I'm so sorry, everyone, for the brief delay to get started with this press briefing.
I'm part of the office of the UN Secretary
General's Envoy for Technology based here in Geneva.
And I'm delighted to present our esteemed guests this morning for a 45
minute or 40 minute briefing on the process and the early conclusions
of the Secretary General's high level advisory body on artificial intelligence.
who is co chair of the advisory body and
formerly Secretary of State for Digitalization of Spain.
And, uh, to her right is Edina Musa Doctor
Sina Musa, who is a lecturer
Khan Digital University in Senegal.
we have perhaps 20 minutes of remarks from our guests followed by your questions?
No. Is that correct? Shorter.
Well, we'll see how much time we have And again,
Apologies for the late start over to Carme.
Thank you very much, Isabel, for introduction.
So Good morning. We are delighted to be here with you today.
Um I'm joined here in person
pleasure for us to be back to Geneva.
This beautiful city which we last saw during, uh, winter.
that has contributed in a great deal to our thinking as we had a
se a second here in person meeting of the A I advisory body.
We had our second in person meeting here in March,
where we met and we consulted,
especially with many relevant UN agencies who
have their own specialised knowledge and expertise
in the nexus of artificial intelligence and development, human rights, health,
intellectual property, technology, standards, peace, security
and meteorology. That's the type of UN agencies we met in person last March,
and a lot has progressed since.
And we're pleased to briefly share with you the
progress of the advisory body and our plans,
uh, for the final report, which is scheduled to be released in mid September
and answer any questions you may have on this process.
Those who wish to have access to the report in advance and the embargo
please give your contact information to our
colleagues from the Secretariat to Isabel,
and we'll be able to share the final report sometime next week.
is that if you want to have access to the report in advance and under embargo,
So now I will hand over my fellow member
to introduce the work of the body and its progress up to date. Thank you so much.
Thank you, Carmen. Hi, everyone.
the high level advisory body is comprised of, um uh,
39 members, uh, across all R one sectors,
Uh, 33 nationalities from all regions.
Um, and it is a gender balance.
We were selected from over 1.8 no
including self nominations. We are multi stake, order,
multidisciplinary and diverse,
which gives us a unique perspectives to
questions of international A i governance.
As the body has gone through a rigorous timeline over the past nine months,
we listen to stakeholders at numerous A i events.
We met three times in person
New York, Geneva, and, um,
and Singapore here in Geneva in March,
we visited many relevant UN agencies and diplomatic missions.
Uh, released. We released an interim report in December last December
and the final report to be released for the public in Mid-september.
Our interim report generated much feedback from across all regions.
We got, um 2, 250 plus written input from 150 plus organisation
and more than 100 individuals.
check horizon scan of 350 experts,
Uh, we did, uh, 16 deep dives, bringing together over 300 experts.
Uh, we did more than we analysed more than 100 papers and did more than 50
been incorporated into our final report.
Uh, the report will be launched on
mentioned, if you would like to have early access to the report
on the embargo, please share your contacts with our colleagues.
Isabel, Carmen, back to you.
Thank you so much, Serena.
I think the importance of this report comes from the awareness that
there have been a lot of international A i governance efforts,
but have really increased since the launch of
last October 22nd. So what we have seen is that
like a lot of international efforts but three initiatives per year, for example,
just in 2023 we have seen six global initiatives around
And just the first half of 2024
we have, uh, found seven.
So there's a lot of, um, awareness and interest, uh,
on different A i international initiatives.
But what we have witnessed and we have assessed during our work in the in the H lab
even though there are a lot of initiatives today, no,
neither of these initiatives is globally inclusive.
existing initiatives tend to support
which excludes many states from the decision making process,
especially those states in the global south.
So this correlates with the feedback we receive throughout various deep dives.
We have got into a depth into 18 the dives
at the approach since impact of a I in Children,
education in peace in health
and we have had consultations across different regions.
Online submissions confirmed that the global governance
deficit described in our interim report.
So there is a government governance deficit on a I
that requires that we have a globally inclusive approach.
advantages on addressing a governance issues at the global level,
and basically I would summarise them into three
We need a whole of humanity,
inclusive governments that we can approach the
implications and demands at the global level.
So there is a need for a new social
contract in order to share both the benefits and burdens
in line with human rights.
And we want to have a side type of governance that enables local experimentation,
adaptation, autonomy, ownership
and that everybody can harness a I opportunities which are huge.
