Shaping the global AI landscape
Month in, month out, we spent most of 2023 reading and writing about AI governance. October is no exception. As the world grapples with the complexities of this technology, the following initiatives showcase efforts to navigate its ethical, safety, and regulatory challenges on both national and international fronts.
Biden’s executive order on AI. The order represents the most substantial effort by the US government to regulate AI to date. Unveiled with anticipation, the order provides actionable directives where possible and calls for bipartisan legislation where necessary, particularly in data privacy.
One standout feature is the emphasis on AI safety and security. Developers of the most potent AI systems are now mandated to share safety test results and critical information with the US government. Additionally, AI systems utilised in critical infrastructure sectors are subjected to rigorous safety standards, reflecting a proactive approach to mitigating potential risks associated with AI deployment.
Unlike some emerging AI laws, such as the EU’s AI Act, Biden’s order takes a sectoral approach. It directs specific federal agencies to focus on AI applications within their domains. For instance, the Department of Health and Human Services is tasked with advancing responsible AI use in healthcare, while the DoC is directed to develop guidelines for content authentication and watermarking to label AI-generated content clearly. The DoJ is instructed to address algorithmic discrimination, showcasing a nuanced and tailored approach to AI governance.
Beyond regulations, the executive order aims to bolster the US’s technological edge. It facilitates the entry of highly skilled workers into the country, recognising their pivotal role in advancing AI capabilities. The order also prioritises AI research through funding initiatives, increased access to AI resources and data, and the establishment of new research structures.
G7’s guiding principles. Simultaneously, the G7 nations released their guiding principles for advanced AI, accompanied by a detailed code of conduct for organisations developing AI.
These principles, totalling 11, centre around risk-based responsibility. The G7 encourages developers to implement reliable content authentication mechanisms, signalling a commitment to ensuring transparency in AI-generated content.
A notable similarity with the EU’s AI Act is the risk-based approach, placing responsibility on AI developers to assess and manage the risks associated with their systems. The EU promptly welcomed these principles, citing their potential to complement the legally binding rules under the EU AI Act internationally.
While building on the existing Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development AI Principles (OECD) principles, the G7 principles go a step further in certain aspects. They encourage developers to deploy reliable content authentication and provenance mechanisms, such as watermarking, to enable users to identify AI-generated content. However, the G7’s approach preserves a degree of flexibility, allowing jurisdictions to adopt the code in ways that align with their individual approaches.
Differing viewpoints on AI regulation among G7 countries are acknowledged, ranging from strict enforcement to more innovation-friendly guidelines. However, some provisions, such as those related to privacy and copyright, are criticised for their vagueness, raising questions about their potential to drive tangible change.
China’s Global AI Governance Initiative (GAIGI). China unveiled its GAIGI during the Third Belt and Road Forum, marking a significant stride in shaping the trajectory of AI on a global scale. China’s GAIGI is expected to bring together 155 countries participating in the Belt and Road Initiative, establishing one of the largest global AI governance forums.
This strategic initiative focuses on five aspects, including ensuring AI development aligns with human progress, promoting mutual benefit, and opposing ideological divisions. It also establishes a testing and assessment system to evaluate and mitigate AI-related risks, similar to the risk-based approach of the EU’s upcoming AI Act. Additionally, the GAIGI supports consensus-based frameworks and provides vital support to developing nations in building their AI capacities.
China’s proactive approach to regulating its homegrown AI industry has granted it a first-mover advantage. Despite its deeply ideological approach, China’s interim measures on generative AI, effective since August this year, were a world first. This advantage positions China as a significant influencer in shaping global standards for AI regulation.
AI Safety Summit at Bletchley Park. The UK’s much-anticipated summit resulted in a landmark commitment among leading AI countries and companies to test frontier AI models before public release.
The Bletchley Declaration identifies the dangers of current AI, including bias, threats to privacy, and deceptive content generation. While addressing these immediate concerns, the focus shifted to frontier AI – advanced models that exceed current capabilities – and their potential for serious harm. Signatories include Australia, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Korea, Singapore, the UK, and the USA for a total of 28 countries plus the EU.
Governments will now play a more active role in testing AI models. The AI Safety Institute, a new global hub established in the UK, will collaborate with leading AI institutions to assess the safety of emerging AI technologies before and after their public release. This marks a significant departure from the traditional model, where AI companies were solely responsible for ensuring the safety of their models.
