Why today feels different
I woke up to the news that the UN General Assembly has adopted the terms of reference for an Independent International Scientific Panel on AI and a Global Dialogue on AI Governance. This is not a bureaucratic footnote; it is a deliberate signal that AI will now be debated and informed inside a multilateral, science-first forum that is explicitly tied to human rights and the Sustainable Development Goals. I have been arguing for a UN‑centered approach to AI governance for years, and seeing these modalities adopted feels like a modest vindication of that instinct.
For a clear summary of the adopted text and its modalities, I found the Digital Watch Observatory briefing particularly useful: UNGA adopts terms of reference for AI Scientific Panel and Global Dialogue on AI governance.
What the UN created — in plain terms
- A 40-member Independent International Scientific Panel on AI, appointed in personal capacity for three-year terms, tasked to produce evidence‑based scientific assessments and one annual policy‑relevant but non‑prescriptive summary report.
- A Global Dialogue on AI Governance — an annual, two‑day multistakeholder forum (alternating Geneva and New York) to present the Panel’s report, host high‑level government segments, and run thematic discussions on human rights, interoperability, capacity gaps, open‑source models, and more.
- An expectation that the UN Secretariat will provide support using existing resources, and an encouragement for voluntary contributions to ensure participation from developing countries.
These are institutional building blocks, not instant fixes. But institutions matter: they create rhythms, standards, and shared reference points for governments, companies, researchers, and civil society.
Why this matters to me (and should to you)
Science over slogans: I have long believed that global AI governance must be anchored in independent scientific assessment rather than political posturing. The Panel’s mandate to produce evidence‑based summaries — policy relevant but not prescriptive — is a healthy compromise between expertise and democratic choice.
Multistakeholder, but UN‑based: Fragmentation has been the warp and weft of AI governance to date. This design stitches a multistakeholder conversation into the UN’s convening power and universal legitimacy, which can help reduce duplication and elevate consensus where it exists.
Inclusion as a design principle: The resolution explicitly encourages support to enable participation from developing countries. That is essential. Without it, global rules will reflect only a subset of priorities and experiences.
Speed and agility: AI moves fast. The one‑report‑per‑year rhythm — with the ability to issue thematic briefs and working‑group outputs — better matches the pace we need than decade‑long assessment cycles.
Where this could go wrong (and how we should guard against it)
Politicization of science: Scientific independence must be defended. The Panel must publish transparent selection criteria, conflict‑of‑interest disclosures, and clear editorial control over outputs.
Token inclusion: Travel support and funded participation are not optional luxuries — they are prerequisites for legitimacy. States, foundations, and companies should commit to transparent funding streams for equitable participation.
Narrow outcomes: The Dialogue should avoid becoming an echo chamber of existing power. It must welcome voices from civil society, labour, indigenous groups, and communities most affected by AI deployments.
One‑size‑fits‑all prescriptions: The Panel should synthesize evidence and present tradeoffs, not hand down uniform policy diktats. National policy must remain adaptive to local conditions while benefiting from shared evidence.
Practical next steps I’m watching (and recommending)
The Secretary‑General’s open call for nominations: Follow it. Encourage qualified, diverse candidates from academia, civil society, and the global South to nominate themselves or be nominated.
National focal points: Governments should create inter‑ministerial teams to prepare nominations, gather national evidence, and map capacity gaps.
Fund participation: Philanthropy and development banks can step up to underwrite travel and participation for representatives from low‑resource contexts — and publish their contributions.
Civil society engagement: NGOs and research networks should prepare concise, evidence‑based inputs that the Panel can use for thematic briefs.
Continuity with what I’ve written before
This outcome builds on an idea I’ve long pushed: that the UN is the right place to convene a universal conversation on AI because it already has the structures to translate global deliberations into technical cooperation and capacity building. See my earlier reflections on why a UN‑anchored approach matters and how it could be operationalised: UN Agency for AI ? Arriving as envisaged. That post sketched the same intuition — use the UN’s convening and normative power — and today’s resolution is a clear institutional step in that direction.
My mood: cautiously hopeful
Institutions are scaffolding. They don’t guarantee good outcomes. But they do create repeated opportunities for evidence, deliberation, and course correction. If the Panel remains scientifically independent, the Dialogue stays genuinely multistakeholder, and the UN system backs inclusion with resources, this could be a turning point in how the world governs a technology that touches everything from health and education to justice and labour.
If you care about AI policy, pragmatic next moves are simple: nominate thoughtful experts, fund inclusive participation, and insist on transparency every step of the way. I will be following the open call, the composition of the Panel, and the first Dialogues closely — and I hope you will, too.
Regards,
Hemen Parekh
Any questions / doubts / clarifications regarding this blog? Just ask (by typing or talking) my Virtual Avatar on the website embedded below. Then "Share" that to your friend on WhatsApp.
Get correct answer to any question asked by Shri Amitabh Bachchan on Kaun Banega Crorepati, faster than any contestant
Hello Candidates :
- For UPSC – IAS – IPS – IFS etc., exams, you must prepare to answer, essay type questions which test your General Knowledge / Sensitivity of current events
- If you have read this blog carefully , you should be able to answer the following question:
- Need help ? No problem . Following are two AI AGENTS where we have PRE-LOADED this question in their respective Question Boxes . All that you have to do is just click SUBMIT
- www.HemenParekh.ai { a SLM , powered by my own Digital Content of more than 50,000 + documents, written by me over past 60 years of my professional career }
- www.IndiaAGI.ai { a consortium of 3 LLMs which debate and deliver a CONSENSUS answer – and each gives its own answer as well ! }
- It is up to you to decide which answer is more comprehensive / nuanced ( For sheer amazement, click both SUBMIT buttons quickly, one after another ) Then share any answer with yourself / your friends ( using WhatsApp / Email ). Nothing stops you from submitting ( just copy / paste from your resource ), all those questions from last year’s UPSC exam paper as well !
- May be there are other online resources which too provide you answers to UPSC “ General Knowledge “ questions but only I provide you in 26 languages !
No comments:
Post a Comment