Then, in terms of effectiveness,
there is a lack of transparency in information flows also in knowledge,
because that is where we need to include also non like minded countries.
We need to enable soft co
ordination between plurilateral and regional initiatives
and to advert and safe race dynamics such as the race to bottom and safety,
As well as we need to empower cross
border interoperability in a governance and standards.
In terms of efficiency, we need a global approach of a governance
to be able to network existing organisation efforts
and drowning on existing and pre existing commitments.
we make not one but seven recommendations based on these observations.
Through these recommendations, we suggest that the UN complements
existing multilateral initiatives and offers a stable and reliable,
inclusive home for issues that cannot be handled
just only among a subset of countries,
a subset of companies or specific domains of UN organisations.
So based on this preliminary,
um, conclusions, I would just, um,
open the floor to questions that would be moderated by Isabel.
Wonderful. Thank you both.
Um, just a a quick correction. We have until 1025 for Q and a
If you'd like to ask a question, you can use the chat or raise your hand.
I don't see any hands raised at the moment, I think,
Um, but perhaps here in the room, we'll have someone break the ice.
Is are you from Associated Press? OK, super. Thank you.
Hi. I'm Jamie from Associated Press.
So you mentioned the seven,
And then you said it. Take the other one. Take here.
It should be red. You know,
Maybe you can ask your question and I'll repeat it.
Exactly. I I can repeat the question just until we fix the
what ultimately can the United Nations do to ensure that there
is some sort of global governance that standards that countries will actually
have it as sort of a guide book?
and and And I guess the other question is about, um,
about fears about a I There are a lot of, uh, uh,
workers in particular who are worried about the impact of a I
are you gonna address? Uh, those issues?
Let me repeat those two questions. Sorry. Thank you.
Let's take a few. Maybe. Let's see how, um, how everybody's feeling. It's the rre
rre. So everyone's getting back into the swing of things and the technology.
But we had two very good questions to kick us off from, uh,
Jamie of The Associated Press.
So first is if there is a global governance deficit gap on a I,
what could the UN S value add be?
And what is the scope for the UN to ensure that there's
enforceability of some of the principles and guidelines that already exist?
And a second question which touches on fears and anxieties around a I at the moment
for creators and workers.
I don't see other hands at the moment. Oh, yes. Um,
Yes. So I'm going to answer the first question,
so thank you so much. I mean, you are really touching the very interesting point.
As you know, in the interim report, we approach
the reason why do we need a global governance
and what should be governance In the final report,
the final conclusions cannot be shared before
the before the final report is issued.
But it is important to say why do we think
U is the right place to host all these initiatives?
And our conclusion is that the U is the
only organisation that has a really proven track record
on addressing issues on global governance in many other
aspects and we see that is what we needed.
These days there are a lot of initiatives.
The A I talk is very complex, is horizontal. It affects all sectors.
Most of the tools have dual use.
There are a lot of issues around safety but also human rights.
And this is why we think there is an important global deficit
that has not been addressed and it is not being addressed,
but the existing international initiatives, not even but the excellent
work that the UN agencies do, which is very specific on certain domains.
But because this is horizontal, this effort should be co ordinated
and we are proposing more holistic approach.
And I think that's where we see the UN having this umbrella role,
to ensure that that there is efficient in the
location of resources that is coordinations and not overlaps,
and that we that we for the first time gathered together private sector academia,
and governments in such a complex topic.
So I think that not even a single country, not even a single company,
not even a single organisation can do it all.
This is why we are proposing a more holistic and
collaborative approach and think the UN is the right place to
to to set it, especially because
under the UN umbrella we have a very important principle that is also
reflected in the interim report,
which is everything we do on a I should be under international law.
UN Charter and Human Rights Declaration
In terms of approaching the fears.
sorry. Do you want to answer this?
OK, thank you about the fields for the workers. I think that it's
it's it's a new technology. It has former
We will have, of course, some.
Some job lost it. It's normal, but we will have also a lot of jobs created. And I
I think that it's more an impact of how we will work.
And it's a matter of, um of adopting the technology so we could improve our way.
We, we, we, we we are doing our work.
So I think that it's more an opportunity than a fee for, uh for the workers.
This specific topic, as I mentioned the report, will include 18 deep dives.
One of these deep dives includes the impact of a I in work.
