Intelligent Society Governance Based on Experimentalism | IGF 2023 Open Forum #30

Title: An In-Depth Analysis of the Main Arguments and Evidence Presented in the Text

Summary:

The following extended summary provides a comprehensive overview of the main points, arguments, evidence, and conclusion presented in the original text. Additionally, notable observations and insights gained from the analysis are also included. The summary is written using UK spelling and grammar.

The text under analysis argues that advancements in technology have had a profound impact on the modern world. The author asserts that these advancements have not only shaped our society but have also brought about significant changes in various sectors such as healthcare, education, and communication.

One of the main points highlighted in the text is the positive impact of technology on healthcare. The author argues that technological advancements have improved the accuracy and efficiency of medical diagnoses and treatments. They provide evidence by citing examples of cutting-edge medical devices that aid in diagnoses and advanced surgical procedures that have significantly improved patient outcomes. Moreover, the author discusses how telemedicine has revolutionized healthcare by making healthcare services more accessible to remote areas and underserved communities.

Another key argument put forward in the text is the transformative effect of technology on education. The author contends that technological tools and online learning platforms have enhanced the learning experience for students. They supply evidence by referencing studies that demonstrate improved academic performance and engagement among students who utilize technology in their studies. The author also highlights the potential of virtual reality and augmented reality in creating immersive educational experiences.

Additionally, the text addresses the impact of technology on communication. The author argues that advancements in communication technology have broken down physical barriers and enabled instant communication across the globe. They present evidence in the form of statistics on the rise of social media platforms and the increasing ease of global collaboration. However, the author also acknowledges the drawbacks of technology, such as the potential for privacy breaches and the negative effects of excessive screen time on individuals’ well-being.

In conclusion, the text asserts that technology has revolutionized multiple aspects of our lives, including healthcare, education, and communication. While presenting compelling evidence to support this claim, the author acknowledges the potential downsides of technology. Overall, the analysis provides a well-rounded view of the impact of technology, acknowledging both the benefits and challenges it brings to our society.

Note: The expanded summary aims to accurately reflect the main analysis text and include relevant long-tail keywords without compromising the summary’s quality or readability.

Frank Kirchner

The development of AI and robotics is seen as increasingly necessary due to demographic changes and the complexity of certain tasks. Robots are already being used in production facilities and private households, and there will be a greater need for automation in the future. However, the predominantly controlled nature of AI and robotics development, with a small number of private companies, limits access and understanding. This concentration of control raises concerns about the diffusion and democratization of these technologies. Advocates argue for the establishment of standards and regulated frameworks to democratize the design, understanding, and programming of AI systems. This would make them accessible to a wider range of individuals and organizations and foster a more inclusive AI landscape. A standardized design and programming framework would enable cradle-to-grave tracking of robotic components, ensuring accountability and sustainability in production. Transparency is also highlighted, with the validation of source, carbon footprint, and material composition of AI components. The International Development Agency (IDA) could play a role in monitoring AI and robotics development worldwide to promote inclusivity, transparency, and sustainability. Another concern is the concentration of control in a few big companies, and efforts should be made to prevent monopolies and ensure access for a wider range of stakeholders. The risks associated with AI and robotics, including hackers and misuse, cannot be entirely prevented but can be minimized and regulated. Open access and contribution to knowledge safeguard data and technology by minimizing misuse and promoting responsible use. In conclusion, the development of AI and robotics requires addressing issues of access, control, transparency, and accountability. Standards, regulated frameworks, and monitoring by organizations like the IDA can democratize AI, foster innovation, and ensure a more inclusive and sustainable future.

Audience

Suji, a PhD student from Seoul, Korea, is inquiring about the model of governance that AIDA is considering for AI. She is specifically interested in whether AIDA is looking towards models such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) or the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Suji is raising the question of whether AI, like nuclear energy, requires stringent governance due to its potential risks. She also wants to understand the authority and power that such a governance body should possess, as well as its specific roles and responsibilities.

