Nations should establish binding international rules for AI safety and governance

With so many different actors involved across numerous jurisdictions, no single country has full visibility into the causes and implications of AI incidents. Nor can they manage and prevent them alone. [...] A shared way of documenting AI incidents; internationally interoperable …

If AI is to serve humanity, it must develop within a framework of international rules ... No country and no company can meet this challenge alone.

We need to think about the regulation. I don't think we need to stifle it or stop the growth of it, but equally, it will be foolish for anybody to think that we can let it flow to a level, and then if an accident happens, then we'll think about it. [...] AI system cannot be in is…

Because something with such power, with such profound implications for our economies, our social systems, our defence and therefore our peace and security, but especially for even our homes, our food, our children's bedrooms, can only be meaningfully and safely managed together.

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…

States have a responsibility – to their own populations, and to those in other states who will face the consequences of the proliferation and use of AI-enabled weapons and by conflict escalation – to set clear limits. A company cannot determine what international law, including I…

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

I strongly believe that we must build an international framework that allows AI to develop in a safe, trustworthy, and human-centered way. Take the military application of AI as a very real and concerning example. As AI integrates into defense systems and the conduct of warfare, …

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 …

We need to pause all of the research on this, we need to pause all of the application of AI and just sit down and have a proper think about where this is going, where we want it to go, and how we want it to happen and how we want it to be regulated. [...] I think there should be …

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

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.

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.

A comprehensive governance framework should combine binding legal obligations with ethical standards supported by an independent global evidence base and continued international dialogue to harmonize governance approaches.

In this context, a new international instrument on the governance of AI must prioritize interoperability and a set of legally binding rules that establishes the minimum mandatory standards that are truly applicable in all countries across all regions.

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.

New, legally binding rules are urgently needed.

Sri Lanka has been strongly advocating for a legally binding instrument to address the challenges and concerns raised by emerging technologies in the area of lethal autonomous weapons systems, in particular through the ongoing and valuable work of the Group of Governmental Expert…

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…

Possible options include establishing an agreement to regulate autonomous systems, mandating human control over nuclear weapons and creating a UN-based institution to oversee responsible military applications of AI.

Finally, it is imperative to establish a shared framework — also at the international level — in order to curb the technological arms race and ensure robust protection for civilians and the infrastructures necessary for their survival.

That branch of AI is lethal. We’ve got to do something about that. Nobody should build it. And everyone needs to agree to that by treaty. Treaties are not perfect, but they are the best we have as humans.

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…

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.

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.

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.

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.

AI isn’t going away. Barring unprecedented global government coordination, it isn’t even slowing down. The only real decision is whether to centralize power, or disperse it. Do you fear the technology? Or a small number of people controlling the technology?