We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
AI policy formation must include voices from the global South
Marietje Schaake, International Policy Fellow, Stanford Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence, and former European Parliamentarian, co-hosts GZERO AI, our new weekly video series intended to help you keep up and make sense of the latest news on the AI revolution. In this episode, she explains the need to incorporate diverse and inclusive perspectives in formulating policies and regulations for artificial intelligence. Narrowing the focus primarily to the three major policy blocs—China, the US, and Europe—would overlook crucial opportunities to address risks and concerns unique to the global South.
This is GZERO AI from Stanford's campus, where we just hosted a two-day conference on AI policy around the world. And when I say around the world, I mean truly around the world, including many voices from the Global South, from multilateral organizations like the OECD and the UN, and from the big leading AI policy blocs like the EU, the UK, the US and Japan that all have AI offices for oversight.
But what I really want to focus on is the role of people in the Global South, and how they're underrepresented in discussions about both what AI means in their local context and how they participate in debates around policy, if they do at all. Because right now, our focus is way too much on the three big policy blocks, China, the US and Europe.
Also because of course, a lot of industry is here around the corner in Silicon Valley. But I've learned so much from listening to people who focus on the African continent, where there are no less than 2000 languages. And, many questions about what AI will mean for those languages, for access for people beyond just the exploitative and attractive model, based on which large language models are trained with cheap labor from people in these developing countries, but also about how harms can be so different.
For example, the disinformation tends to spread with WhatsApp rather than social media platforms and that voice, through generative AI. So synthetic voice is one of the most effective ways to spread disinformation. Something that's not as prominently recognized here, where there's so much focus on text content and deepfakes videos, but not so much on audio. And then, of course, we talked about elections because there are a record number of people voting this year and disinformation around elections, tends to pick up.
And AI is really a wild card in that. So I take away that we just need to have many more conversations, not so much, about AI in the Global South and tech policy there, but listening to people who are living in those communities, researching the impact of AI in the Global South, or who are pushing for fair treatment when their governments are using the latest technologies for repression, for example.
So lots of fruitful thought. And, I was very grateful that people made it all the way over here to share their perspectives with us.
Exclusive: How to govern the unknown – a Q&A with MEP Eva Maydell
The European Parliament passed the Artificial Intelligence Act on March 13, becoming the world’s first major government to pass comprehensive regulations for the emerging technology. This capped a five-year effort to manage AI and its potential to disrupt every industry and cause geopolitical tensions.
The AI Act, which takes effect later this year, places basic transparency requirements on generative AI models such as OpenAI’s GPT-4, mandating that their makers share some information about how they are trained. There are more stringent rules for more powerful models or ones that will be used in sensitive sectors, such as law enforcement or critical infrastructure. Like with the EU’s data privacy law, there are steep penalties for companies that violate the new AI legislation – up to 7% of their annual global revenue.
GZERO spoke with Eva Maydell, a Bulgarian member of the European Parliament on the Committee on Industry, Research, and Energy, who negotiated the details of the AI Act. We asked her about the imprint Europe is leaving on global AI regulation.
GZERO: What drove you to spearhead work on AI in the European Parliament?
MEP Eva Maydell: It’s vital that we not only tackle the challenges and opportunities of today but those of tomorrow. That way, we can ensure that Europe is its most resilient and prepared. One of the most interesting and challenging aspects of being a politician that works on tech policy is trying to reach the right balance between enabling innovation and competitiveness with ensuring we have the right protections and safeguards in place. Artificial intelligence has the potential to change the world we live in, and having the opportunity to work on such an impactful piece of law was a privilege and a responsibility.
How do you think the AI Act balances regulation with innovation? Can Europe become a standard-setter for the AI industry while also encouraging development and progress within its borders?
Maydell: I fought very hard to ensure that innovation remained a strong feature of the AI Act. However, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. We must acknowledge that Europe has some catching up to do. AI take-up by European companies is 11%. Europeans rely on foreign countries for 80% of digital products and services. We also have to tackle inflation and stagnating growth. AI has the potential to be the engine for innovation, creativity, and prosperity, but only if we ensure that we keep working on all the other important pieces of the puzzle, such as a strong single market and greater access to capital.
The pace of AI is evolving rapidly. Does the AI Act set Europe up to be responsive to unforeseen advancements in technology?
Maydell: One of the most difficult aspects of regulating technology is trying to regulate the unknown. However, this is why it’s essential to stick to principles rather than over-prescription wherever possible - for example, a risk-based approach, and where possible aligning with international standards. This allows you the ability to adapt. It is also why the success of the AI Office and AI Forum will be so important. The guidance that we offer businesses and organizations in the coming months on how to implement the AI Act, will be key to its long-term success. Beyond the pages of the AI Act, we need to think about technological foresight. This is why I launched an initiative at the 60th annual Munich Security Conference – the “Council on the Future.” It aims to bridge the foresight and collaboration gap between the public and private sector with a view toward enabling the thoughtful stewardship of technology.