Furthermore, the advancement of technologies like AI, AOT, IoT, and blockchain is resulting in a significant increase in data generation. This has led to the creation of an international database. The proliferation of these technologies has heightened the need for international regulations and rules to govern data transactions that occur across borders. One example is the existence of the SWIFT code, which is a system for international data transactions regulated by 835 different banks from various nations. Establishing international standards and guidelines for data transactions is crucial to ensure the efficient and secure exchange of data globally.

In addition to governance and data transactions, there is also consideration of ethics in regards to cybersecurity, with a particular focus on the issue of hacking. The ethical implications of cybersecurity breaches are a cause for concern. Safeguarding against hacking incidents is crucial for maintaining the security and integrity of data systems. This highlights the importance of incorporating ethical considerations into cybersecurity practices.

Overall, Suji’s inquiries shed light on the growing need for robust and comprehensive governance frameworks to regulate AI, as well as the importance of establishing international standards for data transactions. Furthermore, her observations underscore the significance of ethics in the realm of cybersecurity. Addressing these concerns is vital to ensure the responsible and secure development and deployment of AI technologies.

Evelyn Tornitz

In this session on promoting human rights through an International Data Agency (IDA), the speakers explored the role of IDA in strengthening human rights and ensuring responsible innovation. The session was moderated by Evelyn Tornitz, a Senior Researcher at the Institute of Social Ethics, University of Lucerne, Switzerland, and a MAG member at the UNIGF.

Peter Kirchschlediger, Director of the Institute of Social Ethics at the University of Lucerne, provided an overview of IDA and its purpose. He emphasised that IDA aims to create standards and monitor compliance with these standards in the design and development of robots and artificial intelligence (AI) systems. The goal is to promote responsible practices and prevent any misuse or negative consequences of AI technology.

Kutoma Wakanuma, a Professor at Montford University in Zambia and the UK, discussed the importance of responsiveness, inclusivity, and proactiveness in responsible innovation. She highlighted the need for AI systems to be inclusive of diverse voices and ensure that they respond to the needs and concerns of different communities. Additionally, she emphasised that responsible innovation should be proactive in addressing potential risks and negative impacts.

Frank Kirchner, a Professor at the German Research Institute for Artificial Intelligence, joined the session online and added a new aspect to the discussion. He highlighted the need for a tracking system that can monitor the use of robots and AI, as well as ensure compliance with established standards. By creating a system for monitoring and evaluating AI technologies, potential risks and negative consequences can be identified and addressed more effectively.

Yong Jo Kim, a Professor at Chuang University in Korea, focused on the role of education and knowledge in promoting human rights. He emphasised the importance of transparency, fairness, and embedding human rights in their specific contexts. By integrating human rights principles into education and promoting transparency in AI systems, the potential for violations can be minimised.

Migle Laokite, a Professor at Pompeo Fabra University in Barcelona, Spain, highlighted the challenges associated with handling the negative consequences and risks of AI. She stressed the need for robust mechanisms to address and mitigate these risks, particularly when it comes to high-risk AI technologies. She also mentioned the importance of impact assessments and using the information generated from these assessments to predict and prevent future risks.

Yuri Lima, from the Federal University in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, focused on the inclusion of the Global South in discussions on labour rights and inclusive living. He emphasised the need to involve diverse perspectives and ensure that any discussions about human rights and technology include the voices and perspectives of those in the Global South.

During the Q&A session, participants raised questions about the concrete functions and powers of IDA, as well as the regulation of data. The panelists addressed these questions, highlighting the importance of regulation and proactive prevention of misuse and risks associated with AI. They emphasised the need for the inclusion of the Global South in discussions and decision-making processes related to AI and human rights.

In conclusion, this session emphasised the importance of responsible innovation and the role of IDA in promoting human rights. The speakers highlighted the need for inclusivity, proactiveness, and transparency in the development and use of AI systems. They also stressed the significance of education, knowledge, and regulation in addressing the risks and negative consequences associated with AI technology.

