Por Javier Surasky-
UN Actors: The Secretary-General and the President of the General Assembly
The Secretary-General has changed his last speeches' “global collapse”
tone to a more optimistic and actionable one. He
highlighted “two overriding truths”: the unsustainable state of our world and
the availability of solutions to current challenges. He also identified three
drivers of world unsustainability:
- Impunity. In an interesting geopolitical contribution, he called the current world order a purgatory of polarity: “The Cold War had rules. There were hotlines, red lines, and guard rails. It can feel as though we don’t have that today. Nor do we have a unipolar world. We are moving to a multipolar world, but we are not there yet. We are in a purgatory of polarity.”
- Inequality. Defined as “a question of power with historical roots.”
- Uncertainty. “Compounded by two existential threats: the climate crisis and the rapid advance of technology, in particular Artificial Intelligence.” The SG reminds us that AI “will change virtually everything we know.” However, the direction of the change is still unclear: Freedom or conflict? A more sustainable world or greater inequality? Better informed or easier to manipulate people?
Without
establishing an AI global governance, we can do little to “make AI a
force for good.” Today, “a handful of companies and even individuals have
already amassed enormous power over the development of AI with little
accountability or oversight.”
In the
future, the lack of a global approach to AI management could “lead to
artificial divisions across the board, a Great Fracture with two internets, two
markets, two economies with every country forced to pick a side.”
The United
Nations is pointed out as the best platform for dialogue and consensus building
on AI, which would be based on the values of the Charter and international law.
The process just started: “Two resolutions in the General Assembly, the Global
Digital Compact, and the recommendations of the High-Level Body on AI can lay
the foundations for inclusive governance of AI.”
Sadly,
there was no connection between AI approaches between the SG words and the President of the General Assembly speech delivered immediately after
Guterres’ participation. The PGA did not mention AI even once, not even
referenced the recently adopted Global Digital Compact, and only stated that “the
digital divide continues to widen, cutting off entire populations from the
tools needed to succeed in the 21st century.”
AI in the speeches of the leading digital technologies actors: the United States, China, and the European Union
According
to the Tortoise Global AI Index 2024, the United States and China
continue to lead AI globally, with a massive distance for the #3
country: Singapore. The ranking does not include the European Unión. Still, we include it here because of its leadership in creating AI-related normative frameworks,
paving the way to a global discussion on AI regulation and governance.
In a kind
of “farewell speech,” Joseph Biden reviewed his 40-year career in the United States government. Without mentioning AI
as a particular issue, he pointed out that “We also need to uphold our principles
as we seek to responsibly manage the competition with China, so it does not
veer into conflict. We stand ready to cooperate on urgent challenges for the
good of our people and the people everywhere.”
Biden’s
speech approaches AI as a serious concern: “In the years ahead,” he said,
“there may well be no greater test of our leadership than how we deal with AI.”
The US
President underlined that today's world leaders “have a responsibility to
prepare our citizens for the future” because AI “is going to change our ways of
life, our ways of work, and our ways of war. It could usher in scientific
progress at a pace never seen before.”
In line
with the SG, Biden affirmed that AI “could make our lives better, but AI also
brings profound risks, from deepfakes to disinformation to novel pathogens to
bioweapons.” That is why the US “have worked at home and abroad to define the
new norms and standards.” Just as Guterres, the US President, mentioned the
adoption of the first-ever General Assembly resolution on AI and the Declaration
on the Responsible Use of AI.
Nevertheless,
Biden considers that steps “just the tip of the iceberg” of AI management,
assuming that “Nothing is certain about how AI will evolve or how it will be
deployed.” Hence, he raised two questions
How does
the international community govern AI? “As countries and companies race to
uncertain frontiers, we need an equally urgent effort to ensure AI's safety,
security, and trustworthiness. As AI grows more powerful, it also must grow
more responsive to our collective needs and values. The benefits of all must be
shared equitably. It should be harnessed to narrow, not deepen, digital
divides.”
Will we
ensure that AI supports the core principles that human life has value and all
humans deserve dignity? AI capabilities “will be used to uplift and empower
everyday people, not to give dictators more powerful shackles on the human
spirit.”
