Eurovisioni

• THE GLOBAL DIALOGUE IS NOT LIVING IN A VACUUM BUT JOINS A VERY RICH PANORAMA WHERE OTHER ACTIVITIES ARE ALREADY OPERATING SINCE LONGTIME. IGNORE THIS REALITY PRETENDING THAT I.A. IS SOMETHING TOTALLY NEW
• WOULD BE AN ENORMOUS MISTAKE. So FOR ME GLOBAL DIALOGUE MEANS EXACTLY TO ESTABLISH PERMANENT LINKS AND SHARED AGENDA WITH THE IGF
• THE WSIS+20 PROCESS
• GDC IMPLEMENTATION AND THE MANY OTHER INITIATIVES ALREADY GOING ON. IDEALLY A SHARING OF AGENDAS AND SEGMENTATION OF WORKLOAD COULD BE VERY USEFUL. ACCORDING TO PROF: KLEINWACHTER SUBMISSION
• THE IDEA TO CREATE PERMANENT "LIAISON OFFICERS" BETWEEN THE Global Dialogue on A.I. AND THE OTHER RELEVANT FORA (IGF, WSIS forum, GDC implementation, THE VARIOUS TREATIES UNDER DISCUSSION
• etc.) COULD BE A VERY EFFECTIVE TOOL TO ENSURE COORDINATIONS AND IMPROVE SINERGIES

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

By its name ("Global dialogue") it is clear that the process needs to focus on cross-cutting issues and on pre-requirements to the establishment of the dialogue. Building capacity to access A.I. tools that are not safe and trustworthy, that are not transparent and accountable and that are not HR compliant would be a mistake. Open source and Open data are tools and ways to reach the main goals as well as Interoperability of governances are the tools to implement the A.I. we want.

All issues are within the listed themes. I am afraid that the social component risks to be the most urgent to be tackled, if we want to avoid to find ourselves in a new was against technology, as it happened for the first industrial revolution with the Luddists .... It would need to have a chapter only for itself (the impact of A.I. on works and labour market), and not only mentioned as "social, economic ethical , etc.... impact of A.I.". A new "social contract" at the age of the A.I. needs to be developed and adopted at the global level.

WE RECOMMEND THE PANEL TO WORK BUILDING ON ALREADY VALUABLE TOOLS EXISTING; SUCH AS THE UNESCO GUIDELINES FOR REGULATION OF INTERNET PLATFORMS AND UNESCO RECOMMENDATIONS ON ETHICS AND A.I. THE DEPLOYMENT OF A.I. WILL HAVE A HUGE IMPACT ON DIVERSITY OF CULTURES AND LANGUAGES AND IS ALREADY HAVING A HUGE AND DANGEROUS IMPACT ON THE CREATIVE AND ARTISTIC WORKS. WE HOPE THAT THESE ASPECTS WILL NOT BE FORGOT BECAUSE ARE NOT MARGINAL; BUT ESSENTIAL TO PRESERVE AN ECOSYSTEM WHERE ALL CULTURES OF THE WORLD COULD BRING THEIR CONTRIBUTION. THE UNESCO UNIVERSALITY INDICATORS ARE A VERY USEFUL TOOL THAT COULD BE ADAPTED EASILY TO THE A.I. ENDEAVOURS: WILL ALSO HAVE (AND HAS ALREADY HAVING) A HUGE IMPACT ON JOBS AND ON SOCIAL AND LABOUR RELATIONS. WE SUGGEST YOU TO TAP ON STATISTICAL REPOSITORY OF ILO THAT HAS PRODUCED A SET OF USEFUL TOOLS ON SUCH TOPIC.

