Paris played host to representatives from more than 100 countries to discuss the future of artificial intelligence (AI) last week. The result was a vague agreement signed by 60 of them that does almost nothing to help make the technology safer.
The clue was in the name. The international meeting series, founded in the UK as an “AI Safety Summit” in 2023, became known as an “AI Action Summit” when it came to Paris. French President Emmanuel Macron used it as a springboard to announce a 109 billion euro (US$114.4 billion) investment in AI and make a pitch to the world for French tech.
You had to squint to find anything safety related in all the platitudes. The final 799-word statement focused more on the economic opportunities of AI than on advancing measures that had been established at previous summits in the UK and South Korea.
While the Bletchley Park and Seoul gatherings secured specific commitments from large AI firms to test their systems with a newly established, international network of safety institutes, the Paris statement calls for hazy goals like making AI “trustworthy.”
What is mind-boggling is this still managed to be too onerous for the US, whose vice president, JD Vance, complained about how “excessive regulation of the AI sector could kill a transformative industry just as it’s taking off.”
First, the agreement was hardly excessive. Second, the AI industry in the US is not just “taking off.” Its companies are the standard-bearers, with Nvidia holding an effective monopoly on chips for training and inference and Microsoft and Alphabet controlling much of the cloud infrastructure and most popular AI models.
However, the US refused to sign the agreement anyway, likely due to increasing paranoia about China. Last month, a little Chinese firm called DeepSeek shot to the top of the app charts with an AI model that was as good as the latest version of ChatGPT’s — cheaper to build and free for anyone to use and copy, which you can be sure Silicon Valley engineers are doing right now.
Even stranger, the UK also declined to sign the statement for what seemed to be the opposite reason.
“We felt the declaration didn’t provide enough practical clarity on global governance,” a British government spokesperson said.
That sounds more sensible. As a reminder: AI is developing at an unprecedented pace, and its systems are on course to make high-stakes decisions about healthcare, law enforcement and finance without clear guardrails. Ambiguous pledges are “a step backwards for international and technical collaboration,” says Max Tegmark, a physics professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and co-founder of the Future of Life Institute who has been one of the leading voices advocating for AI safety measures.
The summit should have at least addressed the security concerns raised by last month’s International AI Safety Report, signed by more than 150 experts, he said.
It also should have turned the “voluntary commitments” from the Bletchley Park and Seoul summits into requirements for AI companies to run safety tests before deploying new systems to the public — and to share the results.
It also would have been good to see a deadline for creating binding international laws, as well as clearer thresholds for when AI systems reach certain capability levels (in reasoning or speed, for instance) to trigger further audits.
We should not have to wait for a calamity to occur before governments wake up to the risks of such transformative technology. Let us not repeat the delayed response to traffic safety, for instance, where it took thousands of deaths before seatbelts became mandatory in the 1960s.
A recent anecdote by the Washington Post’s Geoffrey Fowler highlights how things could go awry. The writer left a new “agentic” version of ChatGPT alone on his computer with access to his credit card. After asking it to find the cheapest eggs, the bot went on Instacart and bought a dozen at a high price, racking up fees and a tip for US$31.
“It went rogue,” Fowler wrote.
That might not be as bad as AI wreaking havoc on our electricity grids or financial markets, but the example shows that such errors in these systems carry a cost and can come out of nowhere, even as businesses and governments race to plug them in.
Vance’s call to prioritize “pro-growth” policies over safety would sound ludicrous if the topic were healthcare, aviation or social media. AI should be no different. Governments must be bolder about their role as proactive regulators and talk up the value of standards, rights and protections. It might not win them many points with businesses inside and outside the tech industry, but it is far better than standing by until disaster strikes. The next summit in Kigali, Rwanda, needs to establish more concrete oversight before AI’s mistakes scale up from unauthorized grocery purchases to something worse.
Parmy Olson is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering technology. A former reporter for the Wall Street Journal and Forbes, she is author of Supremacy: AI, ChatGPT and the Race That Will Change the World. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
RSS