But of course you have seen the recent report issued at I
mind the Gap together with the Secretariat, and I think
they are the ones who have the specific knowledge on
the issues of a I and the potential divides.
I think our recommendation is what are the instrument
that we can ensure that these divisions can be solved.
And where are the places where people need to meet to solve these issues?
So we are not replacing the role that the UN agency is already doing
what we are proposing ways in which all the stakeholders that
need to find a solution to those problems need to gather.
And that's what we will see in the report. But of course we address these topics.
We have an analysis in every of these topics on the
risks, but also the opportunities because sometimes recently,
the discussion is only on the risks.
And I think we cannot forget the great opportunities that are ahead of us.
And I think the importance is how we make that those opportunities
are equally beneficial to everybody because we guarantee equally on the access.
Thank you both. Um, there was a question in the back of the room.
If you could introduce yourself, that would be helpful.
So if I may tease you not quite super but still accredited.
my question is a bit hazy at
the onset of the computer and software revolution in the eighties,
Software was not under patent,
but under copyright it was considered more art and literature than technology,
not hardware but software.
matter of literature than pure technology
sounds a bit like regulating literature.
And aren't you a bit disturbed that the governing governance body, the UN,
either organisation which has decided to restrict human vocabulary to 17 words?
You are raising a very interesting point
around intellectual property that we also had the
privilege to discuss with the YO organisation here in Geneva and they share with us
a similar reflection that the barrier between
inter industrial property and intellectual property are blurring
in the terms of software and a I. This is also a
subject. We are approaching the deep dives in terms of the recommendations.
We are not having specific regulatory recommendations on our
report because I think that there is also
a margin for donations to regulate themselves,
different aspects of the industry and the market.
claiming is for regulation alignment,
and that's what we are going to start. The discussions in the recommendations.
How can we make sure that there are not isolated areas of regulation,
but there is a certain level of regulatory alignment.
aims. Topics we're going to aim with our recommendations. Thank you.
The floor is open for additional questions.
I looking up, I see. Uh, Emma Farge,
if you could introduce the the medium that you represent, Emma, the floor is yours.
Good morning. Emma Farge from Reuters News. Um,
So sorry if if they're ignorant questions,
but were states consulted as part of this process and, um, if so, are they
generally on board to have new kind of global rules in this area?
Um, or maybe there are different ones who have different opinions.
If you could kind of talk me through that aspect of this
and, um, maybe I missed it, but, um, would these, uh,
would this governance be binding in any way?
And And how would countries and
companies be be bound by new rules in this area?
Let me briefly repeat those for Carme.
We forgot to put these things on to to hear your excellent questions, Emma so
the first one is. Were member states consulted in
this process and are they on board for these ideas?
And the second question is, are the proposals of the advisory body binding
So our board is a totally independent body.
We are not representing individually any corporation, any country.
I myself used to be the former state secretary of Spain,
but I'm not representing Spain at all.
I'm acting on a personal capacity also
So it's a very independent report which issues
recommendations that people can decide to adopt or not
There is, of course, a political process related with the global digital compact,
and we have shared a lot of, uh,
information during all this process with member states.
But in the preparation of the report, what we have consultant is experts,
hundreds of them, I think I would say even thousands,
uh, I think more than 75 meetings on deep dives. So because of the
Ito, the diversity in the background,
academia, policy makers, technology companies,
we have come and that has been a really interesting work and complexity come with
a consensus of the state of the art on the issues and the recommendations.
So you should interpret our Our recommendations are absolutely
scientific based, evidence based.
There's a very important in depth intellectual analysis on all the
So I think what we have done is to share
all these recommendations with the member states to different information
And now, as we all know, there is a parallel
discussions on the global digital compact,
and we expect that there is a positive feedback on that.
But we are not aware of that process as the body itself.
And perhaps for Sina, do you expect that the recommendations will be binding
Binding. So are they obligatory or how would they eventually be implemented?
Yes, I think that, um, has has we share all the recommendation with
the member states. It's, uh,
for each member state to to to take into account
And I think that there is some There is some recommendation.
at the summit, the global,
the summit of the future.
um we we we we ask all the member
states to to be supportive about our recommendations.
Uh, because the recommendations we are providing, um
uh could help to To have a global a global governance with,
uh with some spaces, uh, for, uh, global south to to share their voices.
So I think that it will be,
uh, yes, it will be a great
I would only include that the feedback we
received during this conversation was very positive.