THE FIRST PRIORITY OF THE Global dialogue on Artificial Intelligence Governance WILL HAVE TO BE TO TACKLE THE ISSUE OF A.I. and of Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems (LAWS). THE U.N. cannot avoid TO DEAL WITH THIS MATTER; BECAUSE THIS IS THE FIRST EXPECTATION FROM ALL CITIZENS OF THE WORLD; IN VIEW OF WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE LAST CONFLICTS ACROSS THE WORLD. A VOICE OF THE PANEL OF EXPERT NEEDS TO BE HEARD LOUD AND CLEAR ON THAT. ANOTHER URGENT PRIORITY TO BE DEALT WITH IS THE IMPACT OF A.I. IN PRODUCING; DISTRIBUTING AND TAILORMADE DISINFORMATION. THIS IS PARTICULARLY DANGEROUS BECAUSE OF THE CONSEQUENCES ON DEMOCRATIC DIALOGUES ACROSS SOCIETIES. THE PRESENCE OF NOBEL PRIZE MARIA RESSA IN THE PANEL IS A GUARANTEE; BUT THIS HAS TO BECOME A PRIORITY FOR THE ALL PANEL. Last but not least THERE IS THE ISSUE OF THE INTEGRITY OF BODIES AND VOICES OF INDIVIDUALS AND OF CHILD PROTECTION THAT ARE UNDER DIRECT THREAT FROM SOME A.I. TOOLS. THIS IS A VIOLATION OF VERY PRIVATE RIGHTS OF EACH INDIVIDUAL . THE NEGATIVE EFFECTS ARE VERY EVIDENT AND CLEAR; WHILE IS DIFFICULT TO IMAGINE WHICH COULD BE THE ADVANTAGES FOR HUMANITY. It COULD BE STOPPED IF THE PANEL WILL TAKE A CLEAR STANCE ON THESE ISSUES ON WHICH THERE IS A VERY LARGE CONSENSUS ALL ACROSS THE SOCIETIES.

THE PRIORITY FOR THIS DIALOGUE HAS TO BE TO ESTABLISH A SET OF COMMON POINTS FOR REGULATION OF A.I. , USING FOR INSTANCE AS A MODEL THE GUIDELINES FOR REGULATION OF INTERNET PLATFORMS AND ITU COULD COMPLEMENT WITH MORE TECHNICAL ONES.; COMPARED TO WHAT UNESCO HAS PRODUCED. IN THAT TOOL PRINCIPLES FROM SOME OF THE MOST ADVANCED REGULATIONS WERE IDENTIFIED AND BRING DOWN TO THEIR ESSENCE IN A WAY THAT COULD BE ADOPTED BY ALL COUNTRIES.

The adoption of the Net Mundial guidelines for stakeholders initiatives by the Global Dialogue on A.I. could be a first valuable step in the right direction. The format of public consultation -as already practices for the WSIS+20 process cofacilitated by Albania and Kenya- was very useful and represent an example of how this kind of consultations could be conducted, Once the process of Global Dialogue for A.I. will be settled and at full speed, there will be the need to introduce consultations where all stakeholders will intervene on equal footing. But this could be done on the basis of a previous selections among written contributions. those that are the most originals and suggest innovative solutions need to be invited to public hearing where nobody would have to be left aside.

At the moment i´ve not heard the voice of linguistic communities and minorities, nor the one of journalists and media professionals, that are among the first subject affected by the A.I. revolution. I would like to have them more vocally in one of the next calls. The presence of Nobel Peace prize´s Maria Ressa in the UN group of expert could be a valuable asset to afford these discussions, as well as UNESCO in the secretariat could build the bridge with the minorities languages.

The best way to proceed is to go by topics. Once that a text would be defined, instead than asking again everybody to intervene on every topic, would be more efficient to identify in advance a limited number of topics (i.e. different models of regulations) and ask people to intervene specifically only on that. Similarly would have to happen when a consolidated text would be available. To organize specific call around a group of linked paragraphs, so that all interventions could focus on the same topic. this would make the comparison even easier and more efficient. The AI Dialogue could also "subcontract" specific questions to other fora, such as the IGF in order to ensure a truly multistakeholder debate or to the CSTD in order to check the aspect related to science, and so on.

1) IGF PNMA report indicates some best practices in fields that are tightly related to access to A.I. (https://intgovforum.org/en/filedepot_download/282/30188) ; 2) UNESCO guidelines for the internet platforms regulation ( https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000387339); 3) CoE Framework convention on A.I. : https://www.coe.int/en/web/artificial-intelligence/the-framework-convention-on-artificial-intelligence; 4) UNESCO recommendations on ethics of A.I. https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/recommendation-ethics-artificial-intelligence 5) European Union's A.I. act https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj/eng with particular attention to the Code of Practice on Marking and Labelling of AI-generated content, that is a very important tool in the fight against disinformation: https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/redirection/document/125388. Also the other Code of Practices are relevant for the respective disciplines 6) EDMO -European Digital Media Observatory- reports on A.I. and disinformation could be very useful, as well at the 7) IPIE reports on protection of minors and A.I.