Future of Citizenship
Responses
In your opinion, what outcomes would make the first Global Dialogue on AI Governance a success?
Concrete state commitments on AI safety.
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
- Protection and promotion of human rights
- Social, economic, ethical, cultural, linguistic and technical implications of AI
Please briefly explain your selection.
Future of Citizenship is focused on the social and legal implications of the human-like qualities of AI, in particular, emerging questions among both experts and the public around theories of AI "mind" and what AI "intelligence" means for AI safety.
In your opinion, are there any cross-cutting or emerging issues not captured by the listed themes above? If so, please explain.
1
Many in the AI safety community focus exclusively on the impact on society of AI as a new technology, or tool. Yet, many humans experience AI as another "mind," whether or not this is factually accurate, while experts in neuroscience, computer science and philosophy are genuinely struggling to classify and explain what, exactly, AI is doing when it "thinks," and how this is different from human thinking. This scientific uncertainty is leading to poor public messaging and provoking unhelpful policy responses, such as laws preemptively banning AI personhood in the United States.
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.
Already in North America we have multiple anti-AI personhood bills in the United States, while the public debate on AI personhood continues among high profile experts, including the heads of major AI companies. Meanwhile, many in the scientific community who have long studied minds and brains is unprepared to be suddenly thrust into the public spotlight and asked to explain what is "really going on" inside AI and if we should care. There is therefore an urgent need to raise awareness on what is known about AI "minds" in the scientific community now, what we should be concerned about in the future, and how emerging science should impact policy making.
What role can the AI Dialogue play in advancing international cooperation on AI governance?
The question of AI "minds" has fully emerged as a topic of public debate and fascination, one that risks becoming polarized as people form strongly held beliefs. The AI Dialogue can foster responsible and non-polarized dialogue among experts and the public on the subject of AI "minds," human brains, consciousness and intelligence that can help we humans understand what we know about our own brains and minds, and how this might inform what we are observing in AI.
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?
There is a long standing and robust community of philosophers, neuroscientists and computer scientists who have long studied and debated the question of artificial minds. Now that the question of AI "minds" has entered the public debate, we lack policy and public forums where these academic discussions can be mainstreamed into the public discourse and policy in a responsible and non-polarizing way.
How can different stakeholders contribute to the AI Dialogue? Please share recommendations for the format and structure of the AI Dialogue.
The AI Dialogue should give the public and experts a forum for measured, responsible and inclusive dialogue on the social implications of AI as a topic of AI safety.
Which voices, communities, or perspectives are currently underrepresented in global discussions on AI governance? How could they be included?
The global south seems to have been entirely left out of the debate over AI safety. As well, people impacted by "AI psychosis" are being shamed out of discussing their experiences in public.
What innovative engagement formats could most effectively foster meaningful and dynamic engagement during the AI Dialogue?
A safe and shame-free space to responsibly discuss the social and interpersonal implications of AI.
Please share examples of policies, practices, platforms, or approaches that promote effective AI governance or offer concrete solutions to addressing its challenges.
2
Staff from Future of Citizenship recently participated in a dialogue between a human rights lawyer, a philosopher and a neuroscientist on what we know about human and animal consciousness, what experts think might give rise to AI consciousness, and if consciousness should be a factor in who gets to be a person under the law. The event was hosted by the Montreal Initiative for Consciousness and gave the public an opportunity to ask questions about AI consciousness in a neutral and non-judgmental forum.