And don't forget that we are a consultancy body for the Secretary General.
And it is the Secretary General, the one who is taking these considerations,
these recommendations into consideration or not,
and therefore make a formal proposal to the member states.
Thank you. We have Isabel
and followed by Maya plants.
I would, uh, like to clarify some, um,
organisational issues on, for example, um, this final report,
will be, uh, presented anywhere else next week. Uh, or New York or
somewhere else, Or this is for you. The the
like, the official launch. Uh, even if it's under embargo,
Um, otherwise, it would be, uh
it would have been interesting to have the
report under embargo to be able to ask questions
regard, uh, related to the feasibility of your recommendations,
you know? And if you can maybe, um
uh, send us, uh, through the information service here in in Geneva.
The report on the under embargo to not to be,
to, uh, everyone has to then to to ask everyone, uh, by themselves.
If you can just send to the to the to the Geneva press corps.
The the re the report under the embargo. It would be nice. Thank you.
Thanks, Isabel, for your question.
that I've already had four emails this morning from the press asking for the report.
So your point is well taken,
and we'll make sure to facilitate as much information as possible.
Uh, we have a follow up question from, uh, Maya plans.
this is from the UN brief over to you. Maya.
Yes. Thank you for taking my question. Uh, my question is related to
I don't know if you mentioned in the very beginning, but they,
uh unesco just published the consultation paper on A I regulation
emerging approaches across the world on in a I governance.
And, um, one is principles based the other standards based,
agile and experimentalist approach facilitating and enabling
Adapting existing laws approach access to information and transparency,
mandates, approach, risk based approach,
rights based approach and liability approach.
So how are you working? The office, uh, is working.
Your office is working with UNESCO in these approaches. Do you collaborate
A second question I have is regarding,
don't you think there is too much participation of the, um,
technology companies that they are shaping this regulatory?
Uh, approaches? Uh, a little too much. In the case of the advisory body for the UN.
Just first of all, uh uh, clarify
the question for the representative from FA.
This is not a press release on the report.
press conference to update you on the progress of the our our work,
And my colleague has already said the official
report will be issued on September 19th.
As of September 13th, we are going to distribute the final report under embargo.
And yes, it will be an official presentation during the UN
during the summit of the future, probably Sunday 22nd. We are fine tuning the date.
But that day will be official presentation together with the secretary General.
And there are some events during the summer of the
future we can to to share publicly the conclusions.
So there will be an important way to officially the report and
you might have access in advance and the embargo for this report.
So it will be published on the 19th.
But the official presentation will be during the summit
of the future and the U NGA week.
Apart from this, uh, you were mentioning my, uh, the the role of UNESCO.
Do you know the role of UNESCO has been very, very valuable.
You know, all our our inputs to to the report as well the role of ITU
and all the existing UN agencies.
You know, UNESCO issued the first ethical guidelines.
But when we talk about governance,
we go beyond ethical is what should be done and governance is to be.
How do we sure that people are doing the right thing?
We don't see governance as an innovator, but as an enabler of doing the right things.
And that's why we have involved the different stakeholders.
All these reports, uh We're also glad to see that also,
our work is inspiring the the the work that UNESCO and the other agencies will do in
the future because we need them to do their work in the future in the eyes of
So what we see is there a vertical specialisation? Every, uh, uh, agency.
I mean, who better than I
to assess the risk of the impact of a I in the world? Who better the YO
to assess the impact of a I in
We are not trying to do the work of these agencies. 24 7.
We are creating the mechanisms that all these complex problems
have the complex solutions we need putting the stakeholders together.
So our recommendations are not solving every single question in every
single matter we are saying who should meet to find the
solution, work 24 7 to find a solution to this topic.
And that's what we are going to propose
the right mechanisms to do all these efforts aligned
and to solve all these issues. And therefore, of course, there are some ins,
uh, institutions that have more influence in governments that are UNESCO,
but have probably less influence in the private sector.
And we need to be able to to find the
mechanisms that everybody is working in the same direction.
Uh, I just don't don't share with you the view,
at least in my experience that we have an over
representation of technology companies in the world at all,
I would say have a very important contest of NGO S and academia.
I don't know, uh, said you know what is your your
we see that the press share the different views are equally represented.
co chair that sometimes need to be like the the referee.
It has not been a, uh, an easy task, but at the end of the day,
the trade off is bring us the best of the both options.
