Nations should establish binding international rules for AI safety and governance

AI safety and security raise challenges that no single country can address alone.

Artificial intelligence cannot effectively be regulated by national approaches alone. International coordination is necessary to manage the cross-border nature of AI markets and risks, to prevent regulatory fragmentation, and to safeguard common democratic and ethical principles.

Given that AI research and development can be conducted, in effect, anywhere, regulation of the development of superintelligent AI is going to have to be global.

Because we have the same rules applicable everywhere in the world. No matter if you take a plane in Kabul or if you take a plane in New York, the same safety rules apply everywhere. This is exactly what we need to make AI a success for business and for citizens.

No nation, alliance or bloc can secure the safety of artificial intelligence by excluding its rivals. Intelligence encoded in software cannot be fenced. Export controls delay; they do not prevent. Every strategy of exclusion invites the excluded to build in parallel, in secret, a…

At a minimum, we need countries hosting AI and those involved in its supply chains to come together around agreed red lines. We need independent verification, and much stronger collaboration on security within the industry.

Legal and governance frameworks must therefore be enforceable nationally and supra-nationally, voluntary principles are important, but they are not enough.

An agreement that cannot be verified is an aspiration, not an accord. Compliance with these principles must be demonstrable through evidence, inspection and independent audit.

Principles are necessary, but without mechanism and measurable progress, they are not sufficient. Algeria reiterates its commitment to arriving at a just, responsible global agreement at the service of humanity.

Given the growing warnings from leading scientists, industry figures and Nobel laureates that advanced AI systems could pose existential risks on a par with nuclear or biological threats, does the Minister agree that the current reliance on voluntary commitments through the AI Se…

I remain deeply concerned at the lack of progress on the global governance of artificial intelligence. Decision-making on AI's rapid development sits disproportionately within private companies without significant checks and balances. AI risks and safety issues cannot be left to …

An agreement prohibiting certain narrow and obviously dangerous uses of AI, such as using AI for the production of biological weapons or allowing users to do so.

An agreement by both sides to test their models before release for acute risks in areas such as cybersecurity, biology, and alignment.

So far, other national and multilateral efforts to establish rules of the road and/or legally-binding restrictions on AI uses in the military domain have fallen well short of what is necessary to address the risk of AI in nuclear operations.

This policy brief argues that states should negotiate a legally binding Treaty for Autonomous Weapons built around a two-tier model: prohibiting systems that cannot be lawfully controlled and regulating all remaining autonomous weapon systems through concrete duties on design, te…

We believe that in order to [avert extinction risks posed by superintelligent AI], we must secure an international prohibition on its development.

The primary prerequisite to even considering starting to work on a safe ASI plan is to have a global ASI ban and powerful enforcement already in place. Unsafe ASI is vastly easier to build than controlled ASI, and is on the same tech path.

Two years after its opening for signature in Vilnius, the Convention has attracted 21 signatures from across Europe and beyond, including Switzerland, Canada, Japan, the United States of America and Uruguay, reflecting its global reach and the growing international commitment to …

First, let's sign and ratify the Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence, Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law. This is not a declaration of intent. It is the first binding international treaty of its kind anywhere in the world and Europe wrote it. Colleagues, let'…

The AI Convention is binding, but flexible. And it is built not just for Europe, but for every country that believes AI must work for people — not over them.

Poland therefore welcomes the Council of Europe Framework Convention on AI, the first binding treaty to place AI within the order of human rights, democracy, and the rule of law.

The Council of Europe Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law (the ‘Convention’) is hereby approved on behalf of the European Union.

Pakistan, therefore, calls for safety norms to be developed through inclusive multilateral processes under the United Nations, where all nations participate as equals.

First of all, the adoption of an international framework for AI governance which respects all and which has clear international rules respecting the rights of developing countries and the sovereign rights of countries to equitably be represented in their data, amongst other thing…

AI technologies should be shared and governed by all countries, so that they can benefit all countries on an equitable basis, serve the sustainable development of all humanity, and bridge both the global AI and digital divides and the North-South gap.

The simplest form of treaty would be something like this, that the countries agree that if they do develop advanced AI: * That it will be done in a safe way. So maybe using techniques like Scientist AI or whatever else we have strong assurances for. * Second, that they wouldn’t u…

Any future agreement must be worthy of global trust and put safety first – and especially children’s – to protect them from digitally-generated manipulation and abuse.

The United States totally rejects any attempt to construct a globalist scheme of control for the artificial intelligence being spoken of so much now – hereinafter officially called super intelligence.

a significant overreach of the U.N.'s mandate and competence [...] AI governance is not a matter for the U.N. to dictate. [...] We will not cede authority over AI to international bodies that may be influenced by authoritarian regimes seeking to impose their vision of controlled …

We totally reject global governance of AI. We believe AI adoption cannot lead to a brighter future if it is subject to bureaucracies and centralized control. Prioritizing AI for your people does not mean joining international efforts that are either purely symbolic or a sacrifice…

We totally reject all efforts by international bodies to assert centralized control and global governance of AI. [...] Ideological fixations on social equity, climate catastrophism and so-called existential risk are dangers to progress and obstacles to responsibly harnessing this…

The U.S. and China won’t move in lockstep on AI safety, and forging mutually binding agreements with real teeth is probably not possible right now.

There is no common international standard, and I do not see there being one any time soon, because people see their own system as providing them with a form of competitive advantage that they are unlikely to be willing to give up in the name of international standard setting.

There seems to be little chance of seeing an international agreement on the approach to be taken, let alone having a body with powers to enforce decisions.

I am therefore pessimistic about getting an international dialogue going on the basis of a moratorium, and I think, as the noble Lord just said, that we have to act on our own recognisance.

For me, a one-sided moratorium which ties our hands behind our backs while the likes of North Korea and the al-Qaedas of the world crack on: no, I am afraid that that worries me even more.

A one-size-fits-all approach to AI governance will not be effective. We all face different risks, priorities, levels of digital development, and regulatory environments. Effective governance requires shared principles that can be implemented flexibly across different contexts.

Voluntary cooperation between the two is the only AI security approach agile enough to meet challenges as they arise without stifling innovation.

MoUs are entirely appropriate. Co-operation on AI, which we have mentioned, could be a really good candidate for a non-binding agreement in this regard.

If somebody says, 'This technology is so powerful that we need a global treaty to slow it down,' then I would say: Then take your foot off the accelerator yourself if you think it's moving too fast.