Europe is the first mover on AI regulation. How would you like to see the rest of the world follow suit and pass their own laws? How can Europe be an example to other countries?
Maydell: I hope we’re an example to others in the sense that we have tried to take a responsible approach to the development of AI. We are already seeing nations around the world take important steps towards shaping their own governance structures for AI. We have the Executive Order in the US and the UK had the AI Safety Summit. It is vital that like-minded nations are working together to ensure that there is broader coherence around the values associated with the development and use of our technologies. Deeper collaboration through the G7, the UN, and the OECD is something we must continue to pursue.
Is there anything the AI Act doesn't do that you'd like to turn your attention to next?
Maydell: The AI Act is not a silver bullet, but it is an important piece of a much bigger puzzle. We have adopted an unprecedented amount of digital legislation in the last five years. With these strong regulatory foundations in place, my hope is that we now focus on perhaps the less newsworthy but equally important issue of good implementation. This means cutting red tape, reducing existing excess bureaucracy, and removing any frictions or barriers between different EU laws in the digital space. The more clarity and certainty we can offer companies, the more likely it is that Europe will attract inward investment and be the birthplace of some of the biggest names in global tech.
AI regulation means adapting old laws for new tech: Marietje Schaake
Why did Eurasia Group list "Ungoverned AI" as one of the top risks for 2024 in its annual report? Schaake, International Policy Fellow, Stanford Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence, and former European Parliamentarian, discussed the challenges around developing effective AI regulation, emphasizing that politicians and policymakers must recognize that not every challenge posed by AI and other emerging technologies will be novel; many merely require proactive approaches for resolution. She spoke during GZERO's Top Risks of 2024 livestream conversation, focused on Eurasia Group's report outlining the biggest global threats for the coming year.
"We didn't need AI to understand that discrimination is illegal. We didn't need AI to know that antitrust rules matter in a fair economy. We didn't need AI to know that governments have a key responsibility to safeguard national security," Schaake argues. "And so, those responsibilities have not changed. It's just that the way in which these poor democratic principles are at stake has changed."
For more:- Watch the full livestream discussion, moderated by GZERO's publisher Evan Solomon and featuring the authors of the report, Eurasia Group & GZERO President Ian Bremmer and Eurasia Group Chairman Cliff Kupchan.
- Read the full report on The Top Risks of 2024.
- And don't miss Marietje Schaake's updates as co-host of our video series GZERO AI.
- A world of conflict: The top risks of 2024 ›
- UK AI Safety Summit brings government leaders and AI experts together ›
- Rishi Sunak's first-ever UK AI Safety Summit: What to expect ›
- AI's impact on jobs could lead to global unrest, warns AI expert Marietje Schaake ›
- Singapore sets an example on AI governance ›
- AI and Canada's proposed Online Harms Act - GZERO Media ›
- Yuval Noah Harari: AI is a “social weapon of mass destruction” to humanity - GZERO Media ›
- Should we regulate generative AI with open or closed models? - GZERO Media ›
Grown-up AI conversations are finally happening, says expert Azeem Azhar
“The thing that’s surprised me most is how well CEOs are [now] articulating generative AI, this technology that’s only been public for a year or so,” Azhar says,” “I’ve never experienced that in my life and didn’t realize how quickly they’ve moved.”
Azhar and Bremmer also discuss the underlying technology that’s allowed generative AI tools like ChatGPT-4 to advance so quickly and where conversations about applications of artificial intelligence go from here. Whereas a year ago, experts were focused on the macro implications of existential risk, Azhar is excited this year to hear people focus on practical things like copyright and regulation—the small yet impactful things that move the economy and change how we live our lives.
Catch Azeem Azhar's full conversation with Ian Bremmer in next week's episode of GZERO World on US public television. Check local listings.
How AI can be used in public policy: Anne Witkowsky
There are some pretty sharp people all around the world trying to craft policy, but their best efforts are often limited by poor data. Anne Witkowsky, Assistant Secretary of State at the Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations, says that’s about to change.
“Data-driven, evidence-driven decision-making by policymakers is going to be more successful” with the help of artificial intelligence, she said during a Global Stage livestream event at UN headquarters in New York on September 22, on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly.
Witkowsky said the focus needs to be on inclusion and partnership with governments in developing countries to use new technology to “build resilience” against the unrelenting pressure such states face.
The discussion was moderated by Nicholas Thompson of The Atlantic and was held by GZERO Media in collaboration with the United Nations, the Complex Risk Analytics Fund, and the Early Warnings for All initiative.