President
Biden did not mention the Pact of the Future or the Digital Global Compact in
his statement.
China was represented by Wang Yi,
Minister for Foreign Affairs. He set the tone of the speech at the very beginning
by saying, “Humanity has once again come to a historical crossroads. We are
facing a changing and turbulent world, challenges of insecurity, imbalanced development,
and ineffective governance are increasingly prominent. Hotspot conflicts, major
country confrontations, and geopolitical tensions keep emerging. The future of
this planet is becoming a cause for growing concern. Meanwhile, we are also
embracing a world full of hope, multipolarity and globalization have become the
unstoppable trend of our times.”
Achieving
modernization for all became an essential demand in the Chinese statement, which
considers it as “a right of the people of all countries, not a prerogative of a
few,” establishing the country’s commitment to advance global, universally
beneficial, and inclusive modernization. “Gone are the days when one or two
major powers call the shots on everything. We should advocate an equal and
orderly multipolar world,” Wang Yi said, and in an unusual insight, he stated that
“China has never opted to be an indifferent spectator. Instead, we've been
playing a bigger part in global governance.”
In the field
of AI, China commits to “taking a people-centered approach, developing AI for
good, and putting equal emphasis on development and security.” As part of that pledge,
China affirms that it is “working to explore and establish widely recognized international rules and standards” and that the UN plays a significant role
in global AI governance development.
China, Wang
states, is also committed to strengthening international cooperation on AI for
good capacity building and is ready to expand its contribution to a “sound
orderly, fair and inclusive development of AI.”
Minister Wang
Yi also did not mention the Pact of the Future or the Digital Global Compact in
his statement.
The European Union was represented by Charles Michel, President
of the European Council. In his speech, he briefly referred to AI, focusing on
data-related issues: “There is no freedom in a world where we are all reduced
to our personal data, to a marketing target, or a target of surveillance and
manipulation.”
As Biden,
Michel highlighted that the ongoing digital revolution, with AI as its main product,
“is an extraordinary driver for progress, a new fuel for prosperity. But it
must serve people and our freedom and human rights,” calling to prevent “abusing
personal data as we have abused our natural resources.”
Data and
artificial intelligence were defined as “instruments of power, and even of
economic and political subjugation and dominance,” and weapons of war. He
affirmed that “while technological competition is healthy, insofar as it
fosters progress, it must also take place within a common framework on a level
playing field,” underlining that “The EU is involved in this global dialogue.”
In the same direction, but speaking broadly, Michel said that “we need to move
away from bipolar confrontation and act resolutely for a multipolar world and a
multilateral framework, one where each country or group of countries chooses
its own path to prosper and where everyone cooperates by following rules that
have been agreed with others. Let us also resist the pressure to choose one
side against another in a confrontation between opposing sides that can only
end in disaster,” a position that could have robust application in AI global
regulation debates.
Charles
Michel did not mention the Pact of the Future or the Digital Global Compact in
his statement.
Conclusions
All the statements reviewed show shared lines. There seems to be a general consensus on:
- The challenging world's current landscape. The bipolar order is definitively ended, but a new order is still a work in progress. The SG called this moment the purgatory of polarity.
- There is a need to act now, without further delay, and build an AI global regulatory framework, if not a broader governance framework. There is a concrete risk of a “digital polarization” that can go beyond a digital divide, forcing countries to join one “digital block” or the other.
- The UN should be at the center of tI global regulation/governance, and its Charter principles must guide the AI rregime'sbbuilding
- The expression “AI for good” is used by the three main AI-development State actors. All of them expressed worry about AI's impact on peace and security.
- Neither the Pact of the Future nor the Global Digital Compact are considered central pieces by the US, China, or the EU. None of them mentioned any of those documents in their speeches. On the contrary, the UN Secretary-General considers them as building blocks of future AI-shared governance.
These commonalities can set the stage for more concrete negotiations on AI and AI-related issues, including AI cooperation, equity, weaponization, capacity building, and development financing as core blocks. Human Rights still have a way to go to be fully included in the discussions, but the broad reception of the “IA for good” approach opens new opportunities to build stronger bridges between AI regulation and human dignity.