We must take the risks of AI as seriously as other major global challenges, like climate change. It took the international community too long to coordinate an effective global response to this, and we’re living with the consequences of that now. We can’t afford the same delay with AI. I think we have to start with something like the IPCC, where it’s a scientific and research agreement with reports, and then build up from there. Then what I’d like to see eventually is an equivalent of a Cern for AI safety that does research into that – but internationally. And then maybe there’s some kind of equivalent one day of the IAEA, which actually audits these things. (2023) source Unverified

I have talked about having something like a CERN [European Organization for Nuclear Research] for AI, which might focus on AI safety. In some industries, we know how to make reliable [products], usually only in narrow domains. One example is bridges: You can't guarantee that a bridge will never fall down, but you can say that, unless there’s an earthquake of a certain magnitude that only happens once every century, we're confident the bridge will still stand. Our bridges don't fall down often anymore. But for AI, we can’t do that at all as an engineering practice—it’s like alchemy. There’s no guarantee that any of it works. So, you could imagine an international consortium trying to either fix the current systems, which I think, in historical perspective, will seem mediocre, or build something better that does offer those guarantees. Many of the big technologies that we have around, from the internet to space ships, were government-funded in the past; it's a myth that in America innovation only comes from the free market. (2024) source Unverified

There is a need to develop alternatives that are publicly funded, driven by a public-interest mission, and overseen by democratically elected institutions. By proposing a mission to build a “CERN for AI”, the LAION researchers argue that a strong role for the public sector is needed to ensure public interest in this field. The petition argues for a democratization of AI technologies in a double sense: 1) through democratic oversight of their development, and 2) the democratization of the technology itself through its open sourcing. (2024) source Unverified

Because, you know, those things are, those things, people want those things. People want compute. They want data. And humans are humans and we do compete. And it’s important to convene people so that we dilute that ability of competition, because this actually can be quite destructive sometimes, and to go beyond our individual egos and to really come together to make something bigger. CERN was just so impactful with that. And so to convene people around these goals of climate and agriculture, for example, huge projects on weather with the data sets that we have here, to convene us around health and humanitarian action. Those are some models that I can speak about. That’s my kind of focus. I’m working on these projects over here for large language models for medicine and humanitarian action. And here, Amanda can speak more about later, maybe about the education poll. And these are high impact areas. Convening people, you often call it a tinder for impact, right? And if only there were more of those. So it’s about making sure that people who know where the impact is supposed to go are convened with the resources that they need. Now, I did use the word donate earlier, right? They donated their resources, donated this, but it’s not just donations. It obviously costs money to run and to employ people, and a lot of people are doing this out of good will. But if we really want this to be impactful, it’s important that we also convene around common funding on impact-based outcomes, and that we can show that impact is worth investing in, and measure it so that we can actually have a return. And I think those are the real values of ICANN, and I really thank the vision that was in Switzerland for convening and hosting this. But again, it’s decentralized, and that relinquishment of power to make sure that you have access is actually very extraordinary. So yeah, thank you. (2025) source Unverified

The proposed research institution, modeled on the CERN project, would be funded by the international community, in particular the EU, the UK, Canada and Australia. The computing capabilities would be overseen by "experts from the machine learning and supercomputing research community" and "overseen by democratically elected institutions" of the participating countries. The institution would require security measures comparable to those of a biological research laboratory, with multiple levels of security and staffed by internationally recognized experts. Research results would have to be communicated transparently to the scientific community and society. (2024) source Unverified

The governance model we propose relies on twin principles of transparency and accountability, implemented through a Member Representative Board that serves as a guardian of the institution’s mission. Two independent expert boards—Mission Alignment and Scaling & Deployment—would serve as operational mirrors, ensuring work stays aligned with goals and institutional values through public feedback loops. While these boards provide crucial guidance, ultimate control would remain with member countries, initially comprising EU/EEA states and trusted Horizon Europe partners like the UK, Switzerland, and Canada. A tiered membership structure could enable future broadening while protecting sensitive technology. (2025) source Unverified

The idea of a “CERN for AI” was first proposed by cognitive scientist Gary Marcus at the AI for Good Summit in 2017. He invoked CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, as a model of international, publicly funded scientific collaboration that could be replicated for AI. Since then, the idea of a “CERN for AI” has gained momentum in AI governance. CERN is governed by a Council composed of representatives from its 25 member states. Each member state has two representatives: one from the government and one from the scientific community. Each country has one vote, and all decisions aim for consensus. (2025) source Unverified

Preventing narrowly commercial interests from dominating a CERN for AI would require vigilant governance. That said, the governance structure of CERN could provide a template for its AI-focused equivalent: CERN’s multinational membership and interdisciplinary focus insulate it from capture by special interests, and provide a diversity of input to counter corporate influence. CERN is run by a council of its member states, with two delegates each (one representing government, the other national scientific interests); each member state has a single vote, and the council operates on a simple majority vote for decision-making. This also ensures no single member state can abuse its position within CERN – and provides a measure of protection against risks associated with the actions of individual states, as seen in the council’s suspension of Russia’s scientific observer status in March 2022 after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. (2024) source Unverified

At the same time, in order to reduce the probability of someone intentionally or unintentionally bringing about a rogue AI, we need to increase governance and we should consider limiting access to the large-scale generalist AI systems that could be weaponized, which would mean that the code and neural net parameters would not be shared in open-source and some of the important engineering tricks to make them work would not be shared either. Ideally this would stay in the hands of neutral international organizations (think of a combination of IAEA and CERN for AI) that develop safe and beneficial AI systems that could also help us fight rogue AIs. [...] Moreover, governments can help monitor and punish other states who start undercover AI projects. Governments could have oversight on a superhuman AI without that code being open-source. (2023) source Unverified

Yeah, I think we need multiple features and maybe not in the same place. I think a CERN is definitely something we need. I mean, I think we need to ensure that more of the development happens in a way that there is oversight over it and governments participate in it rather than just in the private sector. [...] I see a CERN-like collaboration that doesn't maybe have to be in a same physical location [...] But I do think you want that to set up that kind of international infrastructure. (2023) source Unverified

AI will improve our healthcare, spur our research and innovation and boost our competitiveness. We want AI to be a force for good and for growth. [...] This is why, together with our Member States and with our partners, we will mobilise unprecedented capital through InvestAI for European AI gigafactories. This unique public-private partnership, akin to a CERN for AI, will enable all our scientists and companies – not just the biggest - to develop the most advanced very large models needed to make Europe an AI continent. (2025) source Unverified

Participant AI labs would join as innovation and go-to-market partners, within a consortium democratically managed by the participant states. (2025) source Unverified

A new European strategy for AI in science is under development by the Commission, which the conclusions emphasise should be developed in close cooperation with the member states and the R&I community. In particular, the strategy should also emphasise the responsible and ethical use of AI tools in research and innovation and calls the Commission to work with member states on the details of this initiative, in particular its mission and governance to make the best use of existing initiatives and structures. (2025) source Unverified