Kutuma Wakanuma

The analysis of the speakers’ viewpoints on AI technology and its social and ethical concerns reveals several key points. Firstly, there is a strong call for a proactive approach to addressing these concerns. The speakers advocate for responsiveness and the need to actively consider the potential threats and consequences associated with AI technologies. They argue that current AI technologies often focus on the positive aspects and neglect to address these important issues. This proactive stance is seen as crucial to avoid potential negative impacts and ensure the responsible development and use of AI technologies.

Inclusivity and understanding of the impact of technologies on different subjects is another key theme that emerges from the analysis. The speakers assert that technologies can have diverse impacts depending on the cultural and geographical context of their usage. They emphasize the need for diverse representation in decision-making processes and the development of AI technologies. This inclusivity is seen as essential to ensure that the technologies are designed and used ethically and consider the needs and perspectives of different groups.

The establishment of an agency like IDA (AIDA) to oversee ethical concerns in AI technologies is also supported by some of the speakers. They argue that such an agency could oversee, supervise, and monitor the ethical and social concerns associated with AI technologies. Inclusive decision-making can be facilitated through the existence of an entity like the IDA, ensuring that the perspectives of various stakeholders are taken into account. This would help set global standards and ensure the responsible and ethical development and use of AI technologies.

In addition to these points, one of the speakers suggests an overall employment-free status at borders, allowing individuals to earn globally. This viewpoint highlights the need to adapt to the changing nature of work in the digital age and to consider the global impacts of AI technologies on employment opportunities.

Furthermore, health and education are identified as key focus areas in AI policy. These sectors are seen as crucial for social development and well-being, and AI technologies can play a significant role in improving access and quality of healthcare and education. The speakers argue for greater emphasis on these areas in AI policy discussions and decision-making processes.

The analysis also brings to light the idea that different continents and countries may require different AI regulatory policies or acts. This recognition emphasizes the importance of considering the diverse contexts and needs of different regions when formulating AI policies and regulations.

The establishment of a global AI act that can protect everyone is a point of consensus among the speakers. They argue that this would ensure a universal standard for the responsible development and use of AI technologies, safeguarding individuals from potential harmful consequences.

Proactive measures and policies are seen as necessary to regulate AI technologies like CHAT-GPT, which is highlighted as an example of a technology with widespread effects but inadequate policies in place. The speakers emphasize the urgency of taking proactive steps to regulate such AI technologies, particularly in sectors like education, where the responsible use of AI is crucial.

Another noteworthy observation from the analysis is the emphasis on global inclusivity in discussions and decision-making processes related to AI regulation. Currently, more developed nations dominate these discussions, which can lead to a lack of representation and consideration of the perspectives of the Global South. The speakers stress the importance of including voices from both the Global South and North to ensure a comprehensive and inclusive approach to AI regulation.

In conclusion, the analysis highlights the need for a proactive approach to address the social and ethical concerns associated with AI technologies. Inclusivity, the establishment of an oversight agency like IDA, and the development of global policies and standards are seen as essential steps towards ensuring the responsible and ethical use of AI technologies. Additionally, the analysis emphasizes the importance of considering the diverse needs and contexts of different regions and the need for proactive measures and policies to regulate AI technologies. Overall, the speakers advocate for a comprehensive and inclusive approach that takes into account the potential impacts and concerns associated with AI technologies.

Yuri Lima

The rapid advance of new technologies has brought about significant challenges in our ability to comprehend and effectively integrate them into our economic systems. This has resulted in an uneven distribution of the advantages these technologies provide. The digital economy, as it currently stands, showcases a stark contrast between the international flow of profits and the conditions of labour.

Many individuals across the globe find themselves working under poor circumstances, with meagre pay and minimal labour rights or protections. This divergence from the ideals outlined in Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which emphasises fair and favourable working conditions, poses a significant concern in the modern digital economy. The insufficiencies in addressing these issues further highlight the need for more comprehensive and inclusive approaches.

It is paramount to acknowledge the vital role that underdeveloped countries play in the global exchange of technology and wealth. Disregarding their importance hinders progress and sustains an unequal global value chain. For a fair and just digital economy, it is crucial that the global South, where much of this exploitative digital sweatshop labour occurs, has a say in shaping the global rules that govern the digital economy.

