The last fortnight has exposed fault lines in the global debate on AI. At the UN Security Council, Anthropic’s Dario Amodei warned that, if managed poorly, AI could pose a risk to humanity as a whole, while OpenAI’s Sam Altman cautioned that humanity could lose control of its future. Rarely does an industry seek its own regulation. Yet, in the same chamber, Michael Kratsios, the US president’s science and technology advisor, rejected any centralised international control of AI.

Days later, President Donald Trump hosted technology chiefs at the White House and unveiled a voluntary accord. Companies pledged internal model monitoring, a team to verify it, outside auditors and independent board oversight. Trump called the pledges “morally binding”. Self-regulation is now American doctrine.
Paradoxically, Washington has simultaneously opened a channel to Beijing. After the Trump-Xi summit, both agreed on an AI incident communication mechanism, with a dedicated dialogue due in November. Middle powers have moved further. Twenty countries and the European Union, including Germany, South Africa, Canada, Australia, the UAE and Singapore, called for keeping AI under human control, possibly through a global oversight body. Tellingly, neither the US nor China signed; nor did India.

Four models now compete. The EU offers binding, risk-tiered legislation. America favours market-led voluntarism. China practises state-directed, sector-specific control. A loose international layer of OECD principles, UNESCO recommendations, summit declarations and a UN scientific panel supplies vocabulary without obligation. None suffices alone.

Link: https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/ai-global-governance-needs-china-to-sign-on-us-india-frontier-ai-10902433/