CureAI Insights

We can lean on the objectives laid out in SDG 3 as the backdrop for substantive discussion in July. Ensuring healthy lives and promoting well-being for all ages captures the sociotechnical implications of AI development and implementation. By intentionally designing a strategy around SDG 3, we can uncover translatable mechanisms to tackle the other 16 SDG's. As an example, when we place patients at the center - we capture the intersectionality of individuals including gender, geographical and generational representation. We find common denominators, to lead transformation like the nurses leading in every health system and present in the majority of patient encounters. SDG 3 is highly intertwined with mental health and planetary health, which are both under assault by the unbridled scaling of technology that seeks to extract our humanity and natural resources for the financial gain of the few. Practical outputs could include: -An inventory of the harms already in motion to better understand the policy, science, and capacity gaps - the failure points or blind spots - where they haven't caught up with the pace of AI development and deployment. -Surfacing best practices for accountability that can protect AI users, and their agency. Evidence about the effects of overreliance or relegating our thinking to machines. Negative impacts we are already seeing stemming from the disintermediation of individuals. -And evidence about the dangers of anthropomorphising AI, especially for younger generations and those facing loneliness.

• Transparency, accountability, and human oversight
• Social, economic, ethical, cultural, linguistic and technical implications of AI
• Safe, secure and trustworthy AI
• AI capacity-building

Artificial intelligence is increasingly being adopted in the digital and physical places where we live, work, and play with much of the risk falling to the user and little accountability to AI developers. For example, people turn to AI tools for care and to inform decisions about their health. Specific and accessible guidance that accounts for the sociotechnical implications of using technology, especially as a young person, is needed. Agency and safety, in connection to AI use, are also human rights.

The GD should pay special attention to models being developed in other languages and reflecting other cultures. While it should address the impact of frontier models, it should also uplift the power of small models and non-AI interventions to tackle the underlying systemic barriers. In some parts of the globe, we are living longer and in others, birth rates are slowing but overall we are currently five generations at work. The implications this represents for how we live, work, and play are shaping our present and our future. Our perspectives about work/ life balance, how we learn, how we find love, and our attitudes towards faith, technology, politics, and the environment vary widely. Some seek to exploit these multigenerational differences to create division. I believe we have an opportunity, a responsibility, to enrich each other through our differences, carrying forward core values for humanity to thrive, and not replicating some mistakes that have generational impact. But to do so, requires intergenerational dialogues with each other, alongside each other, and sometimes standing up for each other.

We are seeing a tendency to compete for and even seize market share at any cost, without accountability for the negative sociotechnical impacts of deploying unsafe AI. There must be accountability for nations that allow and promote corporations to mine users for their data while polluting the planet and affecting human health. At the same time, there is an opportunity for individuals and communities to be reminded of their agency in making decisions about when and how to use AI, even if it means not using existing tools. Accessible and clear evidence, not just for technologists, is needed to dispel perceptions that bigger and faster is better. There is an opportunity to amplify the positive aspects about how AI is reshaping access to healthcare, education, and discoveries in life sciences but only if we protect what is uniquely human, which includes our planet.

The primary purpose of the Global Dialogue is to curate a safe space, not just to gather evidence, but lived experience from the frontlines where many have taken on great personal risk and paid the cost to underwrite the development of closed-source technology. What was once human + human in multilateralism must now be reevaluated as what is possible and healthy in a human + AI world.

We can leverage established implementation science frameworks and models, where the intervention in question is AI deployment for human flourishing. For example the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework or the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

We must be creative in including voices that would not otherwise be "in the room." Closing digital divides between and within countries requires a "glo-cal" approach that partners with local organizations and communities to participate in the global conversation in real time.

The average person without any training or first-hand experience using AI. Women and young people. Non-English speakers.

Satellite dialogues with local communities giving input in realtime, incorporated live into the session in Geneva.