The summit resulted in an agreement to form an international advisory panel on AI risk, inspired by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Each signatory country will nominate a representative to support a larger group of leading AI academics, producing State of the Science reports. This collaborative approach aims to foster international consensus on AI risk.
UN’s High-Level Advisory Body on AI. The UN has taken a unique approach by launching a High-Level Advisory Body on AI, comprising 39 members. Led by UN Tech Envoy Amandeep Singh Gill, the body will publish its first recommendations by the end of this year, with final recommendations expected next year. These recommendations will be discussed during the UN’s Summit of the Future in September 2024.
Unlike previous initiatives that introduced new principles, the UN’s advisory body focuses on assessing existing governance initiatives worldwide, identifying gaps, and proposing solutions. The tech envoy envisions the UN as the platform for governments to discuss and refine AI governance frameworks.
OECD’s updated AI definition. The OECD has officially revised its definition of AI, to read: An AI system is a machine-based system that, for explicit or implicit objectives, infers, from the input it receives, how to generate outputs such as predictions, content, recommendations, or decisions that [can] influence physical or virtual environments. Different AI systems vary in their levels of autonomy and adaptiveness after deployment. It is anticipated that this definition will be incorporated into the EU’s upcoming AI regulation.
Misinformation crowding out the truth in the Middle East
It is said that a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes. It is also said it was Mark Twain who coined it – which, ironically, is untrue.
Misinformation is as old as humanity and decades old in its current recognisable form, but social media has amplified its speed and scale. An MIT report from 2018 found that lies spread six times faster than the truth – on Twitter, that is. Different platforms amplify misinformation differently – depending on how many mechanisms for the virality of posts the platform has in place.
Yet all social media platforms have struggled with misinformation in recent days, as people have been grappling with the violence unfolding in Israel and Gaza, social media platforms have become inundated with graphic images and videos of the conflict – and images and videos that have nothing to do with it.
What’s happening? Miscaptioned imagery, altered documents, and old videos taken out of context are circulating online. This makes it hard for anyone looking for information about the conflict to parse falsehood from truth.
Shaping perceptions. Misleading claims are not confined to the conflict zone; they also impact global perceptions and contribute to the polarisation of opinions. Individuals, influenced by biases and emotions, take sides based on information that often lacks accuracy or context.
False narratives on platforms like X (formerly known as Twitter) can influence political agendas, with instances of fake memos circulating about military aid and allegations of fund transfers. Even supposedly reliable verified accounts contribute significantly to the dissemination of misinformation.
What tech companies are doing. Meta has established a special operations centre staffed with experts, including fluent Hebrew and Arabic speakers. It is working with fact-checkers, using their ratings to downrank false content in the feed to reduce its visibility. TikTok’s measures are somewhat similar. The company established a command centre for its safety team, added moderators proficient in Arabic and Hebrew, and enhanced automated detection systems. X removed hundreds of Hamas-linked accounts and removed or flagged thousands of pieces of content. Google and Apple reportedly disabled live traffic data for online maps for Israel and Gaza. Social messaging platform Telegram blocked Hamas channels on Android due to violations of Google’s app store guidelines.
The EU reacts. The EU ordered X, Alphabet, Meta, and TikTok to remove fake content. European Commissioner Thierry Breton reminded them of their obligations under the new Digital Services Act (DSA), giving X, Meta, and TikTok 24 hours to respond. X confirmed removing Hamas-linked accounts, but the EU sent a formal request for information, marking the beginning of an investigation into compliance with the DSA.
Complicating matters. However, earlier this year, Meta, Amazon, Alphabet, and Twitter laid off many team members focusing on misinformation. This was part of a post-COVID-19-induced restructuring aimed at improving financial efficiency.
The situation underscores the need for robust measures, including effective fact-checking, regulatory oversight, and platform accountability, to mitigate the impact of misinformation on public perception and global discourse.
IGF 2023
The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2023 addressed pressing issues amid global tensions, including the Middle East conflict. With a record-breaking 300 sessions, 15 days of video content, and 1,240 speakers, debates covered topics from the Global Digital Compact (GDC) and AI policy to data governance and narrowing the digital divide.
