Law School of Wuhan University

A consensus report similar to the UNGGE and the OEWG reports both adopted in 2021, with relatively clear guidance on what? consensus has been forged and what are the next steps.

AI capacity-building;Social, economic, ethical, cultural, linguistic and technical implications of AI;Transparency, accountability, and human oversight;

1) The growing North-South divide in AI technologies and applications risks marginalizing countries and people in the global south, and this issue should be prioritized in the first Global Dialogue. 2) Artificial Intelligence not only has the potential but is transforming the social, economic, ethical cultural systems and values around thhe world in a profound manner, and countries are clearly not well-prepared for those challenges. 3) Application of AI both in peacetime and during armed conflicts (as can be seen in the recent war in Iran) has revealed huge gap in transparency, accountability in the human oversight, which should be taken very seriously.

The development of international norms and standards related to AI technologies and applications. Those international norms and standards have a vital role to play in the governance of AI, yet realistically the so-called rule-deficit is ever growing, and deserves greater attention in the Global Dialogue.

A major challenge in my view is that as the result of the de-regulation approach favored by certain leading countries, many other countries (including in my country, China) have to follow suit to facilitate the development of AI technologies and applications, taking much less notice of the risks thereof. In the meantime, an important opportunity is that China is offering numeous open source AI models, which can make a major contribution to bridge the North-South divide in this area.

In all the important areas and themes identified above, the AI Dialogue can have a key role to play in advancing international cooperation on AI governance by forging international consensus on what steps are needed.

Focusing, among others, on the rules and the norms related to AI technologies and applications, similar to what previous UN GGEs and OEWGs have done in past years.

Based on the principles of inclusiveness and geographic balance, stakeholders worldwide can shed important lights on how to make best use of the opportunities and also effectively deal with risks associated with AI, thus contributing to the AI dialogue. An accreditation procedure can be established to allow a selected capable stakeholders to be involved in the AI Dialogue, and the format adopted by the OEWG can be used as a model.

I believe the voices, communities or perspectives are currently most underrepresented and urgently needed in global discussions on AI governance. What to do: 1) In the accreditation procedure mentioned in question 15, allowing stakeholders from the global south to be meaningfully involved in the AI Dialogue by sticking to the principles of inclusiveness and geographic balance. 2) Providing financial support where possible to facillitate the participation of stakeholders from the global south in the AI Dialogue, or alternatively allow them to participate remotely online, so that their voices can be heard.

Maybe scenario-based analysis and discussions can be considered, but again the principles of inclusiveness and geographic balance are important.

Open source AI applications can be a good example to addressing the challenge of capacity building in AI development.