Theseus Guard
Responses
In your opinion, what outcomes would make the first Global Dialogue on AI Governance a success?
A successful first Dialogue doesn't need to solve everything — but it needs to bind something, even a modest shared red line, to prove the format has teeth. Success, in short, is proving that multilateral AI governance isn't an oxymoron
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
- Social, economic, ethical, cultural, linguistic and technical implications of AI
- Transparency, accountability, and human oversight
- Open-source software, open data and open AI models
Please briefly explain your selection.
2
Most critical problem is all big LLM models and agentic AI solutions tend to trust internal security system or external guardrail solution which it works stateless. Thus we need to common trustmark for advanced agentic models.
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.
While some in the industry are striving to develop increasingly advanced AI solutions to compete with each other, corporate companies are opting for simpler solutions or pinning their hopes on doomed ventures because they cannot afford to risk these sophisticated solutions getting out of control.
What role can the AI Dialogue play in advancing international cooperation on AI governance?
By uniting all parties on a common AI security constitution, a roadmap can be created to offer global regulations to all governments. This would ensure a safer and more controllable Agentic Internet environment worldwide.
What are some of the existing initiatives, partnerships, or mechanisms that the AI Dialogue should build upon or connect with, and what added value could the AI Dialogue bring?
The landscape of existing initiatives is actually rich, the real problem isn't a shortage of frameworks, it's a shortage of connective tissue between them.
How can different stakeholders contribute to the AI Dialogue? Please share recommendations for the format and structure of the AI Dialogue.
Experts working in the fields of cybersecurity and sociology can contribute to AI regulation. As user types shift from humans to AI agents, and as AI rapidly evolves and changes our working models, it is necessary to measure the cognitive load on employees and its impact on societies.
Which voices, communities, or perspectives are currently underrepresented in global discussions on AI governance? How could they be included?
You can also include independent researchers. We need a solution format instead of a discussion format. Simply define the problem, ask for solutions, and include people in the team who can generate solutions or make significant contributions to the solution.
What innovative engagement formats could most effectively foster meaningful and dynamic engagement during the AI Dialogue?
Formats that would actually work: Red Team Rooms, Asymmetric Tables, Live Scenario Stress Tests, Citizen Juries, Pre-wired into Outcomes, The "Parking Lot" Dashboard etc. We need to create dialogue environment instead of competitive monologuing.
Please share examples of policies, practices, platforms, or approaches that promote effective AI governance or offer concrete solutions to addressing its challenges.
2
The Dialogue's job isn't to pick a winner among these models. It's to build the translation layer - so a NIST-aligned company can demonstrate compliance to an EU auditor without starting from scratch. Interoperability, not uniformity, is the realistic near-term goal.