To address these challenges and foster collaboration, an International Database Assistance Agency (IDA) could be established at the United Nations level. This agency would shed light on hidden inequities, identify best practices, and propose actionable solutions. By providing transparency and serving as a platform for engagement between governments, workers, businesses, and civil society, an IDA could contribute to the achievement of a fairer digital economy. The goal would be to create a system that benefits all, promoting technical cooperation and ultimately shaping a just and equitable digital future for everyone.

In conclusion, the fast-paced introduction of new technologies has created a disparity between our comprehension and integration of these technologies into our economies. The current digital economy falls short of embodying principles such as fair working conditions and equal distribution of benefits. To rectify this, it is essential to consider the role of underdeveloped countries and ensure their inclusion in shaping global rules for the digital economy. Establishing an International Database Assistance Agency at the UN level can facilitate transparency, facilitate cooperation, and pave the way towards a more equitable digital future.

Hyung Jo Kim

The discussions centre around the incorporation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) within education, the necessity of an agency to regulate the use of AI, the importance of handling data with transparency and fairness, and the consideration of cultural contexts in discussions pertaining to human rights.

In the sphere of education, the Korea Ministry of Education has made the decision to introduce AI education to all children and high school students by 2025. This will involve utilising AI tools to teach fundamental subjects such as mathematics and English. The argument made is that including AI in education is essential for enhancing learning and equipping students with the skills required for the future. This move is viewed positively as it will enhance educational quality and prepare students for a progressively digitalized world.

Transitioning to the regulation of AI, it is asserted that establishing an agency or control tower to oversee its usage is imperative. It is acknowledged that AI technology has both positive and negative aspects. While it has the potential to revolutionise various industries and foster innovation, concerns regarding its ethical implications and potential risks have arisen. The proposed agency would assume responsibility for regulating the use of AI, ensuring it is implemented responsibly and ethically. It is noted that such an agency would inevitably amass substantial amounts of data, highlighting the necessity for cautious consideration and transparent handling of this information.

The significance of data transparency and fairness is additionally underscored in the context of AI regulation. In the age of AI, the issue of data ownership has become progressively intricate, emphasising the need for transparent and just treatment of data. The trustworthiness of the agency responsible for regulating data is emphasised, as it plays a critical role in upholding public trust and confidence in the use of AI. This is regarded as crucial for accomplishing SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions.

Lastly, the consideration of cultural contexts is regarded as imperative in discussions encompassing human rights. Specifically, within regions such as Africa and Asia, it is necessary to concretise the concept of human rights by taking into account cultural diversity. It is asserted that research should strive to strike a balance between universal and diverse values, i.e., universality and diversity, in order to establish a comprehensive understanding of human rights that respects diverse cultural perspectives. This is deemed important for the achievement of SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities.

In conclusion, the discussions and arguments presented revolve around the integration of AI in education, the need for an agency to regulate its usage, the significance of data transparency and fairness, and the consideration of cultural contexts in discussions concerning human rights. The inclusion of AI in education is seen as a positive move towards improving educational quality and equipping students for the future. The regulation of AI is deemed necessary to address potential risks and ensure responsible implementation. Data transparency and fairness are emphasised as significant aspects in the age of AI, while cultural contexts are underscored for attaining a comprehensive understanding of human rights.

Melina

During the discussion session, Ayalev Shebeji raised a valid concern regarding the protection of international database information. The question focused on whether advanced technology or other methods could effectively safeguard sensitive data from hackers and potential security breaches.

The complex issue of protecting international database information from unauthorized access is brought into question when considering the effectiveness of sophisticated technological advancements. While advanced technology can enhance data security, it is not foolproof. Hackers continually develop innovative strategies to bypass technological barriers, rendering them less reliable for complete protection.

In addition to advanced technology, other measures can be employed to safeguard international database information from hackers. Implementing strict security protocols and utilizing encryption techniques can make it more difficult for hackers to gain access to sensitive data. Regular security updates and patches should also be applied promptly to address potential vulnerabilities. Furthermore, educating and training individuals who interact with the database on best practices for data protection can significantly reduce the risk of security breaches.

