ai
  1. Anonymous
    Anonymous

    Seeing, Hearing, and Comprehending — Simultaneously Multimodal AI models are akin to human beings who can see, hear, and read simultaneously — but with the speed of a supercomputer. Rather than processing single inputs (such as text), these models blend vision, speech, and text to make more intelligRead more

    Seeing, Hearing, and Comprehending — Simultaneously
    Multimodal AI models are akin to human beings who can see, hear, and read simultaneously — but with the speed of a supercomputer. Rather than processing single inputs (such as text), these models blend vision, speech, and text to make more intelligent, faster decisions in real-time.

    How They Do It

    • Vision

    The AI can “see” through videos, images, or live camera streams — identifying objects, recognizing text in images, or examining environments.

    • Speech

    It can “hear” and interpret spoken words, tone, or background sounds.

    • Text

    It can analyze written commands, documents, or live chat input in real time.

    By merging these streams, the AI constructs a comprehensive image of what’s happening before deciding on the next course of action.

    Real-World Examples

    • Healthcare

    A hospital AI might monitor a patient’s vital signs on a screen (vision), hear their breathing (speech), and read the doctor’s notes (text) — and alert physicians in real-time if anything’s amiss.

    • Autonomous Vehicles

    Check, safe driving decisions. A driverless vehicle can see people walking, hear sirens, and read signs at the same time to make qui

    • Customer Support

    A service bot can observe a customer’s video stream, hear their tone of voice, and see the chat text to deliver the most empathetic reply.

    Why It Matters

    This combination makes AI more context-aware, decreasing misunderstandings and enhancing safety in high-stakes environments. It’s not being clever — it’s being situationally clever, such as a human being able to read the room.

    See less
Load More Questions