Swasta

In my opinion, the first Global Dialogue would be a success if it produces a concrete international framework that prioritizes human safety and ethical accountability over corporate profit. Success means ensuring that AI development is inclusive, respects diverse cultural identities, and provides clear mechanisms to protect ordinary citizens from digital harms, such as misinformation and privacy breaches.

• Safe, secure and trustworthy AI
• Interoperability of governance approaches
• Protection and promotion of human rights
• Transparency, accountability, and human oversight

I selected these priorities because AI development must not compromise fundamental human rights or cultural diversity. For a common citizen, transparency and accountability are the only ways to ensure that algorithms are not biased or used for mass surveillance. We need AI that respects our social and ethical values while remaining safe and secure for everyday use. Without human oversight, there is a high risk of digital harm that could affect our economy and social stability.

One emerging issue not fully captured is the impact of AI on mental health and social cohesion. The rise of AI-generated deepfakes and hyper-personalized misinformation can destabilize societies and affect psychological well-being. We need global standards that mandate clear labeling of AI-generated content and provide protections for vulnerable groups, including children, from manipulative AI algorithms that prioritize engagement over human safety.

In my country and region (Indonesia/Asia-Pacific), the primary challenge is the gap between rapid AI adoption and the lack of robust local regulations. This gap increases the risk of misinformation and deepfakes, which can threaten social harmony. Additionally, there is a significant digital divide where many people lack the literacy to use AI safely, making them vulnerable to digital fraud.

The AI Dialogue should act as a global bridge to harmonize AI standards, ensuring that AI development is safe and ethical across borders. Its most critical role is to provide a platform where voices from developing nations and civil society are treated with the same weight as those from major tech powers. By facilitating knowledge sharing and technical assistance, the AI Dialogue can help prevent a global 'AI divide' and ensure that international cooperation leads to common safety protocols that protect humanity globally.

The AI Dialogue should build upon existing frameworks such as the UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence and the G7 Hiroshima AI Process. The added value of this UN-led Dialogue is its unique legitimacy and near-universal membership. It can bring a more inclusive approach that moves beyond regional interests, focusing on a truly global consensus that integrates human rights, linguistic diversity, and the socio-economic needs of the Global South.

Stakeholders can contribute through a multi-layered structure that includes regional consultations before the main global events. The AI Dialogue should establish permanent working groups where civil society and independent individuals can provide continuous feedback. This structure ensures that governance is not just a top-down decision from governments, but a collaborative process involving those who are directly impacted by AI technologies

Currently, voices from the Global South, indigenous communities, and everyday digital users are significantly underrepresented. These groups are often the subjects of AI data collection but have little say in its governance. To include them, the Dialogue should provide travel grants for representatives from developing nations and offer translation services in multiple languages to overcome linguistic barriers that often exclude non-English speaking communities

The Dialogue should use 'Hybrid Town Halls' and interactive digital platforms that allow global citizens to submit questions and vote on priority issues in real-time. Innovative formats like 'AI Policy Hackathons' involving diverse stakeholders can foster creative problem-solving. Additionally, using AI itself to summarize and categorize public feedback transparently could demonstrate a practical and inclusive way to manage global governance discussions.

I recommend focusing on 'Public AI Literacy Initiatives' and 'Mandatory AI Content Labeling' as effective practices. For example, policies that require clear watermarks or metadata for AI-generated content (like deepfakes) are essential for maintaining public trust. Additionally, I believe in the 'Sandboxing' approach used by some regulators, where AI technologies are tested in a controlled environment before wide release to the public. Finally, community-led monitoring platforms, where citizens can report biased or harmful AI behaviors, offer a concrete way to ensure that technology remains accountable to the people it serves.