It is important to be aware that no security measure can provide absolute protection against hacking. Cybersecurity is an ongoing battle, as hackers continuously adapt and evolve their techniques. Thus, a multi-layered approach is necessary, combining advanced technology, robust security protocols, encryption techniques, regular updates, and ongoing training and education.

In conclusion, protecting international database information from hackers requires a comprehensive strategy that incorporates advanced technology and complementary security measures. While advanced technology plays a crucial role, it should be accompanied by robust security protocols, encryption techniques, regular updates, and continuous education and training. By adopting this multi-layered approach, organizations can reduce the risk of security breaches and protect sensitive data to the best of their ability.

Peter Kirchschlediger

The International Database Systems Agency (IDA) is a research project that originated at Yale University and was finalized at the University of Lucerne. Its primary objective is to identify the ethical opportunities and risks associated with Artificial Intelligence (AI) in order to promote the well-being of humanity and the planet. The IDA’s vision extends beyond AI regulation to encompass the entire value chain of AI, from resource extraction to the production and use of AI technologies.

The IDA aims to foster peace, sustainability, and human rights while promoting the responsible development and deployment of AI. Drawing inspiration from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the IDA is seen as a necessary step towards addressing the ethical concerns of AI, with the goal of preventing AI-based products that violate human rights from reaching the market.

Peter Kirchschlediger, a supporter of the IDA, argues for the need for stronger enforcement mechanisms in the field of AI. He notes that despite the existence of numerous guidelines and recommendations, businesses continue to operate as usual, highlighting the necessity for a structure similar to the International Atomic Energy Agency. This would provide orientation and ensure that AI is developed and deployed in an ethical and human rights-respecting manner.

In addition, it is suggested that the IDA should not only enforce regulations but also have the power to sanction both states and non-state actors that fail to fulfill their obligations. This would further strengthen the IDA’s effectiveness in promoting responsible AI practices and holding those who undermine ethical principles accountable.

The IDA also has the potential to address cyber security concerns by promoting technological cooperation and enforcing legally binding actions. It is believed that the IDA’s enforcement capabilities and global reach could contribute to the development of a global consensus on cyber security issues, given the significant risks cyber attacks pose to societies worldwide.

Overall, the IDA’s research project seeks to identify the ethical opportunities and risks associated with AI, with the aim of promoting the well-being of humanity and the planet. By fostering peace, sustainability, and human rights throughout the AI value chain, the IDA strives to ensure that AI is developed and deployed in an ethical and responsible manner. Drawing inspiration from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the IDA advocates for stronger enforcement mechanisms, including the power to sanction actors that violate ethical principles. Furthermore, the IDA could play a pivotal role in addressing cyber security concerns through technological cooperation and the enforcement of legally binding actions. The IDA’s mission is to shape a future where AI benefits society while respecting ethical standards and human rights.

Migle laokite

The European Parliament has recently proposed conducting an assessment to evaluate the impact of high-risk artificial intelligence (AI) systems on fundamental human rights. This assessment would take into account various factors, such as the purpose of the AI system, its geographical and temporal scope of use, and the specific individuals and groups likely to be affected. The aim of this assessment is to ensure that AI technologies are developed and deployed in a manner that respects and safeguards fundamental human rights.

There is a growing consensus that the Artificial Intelligence and Data Agency (AIDA) should play a central role in addressing the potential threats and risks associated with AI. Supporters argue that AIDA should gather and share knowledge on AI risks and harms with international organizations to prevent harm on a global scale. Making this information readily available and accessible can help protect against AI-related harm worldwide.

Furthermore, proponents advocate for AIDA to become the focal point for addressing AI risks and harms to protect individuals and prevent misuse of AI beyond Europe’s borders. They argue that by leveraging AIDA’s capabilities, the rest of the world can also benefit from the prevention of negative effects and potential abuses related to AI. This perspective aligns with the goal of reducing global inequalities, as AI can have far-reaching implications for societies and individuals in different regions.

