Cardiff University
Responses
In your opinion, what outcomes would make the first Global Dialogue on AI Governance a success?
It should be one where countries leave with at least a shared understanding of what "safe, secure and trustworthy AI" means in practice, even if their regulations remain different. That would include agreement on basic principles for managing risks, improving transparency, and ensuring accountability for more powerful AI systems. It would also be important to see movement toward common approaches for testing and evaluating advanced AI, along with cooperation on security issues like misuse and incident reporting. Rather than trying to create a single global law, the real success would be reducing fragmentation and encouraging different systems to work in a compatible way. Just as importantly, there should be a clear plan to continue the work, so the dialogue becomes an ongoing process rather than a one-off event.
From your perspective, which of the following thematic areas identified by the General Assembly Resolution 79/325 for the AI Dialogue reflect your priorities for urgent action and active engagement?
Safe, secure and trustworthy AI
Please briefly explain your selection.
3
Safe, secure and trustworthy AI is important because AI systems are now being used in areas where mistakes or misuse can have real-world consequences, from critical infrastructure to public services. If these systems aren't safe, they can behave in unexpected ways; if they aren't secure, they can be hacked or manipulated; and if they aren't trusted, people and governments won't be willing to use them at scale. In a global context, shared expectations help reduce risks that cross borders and make sure AI develops in a way that is reliable and widely acceptable.
How are the governance gaps and related developments/advances in the thematic areas you selected above affecting your country, region, or sector? Please highlight the most significant challenges.
Governance gaps are becoming more obvious as the UK energy system becomes more decentralised and digital. New players like aggregators, distributed generators, and tech platforms are now part of day-to-day operations, but they don't always sit under the same level of cyber oversight as traditional critical operators. This creates uneven security standards and leaves parts of the system more exposed than others. Because everything is increasingly connected, a weakness in one area can also spread more widely across the grid. For the energy sector, this raises real resilience concerns and is pushing regulators to think in more system-wide terms rather than focusing only on a small group of key operators. In academia, it's also shifting research toward broader, interconnected risks in cyber-physical energy systems, especially how attacks or failures can cascade across modern grid infrastructure.