Albania’s appointment of “Diella,” an AI, as a government minister raises serious constitutional questions. Critics say ministers must be human—able to take oaths, answer parliament, and bear legal responsibility—so an AI creates an “accountability gap.” Supporters argue AI could curb corruption and boost efficiency. The move may clash with EU rules on human oversight. Experts say such a fundamental change likely requires constitutional amendment, not executive reinterpretation, and urge safeguards like meaningful human control, transparency, audits, and clear legal liability.
AI is transforming workplaces by streamlining hiring, evaluations, and daily tasks, but it raises serious legal and ethical issues. Biased data and opaque algorithms can replicate discrimination, as seen in Amazon’s flawed hiring tool. Beyond bias, AI may displace millions of jobs by 2030, demanding strong retraining and safety nets. Legal responses are emerging, like the EU’s AI Act and U.S. bias audit rules, but remain fragmented. Experts urge human oversight, transparency, audits, and clear laws to ensure AI enhances rather than replaces work. The challenge is building systems that are both efficient and fair.
The Supreme Court is using AI and ML to modernise case management. Tools provide real-time transcription (for Constitution Bench hearings), translate judgments into 18 Indian languages, and detect filing defects with IIT Madras. Prototypes for data extraction and integration with the ICMIS are being tested. SUPACE, an AI research tool for legal search, is experimental. The Court says AI will not be used for judicial decision-making. The update was given in the Rajya Sabha by Arjun Ram Meghwal.