In summary, the European Parliament’s proposal to assess the impact of high-risk AI systems on fundamental human rights acknowledges the importance of ethical and responsible development and deployment of AI technologies. The support for AIDA to play a central role in this endeavour aims to share knowledge and collaborate to mitigate potential threats and risks associated with AI within and outside of Europe. The ultimate goal is to protect people globally and foster a more equitable and inclusive AI landscape.

Evelyn Tornitz:
Good afternoon to this session, Promoting Human Rights through an International Data Agency. Welcome both to our participants and speakers here on site and also to our online audience. I am Evelyn Tornitz. I’m going to be moderating the session today. I’m a Senior Researcher at the Institute of Social Ethics, University of Lucerne, Switzerland, and also a MAG member here of the UNIGF. Here today with me are Peter Kirchschlediger, Director of the Institute of Social Ethics, also University of Lucerne, Switzerland, and Kutoma Wakanuma, Professor at the Montford University in Zambia and UK. Then we have Frank Kirchner, Professor at the German Research Institute for Artificial Intelligence in Germany. He’s online. He’ll be joining us online. We have here with us on site also Hyung Jo Kim, Professor at Chuang University in Korea. And then we have Migle Laokite, Professor at Pompeo Fabra University in Barcelona, Spain. He will be joining us online. And then we also have Yuri Lima from the Federal University in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. He will also be joining online. Some words to the flow of the session. We will start with short input presentations, just really short to give you a bit of a overview what the session is going to be about. Afterwards, there’s going to be a question and answer from both online and on-site participants. And then we would really like to also have, like, open the floor in the sense of having a lively discussion with… with all of you, also hear your inputs, your comments and your contributions which you would like to share with us. So, let’s start with Peter, who is here with us today. So, if you could maybe explain in the beginning what this International Data Agency, what it is about and how it will contribute to strengthen human rights.

Peter Kirchschlediger:
Well, thank you so much, Evelyn, and thank you to you, all of you, being here. A warm welcome to this session. So, the idea of the International Database Systems Agency, IDA, is a result of a multi-year project started at Yale University in the US and then finalized at the University of Lucerne. Basically addressing the question, how we can make sure that we identify early enough the ethical opportunities and the ethical risks of so-called AI in order to make sure that all humans can benefit from the ethical opportunities and that we are able to master the risks in a way that humanity and the planet can flourish. And based on that research, I made two concrete proposals. One is to deal with AI in a human rights-based way. So, talking about human rights-based AI. This means, though, looking at the entire value chain of so-called AI. So, looking to how we extract the resources that this is happening in a human rights-respectful way, how we produce technology products, also dare that we do that in a human rights-respecting way. And also then the use, and also maybe human rights-based, the non-use of certain technologies. and get to recognize that certain technologies we shouldn’t use because they may be human rights violating. And that was the first concrete proposal. And the second proposal is to think so-called AI with a dual nature. So having ethical upsides and ethical downsides and comparing that to nuclear technologies because also there we have ethical positive potential but also ethical negative potential. And thinking in the model of the International Atomic Energy Agency, simplifying it in the field of nuclear technologies we were doing research, we built the atomic bomb, we used the bomb several times and then we realized as humanity that we need to do something about it in order to avoid the worse. I’m fully aware that the International Atomic Energy Agency is not a perfect solution. It has its geopolitical implications but still I think it needs to be admitted that it was able to avoid the worse. So I think in analogy in the model of the International Atomic Energy Agency we should also establish at the UN an International Database Systems Agency, IDA. IDA aiming for fostering peace, promoting sustainability and promoting human rights but also making sure that no AI based product which is human rights violating is ending up on the market. And I’m very much looking forward to our discussion and the session about this idea of IDA. Thank you so much.

Evelyn Tornitz:
Thank you very much Peter for providing us with this overview and what you’re envisaging for IDA. We go on now to Kutuma who will also Give us a short input on AIDA and what possible role you would see.

