India's new data protection law introduced the concept of age tokens as a means to obtain verifiable parental consent. If this concept can be adapted to apply to online content, it should finally be possible for us to ensure that online content is delivered in an age-appropriate manner without violating personal privacy.

It might appear as if AI is ingesting copyright material - text, images, videos, etc. - and regurgitating it out in response to prompts. But if you peel back the layers, the underlying process looks a lot more like learning than copying.

As anyone who lives in India knows, it is really hard to get aroundon your own. Our addressing system is broken and while GPS gets you to vicinity of where you need to be no trip is complete without making a phone call to navigate the last mile. We need a better system. And we might just have got one.

Copyright law must strike a fine balance between incentivising creators and ensuring that new creative works can be built on the back of existing works. In the context of modern online content distribution, this may call for an amendment of existing laws.

To withstand scrutiny, a forgery must extend beyond the artefact in question to the entire back-story within which it resides. While it used to be that these narratives had to be concocted painstakingly, one instance at a time, modern technology makes it possible to carry out on an industrial scale.

Modern privacy law is based on principles of data protection that were first articulated in the 1970s. As a result, it is based on the idea that we should collect as little data as possible to safeguard personal privacy. In the age of AI and big data, that approach is fast losing its relevance.

We built technology systems to enable data portability, only to realise that system-to-system integration is a non-trivial lift. A far simpler solution is to create self-custodial verifiable credentials that are capable of being verified without relying on their issuers.

The recent advances in de-extinction technology offer hope for endangered species. But before we leap to deploy these technologies we should consider the legal and ethical consequences of what we are about to unleash.

We have been trained to think that all bias is bad. And that we should do all we can to rid ourselves of it to avoid being unfair. What we often fail to realise is that bias is a shortcut that allows us to cut through the noise and zero in on the data we need to process.

If India is to achieve its data centre ambitions, it needs to find new sources of efficient power. While nuclear is a solution, it will take too long to come on stream. We need alternatives, and enhanced geothermal might just be it.

There are many possible futures for AI. Even if we cannot predict exactly which path it will take, as long as we remain clear-eyed about the possible consequences of the actions we take today, we will be able to mitigate the outcomes that could result over the next few years.

The climate consensus is rapidly unravelling. With the developing world consistently failing to make the level of commitment required to prevent global warming from exceeding 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels, we need to think differently about achieving sustainable development. Could we apply DPI Thinking to this problem?