STOPAIDS

Success would look like diverse stakeholders feeling that they were meaningfully consulted and engaged throughout the Global Dialogue - able to set the agenda, contribute and see tangible outcomes of their contribution. This should happen at the Secretariat level but also at member state level i.e. demonstrable efforts by member states to engage citizens.

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

Research by the Digital Health and Rights Project, among other evidence, indicates that AI is already having significant socioeconomic affects. Mitigating harm has to be the priority above pushing for innovation that moves faster than law and policy can keep up with - otherwise we are putting people at risk, particularly those already marginalised or facing harm in our societies. We would therefore prioritise the human elements of AI governance - the issues communities are already facing, how we understand these issues and what we can commit to in order to mitigate risks.

The environmental and climate impacts of AI and the regulation of AI

Our research with over 300 young people in Ghana, Kenya, Colombia and Vietnam demonstrates that lack of digital and AI governance is having huge impacts, particularly for the most marginalised (https://digitalhealthandrights.com/resource-library/report-paying-the-costs-of-connection/). This includes increasing technology-facilitated abuse (TFA) - with over 75% of study participants reporting to have experienced TFA - and a significant lack of recourse to justice. Young people shared that they did not trust governments, police and other law enforcement mechanisms to adequately respond to harms related to technologies like AI, often saying these actors lack an understanding of AI and the tools to hold perpetrators to account. The impact is physical, economic and social harm to young people and a loss of trust in the systems meant to support them. We cannot continue to pursue innovation at the cost of human health and wellbeing.

The AI Dialogue can advance international cooperation on AI governance by providing a space for diverse stakeholders to share their experiences and evidence of what does and doesn't work - creating a space to cross-pollinate and exchange knowledge. This can build capacity for international cooperation, supporting stakeholders' understanding of the possible routes to improved AI governance.

The Dialogue should seek to engage sector-specific initiatives, such as the WHO Working Group on the Ethics and Governance of AI for Health, to share learnings across sectors.

Young people, civil society and communities should be able to appoint representatives to the planning team behind the AI Dialogue to support agenda-setting and planning for the Dialogue to ensure an inclusive approach. These groups should be meaningfully engaged throughout the Dialogue i.e. able to contribute equitably alongside other stakeholders and supported to do so (through provision of interpretation services for instance). The Dialogue cannot exist as a standalone event, connections must be seen with other events and processes, and all participants should receive a readout document after completion of the Dialogue that summarises key discussions, next steps and how to remain involved.

Young people, civil society and communities should be able to appoint representatives to the planning team behind the AI Dialogue to support agenda-setting and planning for the Dialogue to ensure an inclusive approach. These groups should be meaningfully engaged throughout the Dialogue i.e. able to contribute equitably alongside other stakeholders and supported to do so (through provision of interpretation services for instance). The Dialogue cannot exist as a standalone event, connections must be seen with other events and processes, and all participants should receive a readout document after completion of the Dialogue that summarises key discussions, next steps and how to remain involved.

Some good examples of youth, civil society and community engagement include RightsCon and the International AIDS Conference. RightsCon plans diverse sessions including workshops, dialogues, and demos, which allows participants different formats with which to engage. All event plans must indicate how the session will be inclusive and accessible i.e. if there will be interpretation available or if there is additional support for people with disabilities available. The International AIDS Conference is also a good example because diverse stakeholders are included in the planning committee, and there is dedicated space at the conference alongside academic and private stakeholders for a 'Global Village' which is a community space to share work, ideas and host events.