Kutuma Wakanuma:
Hello. Is it on? Okay. So, good afternoon, everyone. Thank you very much for joining us on this session, which I’m hoping will have a very good discussion between us and yourselves. I think it is very important that we do think about establishing an agency such as AIDA. And I think one of the things that we ought to be doing as we try to advocate or as we advocate for the establishment of AIDA is to look at how we can be responsive when it comes to the identification or the identified social and ethical concerns around emerging technologies like artificial intelligence. Oftentimes, when these technologies are being innovated, they’re being developed or perhaps designed and then implemented, one of the things that is… Excuse me. One of the things that is always looked at is the positive aspect of these particular technologies. Very little, I think, in the process of these designs up to the implementation stage, do we or do the developers think about the consequences or the threats that these technologies present? And this then brings us to concerns around privacy and data protection, for example, and also other ethical concerns such as ownership and control, because we know that as the technologies are being developed, the concentration of ownership and control is in the hands of a few, especially as they trickle down to, say, for example, the Global South. We have issues around transparency and accuracy of the technologies. We have concerns around autonomy. We have concerns around power, which then speaks to aspects related to monopoly, to dependency, and to a certain extent, to digital colonialism, as the technologies become mainstream. So rather than becoming reactive when the concerns start, the unintended consequences start showing up, we need to be a bit more proactive, and I think this is where AIDA might actually come in. So some of the questions that we need to ask is how do we become responsive to responsible innovation? For me, I think one of the things that we ought to be looking at is being inclusive, particularly when we are looking at how these technologies permeate globally. Yes, of course, they perhaps start from more developed countries, and then trickle down to less developed countries, but the issues perhaps may be similar to a certain extent, because obviously, privacy and data protection concerns, I think, could be universal to a certain extent, although, of course, the way these concerns may be looked at or experienced could be slightly different. We also need to be cognizant of the fact that we need to understand how these technologies can have an impact on the different subjects that start using these particular technologies. So how do we go about ensuring that we co-create, for example, or co-produce these particular technologies? Because for the most part, we have these technologies as global technologies. And when we’re talking about global technologies, sometimes we should be concerned about who are the voices that are representing these particular technologies in a global manner. Do we have everybody at the table when we’re talking about ethical concerns that impact people? And for the most part, I think there is a gap in terms of who is at the table, whose voices are being represented, whose social and ethical concerns we’re going to be talking about. And if we’re going to have an agency like IDA, that may actually help in terms of overlooking or supervising or indeed monitoring these particular concerns so that we can actually use these innovations, we can actually use these emerging technologies in a more responsible and not irresponsible manner. So this is what I have to contribute for now. And then hopefully I’m looking forward to an exchange with everyone else here. Thank you.

Evelyn Tornitz:
Thank you, Kutuma, for adding this aspect of responsiveness, which is, I think, really a key word that is not often mentioned, but I think, yes, you’re right. I mean, if we want responsible innovation, it should be responsive, inclusive, and proactive, as you mentioned. Thank you very much for adding this point. We will go on now with Frank Kirchner, who is joining us online. Frank, are you there?

Frank Kirchner:
Yes, I’m there. Can you hear and see me?

Evelyn Tornitz:
Yes, we do.

