Jagiellonian University

A successful first Global Dialogue on AI Governance can be measured not only by attendance or statements issued, but above all by tangible progress toward a shared understanding and the creation of practical frameworks for responsible AI development. First, it should provide a clear and inclusive platform where governments, industry, academia, and civil society can exchange perspectives on AI risks, opportunities, and governance models, ensuring representation from diverse regions and stakeholders. Second, success would be reflected in the development of a set of principles or shared values

Safe, secure and trustworthy AI;AI capacity-building;Protection and promotion of human rights;Transparency, accountability, and human oversight;

My priorities for urgent action and active engagement focus on four areas: "Safe, secure, and trustworthy AI," "Protection and promotion of human rights," "Transparency, accountability, and human oversight," and "AI capacity-building." Safe, secure, and trustworthy AI is the foundation of responsible technology development-it ensures the minimization of risks, including systemic errors, cyberattacks, and unpredictable social consequences. Protecting and promoting human rights is a key priority, as AI technologies can impact individual rights, including privacy, freedom of expression, and equal opportunities. In this context, ensuring transparency, accountability, and human oversight of AI systems is essential to building public trust and enabling control over automated decisions. At the same time, it is essential to invest in capacity-building so that countries, organizations, and local communities can effectively implement and monitor AI systems, and understand their implications. Such capacity development ensures inclusivity and helps minimize global inequalities in access to technology and knowledge. Combining these four areas enables a comprehensive approach: creating AI that is safe and trusted, respecting human rights, under human supervision and in conditions of enhanced knowledge and competences of participants in the international community.

Within the context of the selected priorities, there are cross-cutting issues and new challenges that require special attention. First, as AI systems develop, ensuring their security and reliability, including resilience to errors, manipulation, and cyberthreats, is increasingly important. Even systems considered "secure" can unpredictably influence decisions, requiring constant monitoring and updating of control mechanisms. Second, issues related to the protection of human rights are becoming increasingly complex. Automated decisions, data profiling, and generative AI models can unintentionally restrict individual rights, such as privacy, equal opportunities, and freedom of expression. The challenge is to ensure that technologies are designed and implemented in a way that addresses these risks and enables effective human oversight. Third, the transparency and accountability of AI systems remain a cross-cutting issue. Implementing audit mechanisms, documentation of algorithmic decisions, and clear accountability standards are crucial to building trust among users and society. Finally, dynamic changes in technology require continuous capacity building among institutions, experts, and local communities. Competencies in understanding and assessing AI systems are essential to effectively manage risk, ensure ethical compliance, and support inclusive technology development. Incorporating these issues into a global dialogue allows for a coherent and focused approach that integrates security, human rights, accountability, and competency development, while minimizing potential risks and enhancing the positive impact of AI on society.

Gaps in AI governance have a significant impact on our sector in the context of our chosen priorities. In the area of

The Global Dialogue on AI Governance can play a key role in fostering international cooperation by creating an inclusive and open platform where governments, international organizations, the private sector, academia, and civil society can exchange experiences, best practices, and expertise. Such a forum fosters the development of common standards, principles, and values, which is essential in the face of rapidly evolving AI technologies with a global reach. The Dialogue can also support the harmonization of regulations and practices regarding the safety, transparency, and accountability of AI systems, minimizing the risk of legal fragmentation and gaps in human rights protection. Joint analysis of risks, threats, and violations can lead to the development of international recommendations or guidelines that can be adapted across countries and sectors. In addition, the Global Dialogue can promote capacity-building activities, including the transfer of knowledge and expertise, which increases the readiness of states and organizations to effectively implement and oversee AI systems. The creation of working groups or interregional cooperation mechanisms enables the development of pilot initiatives, joint research projects, and platforms for sharing data and open-source tools. Ultimately, the Dialogue serves as a catalyst for trust and cooperation, fostering the emergence of a coherent, adaptive, and ethical AI governance system at the international level. This will ensure that states and organizations are better prepared to jointly respond to technological challenges, maximize the benefits of AI, and minimize its potential threats to societies and economies.

The Global AI Governance Dialogue should build on existing initiatives and mechanisms for international cooperation, such as the UN's work on ethics and human rights in AI, partnerships within the OECD, the G20's work on responsible AI, and regional initiatives in Europe, Asia, and Latin America on technology regulations and standards. Linking with industry initiatives, NGOs, and academia that conduct research on the safety, transparency, and impact of AI on human rights is also crucial. The Dialogue can add value by creating a universal, inclusive coordination platform that integrates experiences and best practices from various regions and sectors. This will enable the development of coherent recommendations and principles that take into account both regulatory diversity and local socio-cultural contexts. In addition, the AI

Various stakeholders can contribute significantly to the Global Dialogue on AI Governance, providing technical, regulatory, ethical, and societal perspectives. Governments can share experiences in regulating, overseeing, and implementing AI policies and present national priorities. International organizations can facilitate knowledge exchange, coordinate initiatives across countries, and support the harmonization of standards. The private sector can contribute practical experience in designing and implementing AI systems, and academia can provide analysis, research, and risk assessment methods. Civil society can monitor the impact of AI on human rights, transparency, and inclusiveness, and identify threats and community needs. The recommended format for the Dialogue should combine plenary sessions with working groups focused on specific topics, such as AI security, transparency, human rights, and capacity building. Plenary sessions can be used to present priorities, best practices, and the results of the working groups, while thematic panels allow for in-depth discussion, exchange of experiences, and the development of practical recommendations. The structure should include periodic meetings, progress reporting, and mechanisms for follow-up between sessions. The inclusion of digital tools, online collaboration platforms, and open access to documents and reports will increase inclusivity and enable participation by stakeholders regardless of location. This structure will ensure that diverse voices are included, fostering the development of a coherent, practical, and adaptive framework for AI governance. In this way, the Global Dialogue will become a platform not only for discussion but also for effective collaboration and the implementation of shared solutions on an international scale.

Global discussions on AI governance still lack fully represented voices from various regions of the world, local communities, and groups at risk of exclusion. Underrepresented perspectives include, among others, developing countries, which have limited access to technology and AI expert resources; indigenous and local communities, whose cultural and linguistic values

To ensure the Global Dialogue on AI Governance is dynamic and effective, it is important to introduce innovative formats that enable the active participation of diverse stakeholders and foster the exchange of knowledge, experiences, and practical solutions. First, hybrid interactive sessions combining in-person and remote meetings allow for the inclusion of participants from different regions of the world and with varying levels of technological resources. The inclusion of real-time translations and digital platforms increases accessibility and inclusivity. Second, thematic and workshop groups enable in-depth analysis of specific challenges, such as AI security, human rights, or algorithm transparency. Such groups can work on practical recommendations, risk scenario simulations, or pilot projects. Fourth, the introduction of continuous interaction mechanisms, such as online collaboration platforms, discussion forums, and priority voting tools, enables sustained engagement between formal sessions and the creation of lasting networks. Finally, the integration of public reports, educational tools, and open data allows interested communities to track results, contribute their own proposals, and monitor the implementation of recommendations. This approach enables the creation of an environment of dialogue that is both inclusive, interactive and practical, increasing the chances of developing a coherent, effective and ethical framework for AI governance on a global scale.

Effective AI governance requires the integration of regulatory policies, technical standards, and ethical practices that minimize risks and increase public trust. In the area of