APAC GATES
Responses
In your opinion, what outcomes would make the first Global Dialogue on AI Governance a success?
To deliver concrete strategic goals that include specific deliverables. Namely, addressing empirical harms, and fostering productive innovation.
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?
- Protection and promotion of human rights
- Open-source software, open data and open AI models
- Safe, secure and trustworthy AI
Please briefly explain your selection.
1
First, AI should be seen in its existing commercial context, and thus consumer harms need to be taken seriously. More attention should be sought to cover the legal governance layer, particularly in open source software. License agreements need to be standardized and further scrutinized for any illiberal and anti-human rights sentiment and values.
In your opinion, are there any cross-cutting or emerging issues not captured by the listed themes above? If so, please explain.
1
There are important social-cultural aspects of AI usage that need to be better highlighted. This includes anthropomorphization and also manipulation of objective and realistic perceptions of the usefulness and efficacy of the technology.
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.
Eroding the rule of law, democratic self determination, and social trust, particularly in commerce is essential for the Asia Pacific region in AI.
What role can the AI Dialogue play in advancing international cooperation on AI governance?
Driving direct lines into standards making processes will be important. Multistakeholder engagement and platforming will be essential.
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?
IGF, AI Action Summit, and also fostering public engagement with Hiroshima Process, and AISI groupings, along with privacy, cybersecurity, and intellectual property groupings affected by AI.
How can different stakeholders contribute to the AI Dialogue? Please share recommendations for the format and structure of the AI Dialogue.
THere should be multiple venues - including in person convenings, online convenings, written journals, blogs and other ways to highlight stakeholders.
Which voices, communities, or perspectives are currently underrepresented in global discussions on AI governance? How could they be included?
Linguistic minorities, and marginalized political groups should be highlighted to prevent under representation.
What innovative engagement formats could most effectively foster meaningful and dynamic engagement during the AI Dialogue?
Hybrid, online, and in-person events. Multiple regional formats to help convene people in less connected regions are essential.
Please share examples of policies, practices, platforms, or approaches that promote effective AI governance or offer concrete solutions to addressing its challenges.
2
Grass roots efforts, such as the Asia AI Harm Tracker organized by Digital Governance Asia and APAC GATES is a good example: https://digitalgovernance.asia Additionally, collecting cross-cutting policy and keeping the public informed on AI policy is essential, such as through Asia AI Policy Monitor newsletter found here: http://asiaaipolicymonitor.substack.com