The start of this year has been marked by a wave of predictions on the trajectory of artificial intelligence (AI), ranging from optimistic to cautious. Nevertheless, a clear consensus has emerged: AI is reshaping the human experience. To keep up, humanity must evolve.
For anyone who has lived through the rise of the Internet and social media, the AI revolution might evoke a sense of deja vu — and raise two fundamental questions: Is it possible to maintain momentum without repeating past mistakes? Can we create a world in which everyone, including the 2.6 billion people who remain offline, is able to thrive?
Three promising trends offer hope for the year ahead:
First, AI regulation remains a top global priority. From the EU’s AI Act to US President Joe Biden’s executive order in October last year, proponents of responsible AI have responded to voluntary commitments from big tech firms with policy suggestions rooted in equity, justice and democratic principles. The international community, led by the newly established UN High-Level Advisory Body on AI — one of the authors of this article, Vilas Dhar, is a member — is poised to advance many of these initiatives over the coming year, starting with its interim report on “Governing AI for Humanity.”
Moreover, this could be the year to dismantle elite echo chambers and cultivate a global cadre of ethical AI professionals. By expanding the reach of initiatives such as the National Artificial Intelligence Research Resource Task Force — established by the US’ 2020 AI Initiative Act — and localizing implementation strategies through tools such as the UNESCO Readiness Assessment, globally inclusive governance frameworks could shape AI this year.
At the national level, the focus is expected to be on regulating AI-generated content and empowering policymakers and citizens to confront AI-powered threats to civic participation. As a multitude of countries, representing more than 40 percent the world’s population, prepare to hold crucial elections this year, combating the imminent surge of misinformation and disinformation would require proactive measures. This includes initiatives to raise public awareness, promote broad-based media literacy across various age groups and address polarization by emphasizing the importance of empathy and mutual learning.
As governments debate AI’s role in the public sphere, regulatory shifts would likely trigger renewed discussions about using emerging technologies to achieve important policy goals. India’s use of AI to enhance the efficiency of its railways and Brazil’s AI-powered digital payment system are prime examples.
This year, entities such as the UN Development Programme are expected to explore the integration of AI technologies into digital public infrastructure (DPI). Standard-setting initiatives, such as the upcoming UN Global Digital Compact, could serve as multi-stakeholder frameworks for designing inclusive DPI. These efforts should focus on building trust, prioritizing community needs and ownership over profits, and adhering to “shared principles for an open, free, and secure digital future for all.”
Civil groups are using this momentum and harnessing the power of AI for good. For example, nonprofit Population Services International and the London-based start-up Babylon Health are rolling out an AI-powered symptom checker and healthcare provider locator, showcasing AI’s ability to help users manage their health. Similarly, organizations such as Polaris and Girl Effect are working to overcome digital transformation barriers within the nonprofit sector, tackling issues such as data privacy and user safety. By developing centralized financing mechanisms, international expert networks and embracing allyship, philanthropic foundations and public institutions could help scale such initiatives.
As nonprofits shift from integrating AI into their work to building new AI products, our understanding of leadership and representation in tech must also evolve. By challenging outdated perceptions of key players in today’s AI ecosystem, we have an opportunity to celebrate the true, diverse face of innovation and highlight trailblazers from a variety of genders, races, cultures and geographies, while acknowledging the deliberate marginalization of minority voices in the AI sector.
Organizations like the Hidden Genius Project, Indigenous in AI and Technovation are building the “who’s who” of the future, focusing on women and people of color. By collectively supporting their work, we could ensure that they take a leading role in shaping, deploying and overseeing AI technologies this year and beyond.
Debates over what it means to be “human-centered” and which values should guide our societies might shape our engagement with AI. Multi-stakeholder frameworks like UNESCO’s Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence could provide much-needed guidance. By focusing on shared values such as diversity, inclusiveness and peace, policymakers and technologists could outline principles for designing, developing and deploying inclusive AI tools. Likewise, integrating these values into our strategies requires community engagement and a steadfast commitment to equity and human rights.
Given that AI is well on its way to becoming as ubiquitous as the Internet, we must learn from the digital revolution’s successes and failures. Staying on our current path risks perpetuating or even exacerbating the global wealth gap and further alienating vulnerable communities worldwide.
However, by reaffirming our commitment to fairness, justice and dignity, we could establish a new global framework that enables every individual to reap the rewards of technological innovation. We must cultivate multi-stakeholder partnerships and promote a future in which AI generates prosperity for all.
Yolanda Botti-Lodovico is policy and advocacy lead for the Patrick J. McGovern Foundation. Vilas Dhar is president of the Patrick J. McGovern Foundation.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS