Independent

Broad participation and diverse input, with strong focus on rapid implementation suggestions and frameworks rooted in ethical and cultural perspectives, because these also drive drive social, political and economical trajectories.

• Safe, secure and trustworthy AI
• Protection and promotion of human rights
• Transparency, accountability, and human oversight
• Social, economic, ethical, cultural, linguistic and technical implications of AI

The stakes of AI development are enormous across vectors. Just the technological capacity alone is an enormous challenge to our norms. We are going beyond tool-use and leveraged capabilities, and towards paradigms where we actively yield agency and autonomy. To whom? Transparency is the foundation of oversight and accountability, which is needed for safe, secure and trustworthy AI. Without this in place, protection of human rights cannot be achieved, and social and economic impacts cannot be understood. So in ranking, transparency, accountability, and human oversight must be promoted now, with wide input and collaboration on mechanisms and governance.

1. The most cross-cutting theme not explicitly listed is diverging underlying ethical frameworks and perceived moral imperatives (moral priorities). This is an underappreciated dimension of the public discourse. We often assume not just shared fundamental values, but universal ethical reasoning models. This is dangerous, because it blinds us to far-reaching consequences that accumulate over time from diverging assumptions underlying all the other discussions. It is absolutely critical that we don't lose track of this. We can no longer afford confronting these issues head-on. 2. Financial power dynamics. The ones who funds AI projects gets a place at the table. This is largely self-explanatory, but how funding is discussed impacts all these thematic areas to a very high degree.

Economic independence, technological sovereignty, and right to privacy, affect my home region the most in the short-term. In the long-term, fundamental national safety is at stake due to asymmetric capabilities developing, and due to the inherent risks of agentic AI systems capable of human-level reasoning and beyond.

It can bring new ideas and solutions to the table for consideration, provide diverse framing and viewpoints on problems that reduce correlated errors in later discourse. It invites more public debate, and, most importantly, it can bring different stakeholders closer to each other.

I do not have strong opinions on this and not enough insight to make recommendations beyond what I have stated earlier.

I genuinely would keep all formats open, but provide recommendation templates tailored for each group. It is a good thing to encourage diverse inputs AND formats, rather than entrench groups into given channels for communication. Whitepapers, signatory statements and even data collected by interest groups - all can be meaningful if the stakeholders feel encouraged to participate.

Scientists not directly affiliated with AI (grounded voice of reason), Climate activists (AI takes attention, energy and water away from pooled resources), and interest groups supporting people with disabilities (sentience perspective, moral duties towards potential moral patients, ethical frameworks for accommodating diverse needs). Inviting them as stakeholders and asking them for input is the logical first step.

I do not have good recommendations.

Frontier AI Governance Framework A Skeleton Policy Architecture for International Adoption April 2026 | Submission to UN Global Dialogue on AI Governance Drafted by Jesper Lindholm, M.Sci., AI safety activist, Prague, Czech Republic With review and contributions from Dr Alex Hakuzimana, CORDA Democracy Fellow (AI Governance & Safety), Banjul, The Gambia https://github.com/Okeymaker/policy-strategy/raw/refs/heads/main/frontier_ai_governance_framework_UN_submissionV2.1.docx