Earth-Technology-Human Inspired Collaborations

The nature of harm of these first two categories is fundamentally different. They also come from different sources. One is human-made, the other, a product of literally billions of years of evolution. Thus, the balance reached by the temporal factor alone requires treating them as two different categories. Consensus on Data Privacy and Creative Intellectual Property Issues - Creative intellectual property has been razed. It is imperative that creative intellectual property is treated as a different issue from biology-based intellectual property. While the former is serious, the latter deserves an entry on its own because interfering with biology has impacts that we still have not accounted for and may not be able to account for in time. Consensus on Biology-based intellectual property - there should be policy around this sooner rather than later, guidance as to access and benefit sharing but also guidance with regards to protecting what are considered sacred by Indigenous Peoples. Culpability Issues have to be addressed and this topic requires urgent action. The technologies evolving and emerging paired with AI is on an exponential evolutionary pathway that requires us to rethink our laws now. There will have to be clear policy on civil, criminal and moral/ethical issues. Identifying who bears the weight of the violation, infraction or crime, or whether something qualifies as violation, an infraction or a crime are critical. These require a grievance body that arbitrates these issues with clear roles, jurisdictions, penalties, and other forms of recompense.My

• 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

My selection reflects the urgency of my answers for question number 8.

Yes, clarifying the difference between a creative intellectual property and a biology-based intellectual property is crucial. Second, a grievance body or an arbitration body is absolutely necessary sooner rather than later. Environmental treaty language was unfortunately not put together with technology like AI in mind. Essentially, there are several ways where environmental treaties are lacking but also, could worsen the possible negative impacts that AI + emerging and evolving technologies could cause. For instance, AI assisted bioprospecting could comply with treaty language but violate its intent.

I live in a country that has been home to several Indigenous People's groups. The diversity in culture reflects the biological diversity that the Philippine islands have. AI coupled with any other technology that allows it a physical avenue could potentially be weaponized. Whether that is AI used for conservation, for data analysis, or for biotech, the possible harm this carries is clear and present. Even as accidental or collateral, this can human rights violations and abuses. This can mean the loss of biological integrity. And equally concerning is the possibility that these technologies can further perpetuation of corruption, extraction, and colonization.

Based on how the UN has operated, the development and move towards a treaty could take a couple of decades. In the interest of time, there has to be an interim governing body or a grievance mechanism in place. This dialogue is the clearest avenue for this to be started. And the global south has to be well-represented especially since, with the technical exception that is China, AI is being developed in the global north. There is an ethical expediency that should be the basis of how quickly policy can be put in place.

Global south to global south dialogues, and then an all-hands-on-deck dialogue. The former is a requirement because there are shared and common histories of extraction, violence, and colonization among most global south countries. And that has to be accounted for and assessed comprehensively without losing awareness of time, not as an afterthought in the creation of any AI, and evolving and emerging tech policy, but as a primary consideration.

Each stakeholder should enter the meeting armed with their position on key issues, the rationale behind these positions, and the degree to which they can negotiate. Key issues have to be addressed as urgent. There are plenty of positive uses for AI, the internet is replete with them. What stakeholders should be looking at now is what could possibly go wrong. This ensures that we have a broader and deeper scope upon which early decisions will be made. Plenaries and then deliberations in working groups afterwards would still be the best route. But everybody has to arrive at the Dialogue prepared. The goal of the body has to be set from the first plenary.

"There's really no such thing as the 'voiceless.' There are only the deliberately silenced, or the preferably unheard." This quote by Arundhati Roy has to have a prominent place in the Dialogue. The same communities that have been underrepresented in other dialogues are still part of the underrepresented here. But the demographics have expanded to include people in places where there are data centers, data reviewers, testers, and other people and workers whose mental health have been affected by AI. Add to the list families who lost their loved ones to the AI suicide effect. Funded participation (especially for those in the expanded list) and preliminary discussions with these groups either through CSOs or a UN arm are essential.

Actual online participation within specific and pre-set parameters during working group sessions is one way. Another would be ensuring that live video coverage for all working group rooms is available. This is not yet a treaty process and even a treaty negotiation should already require this to get to as full a transparency as possible. All meeting notes also have to be available to the global public.

I have seen none yet. There have been several attempts and there are basic policies in some geographic clusters. Qualifying this with the word "quality" is asking a lot. But this is a good place to be because this means we can co-architect the present and the future. We actually have a chance to work on something that will define the trajectory of our species.