The following ten questions are derived from detailed reports from hundreds of workshops and sessions at the IGF 2023.
1. How can AI be governed? Sessions explored national and international AI governance options, emphasising transparency and questioning the regulation of AI applications or capabilities.
2. What will be the future of the IGF in the context of the Global Digital Compact (GDC) and the WSIS+20 Review Process? The future of the IGF is closely tied to the GDC and the WSIS+20 Review Process. The 2025 review may decide the IGF’s fate, and negotiations on the GDC, expected in 2024, will also impact the IGF’s trajectory.
3. How can we use the IGF’s wealth of data for an AI-supported, human-centred future?
The IGF’s 18 years of data is considered a public good. Discussions explored using AI to gain insights, enhance multistakeholder participation, and visually represent discussions through knowledge graphs.
4. How can risks of internet fragmentation be mitigated? Multidimensional approaches and inclusive dialogue were proposed to prevent unintended consequences.
5. What challenges arise from the negotiations on the UN treaty on cybercrime? Concerns were raised about the scope, human rights safeguards, undefined cybercrime definitions, and the role of the private sector in the UN treaty on cybercrime negotiations. Clarity, separation of cyber-dependent and cyber-enabled crimes, and international cooperation were emphasised.
6. Will the new global tax rules be as effective as everyone hopes for? The IGF discussed the potential effectiveness of the OECD/G20’s two-pillar solution for global tax rules. Concerns lingered about profit-shifting, tax havens, and power imbalances between Global North and South nations.
7. How can misinformation and protection of digital communication be addressed during times of war? Collaborative efforts between humanitarian organisations, tech companies, and international bodies were deemed essential.
8. How can data governance be strengthened? The discussion emphasised the importance of organised and transparent data governance, including clear standards, an enabling environment, and public-private partnerships. The Data Free Flow with Trust (DFFT) concept, introduced by Japan, was discussed as a framework to facilitate global data flows while ensuring security and privacy.
9. How can the digital divide be bridged? The digital divide requires comprehensive strategies beyond connectivity involving regional initiatives, deploying LEO satellites, and digital literacy efforts. Public-private partnerships, especially with RIRs, were highlighted as crucial for fostering trust and collaboration.
10. How do digital technologies impact the environment? The IGF explored the environmental impact of digital technologies, highlighting the potential to cut emissions by 20% by 2050. Immediate actions, collaborative efforts, awareness campaigns, and sustainable policies were advocated to minimise the environmental footprint of digitalisation.
Read more in our IGF 2023 Final report.
Upcoming: UNCTAD eWeek 2023
Organised by the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) in collaboration with eTrade for all partners, the UNCTAD eWeek 2023 is scheduled from 4 to 8 December at the prestigious International Conference Center Geneva (CICG). The central theme of this transformative event is ‘Shaping the future of the digital economy’.
Ministers, senior government officials, CEOs, international organisations, academia, and civil society will convene to address pivotal questions about the future of the digital economy: What does the future we want for the digital economy look like? What is required to make that future come true? How can digital partnerships and enhanced cooperation contribute to more inclusive and sustainable outcomes?
Over the week, participants will join more than 150 sessions addressing themes including platform governance, the impact of AI on the digital economy, eco-friendly digital practices, the empowerment of women through digital entrepreneurship, and the acceleration of digital readiness in developing countries.
The event will explore key policy areas for building inclusive and sustainable digitalisation at various levels, focusing on innovation, scalable good practices, concrete actions and actionable steps.
For youth aged 15–24, there’s a dedicated online consultation to ensure their voices are heard in shaping the digital future for all.
Stay up-to-date with GIP reporting!
The GIP will be actively involved in eWeek 2023 by providing reports from the event. Our human experts will be joined by DiploAI, which will generate reports from all eWeek sessions. Bookmark our dedicated eWeek 2023 page on the Digital Watch Observatory or download the app to follow the reports.
Diplo, the organisation behind the GIP, will also co-organise a session entitled ‘Scenario of the Future with the Youth’ with UNCTAD and Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES), and a session entitled ‘Digital Economy Agreements and the Future of Digital Trade Rulemaking’ with CUTS International. Diplo’s session will be titled ‘Bottom-up AI and the Right to be Humanly Imperfect.’ For more details, visit our Diplo @ UNCTAD eWeek page.