So I I'm quite happy with the representation and diversity of the board.
having technology companies was interesting because when we say
we have to bring everyone,
Global South the point of view of member states, the point of view of N
It is also important to have the point of view of technology companies. And
the work in the in the body was
was very effective, and I think that there is no problem with having them inside.
I still see the hands from Isabel,
Saco and Maya up on the zoom.
I don't know if those are additional questions or just the hands and
the buttons of zoom that are sometimes hard to find
in the meantime, um, over to you.
Then there's an additional hand up here in the room,
and we have about four more minutes for the briefing.
hand is a real hand, not a virtual one.
I just wanted to to follow.
I mean, I mentioned before, like the fear of, uh, jobs and on jobs and creation.
The flip side is is that in recent months we've seen, um, a sort of
A retraction or a decline in the amount of concern that a A
I actually is gonna do as much damage as it might have been.
So my question is, and you sort of alluded to this, Um,
um, are you not concerned that maybe you're
not the the the A I world is not clear enough yet.
We still don't know exactly how it's gonna shift and shape out
the fears that we have today may not be there in six months from now and the and
the the the the the marketplace is moving in the world of a I is changing so fast
you may be even premature by putting a finger on it. Right now
we have one more question and then a few minutes for
Cinna and Carmen to wrap up Uh, Maya ple
Yes, thank you. I have a follow up following on Emma Farge
question regarding countries how much governments
have been shaping this conversation.
advisory body which countries are supporting of a laissez
faire approach and which ones are really
more concerned about the negative impacts.
And then the second question is we see
consolidation of several companies have been acquired
already by the big tech companies like anthropic
being invited to become the Chief A I person at
Microsoft and we have several others because it seems like
generative. A I hasn't been yet found, has not yet found a viable business.
And it cost billions to actually just make people search for a couple of things.
They prompt something like millions of litres of water are being used.
How are you addressing this question of the responsibility that this, uh,
big tech companies have in terms of addressing the environment?
Question uh, instead of just greenwashing.
OK, thank you for the question.
I think that you are right when you say that we don't know
how will be the future of a I. So
it's why it's important to talk about the global governance,
a way to think all together about the future and how to tackle the future problem so
I just want to add that the question about risk is a very relevant one. And
in the final report we are including a specific agenda on what we call the risk pulse.
We have made really important consultation with broad consultation
on what are the perceived risks.
And you will see how interesting is that the perception
of risk is different from countries to the other.
It's even different from between women and men.
And we're talking about risk. We need to have
to differentiate short term risk and long term risks.
If we remember the very early days of a I development,
everybody was talking about fairness
that was talking about bias discrimination around algorithms.
Then this conversation shifted one year ago on safety
because of the A I safety summit and we, like we are thinking about.
We are not worried about fairness anymore. We are not worried about.
So this conversation will go and on and on, and it is a very dynamic environment.
So in our approach, we take both into account short term,
mid term and long term term risks.
And how do we keep that sustainable,
depending on the different future technology waves?
And as I mentioned, it will be very relevant to
the outcomes on the risk pulse because then we see also how, also,
I would say lack of inclusivity is perceived also
in the risk the population have internally
following the conversation with my I agree with you,
there are some hypes Now the big thing is generative a I,
we'll see a big boom consolidation.
That's how it grows in the technology sector.
from the language sector for 30 years and I've seen it many, many times.
But the important thing is how can we keep these companies accountable?
where the global deficit is is in accountability and reporting
on transparency of the R and D from private companies?
Because the first time ever technology is not developed mostly from the academia,
but mostly from R and D centres in
private companies that are not obliged to publish their
So one of the topics we approach is how can we
ensure transparency on the opportunities and risk on the continuous way over
time and how we set up monitoring systems that make companies accountable
in terms of not only social responsibility but also on sustainability,
which is also a very important topic that we approach in the document.
So I totally agree with you. We need transparency. We need accountability.
Wonderful. Thank you so much.
Um, to all of you who have joined us online,
and especially to our colleagues at UN Information Service,
it's a pleasure to answer your question. So Carmen and
Zina are here for the rest of the day. In case you'd like to,
uh, chat with them bilaterally. And you have my email on the chat. If you,
uh, need more in, everyone has said they need more information,
so I'll agree with you and information service.
And again, Uh, thank you. Have a wonderful day.