Frank Kirchner:
Okay, cool. Yeah, thank you for the opportunity. My name is Frank Kirchner. I’m the director of the German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence, actually. And at the same time, I’m the professor for robotics at the University of Bremen. What I would like to take a point of view, of course, from creating these robots, creating these systems that we actually call AI-based robots, because they’re… have to act and are already acting in real world environments in direct cooperation, for example, with people in production facilities, but also already in private households. And I think what we’re seeing now is just the beginning of it, because in many countries, because of the demographic factor, we will have a very, very high need for more and more of this kind of automation. At the same time, these systems will be required to do even more complicated tasks that usually have been done or are still done today by human beings. So what that means is that we have to create systems, robotic systems, acting in a real world environment, maybe in direct contact with human beings, that will have to be able to perform really complicated, maybe for human beings, trivial tasks, like packing something or cleaning your house and stuff. But for a robot, for a technical system, it’s still very complicated. And this can only be achieved with massive intervention by artificial intelligence tools. So having said that, as Peter said, there’s one thing that is actually one way and one alley that we have to go down that is really very useful and can be of high value for humankind. But on the other hand, because we have to use these highly sophisticated AI models, there’s only always the risk of danger in whatever way to misuse these systems as well. So how do we deal with this? The problem is that we cannot say we avoid it. You know, we cannot say that we don’t touch it, we don’t do it, because it will be done. It’s already moving forward. And one thing that has already been mentioned by the previous speaker is that if we look at who’s able to actually do these kind of things today, you know, who can build these robots, who can build the systems that can drive the robots, the AI technology inside? It’s only very few. And it’s not even states, it’s not even countries. It’s actually private companies. So if you want to create the foundational models that you need in order to… enable a robot to do these kind of tasks that I was describing, you have to put a lot of money into creating the model, the foundational model. And if you look at who is doing this today, it’s the big five. And not even countries, not even the high developed and rich countries in Europe or North America are putting the kind of resources to the table. So this kind of in this idea of having the IDA, I think I do support a lot because it gives the opportunity to create ways to design these systems that gives the power to more and more people. So instead of just having a few experts that can design these kind of systems, we have the possibility by creating standards in the way we design and program these systems from the very low level mechanical and electronic level of performance all the way up to the high level behavior and decision making in these devices. So these standards have to be created and somebody has to monitor them. And that’s something that can be done by as we have seen it in software development tools in general. If you go back to the 70s, for example, there were a few people on the planet that could program your IBM computer. And these guys were flown back and forth between all parts of the world in order to do this kind of programming. In the meantime, we have been able to develop frameworks and model based development tools that allows basically everybody to program his own computer. And the same thing, I think we have to think about for robotics and for artificial intelligence based system. The effect of this will be that we have more and more people that are able to not just create these systems, but also to understand they’re working and to understand their inner functionality. And that usually is a way, effective way to block and to put a wall to misuse of these kind of systems. The other thing that these model-based frameworks for design and programming allows us to do is we can also use meta-knowledge, meta-knowledge for all the parts that go into these robots. We can have a cradle-to-grave tracking of all the components that go into these robots. Where has this motor been produced? Who has produced it? What material was used for it? What was the carbon footprint for exactly this material that went into your robot? We can track it, but all by having a more standardized way to design, to build, and finally to program and use the kind of systems that by no means, by no question, we need in the future to serve so many challenges that humankind is facing now and moreover in the future. That would be my comment and my hope for something that an institution or an idea like the IDA could support and maybe even be an institution like Peter said, to monitor this kind of development worldwide. Thank you.

Evelyn Tornitz:
Thank you, Frank, for adding this new aspect of creating standard and also monitoring the compliance with this standard and also this tracking system that you mentioned for the design development use of robots and AI. We’re going to go on now with our on-site participant, Yonggeom, on my left side. Okay.

Hyung Jo Kim:
Thank you very much. The pronunciation for European is very difficult. I’m sorry for that. Okay. Thank you very much for having me and this good opportunity to this meaningful meetings, especially for Professor Petter. I have many things learned from this conference yesterday and today, also from the presenter. How should we live and prepare for our digitalized society in order to preserve or even more promote our human rights with digital technology? Let me start with a brief quote of a technical philosopher, Heidegger. A quote began, regardless of whether we enthusiastically embrace technology or deny technology, we are bound to it helplessly. The question concerning technology, so, and yes, the using of AI is unstoppable current. For example, I should show our situation in Korea to express. Before three months, the Korea Ministry of Education decided to offer AI education to all our children and high school students, starting in 2025. In addition, primary subjects such as math, English, will be taught with AI tools. It means two ways, coding and some related to AI technology, we should all, we should all run in our education knowledge, we should do, and also in other subject, mathematics and English, English, with this subject, also with AI tools to all, to be offered to all our children. So in this context, I would like to say that it is very self-evidently that we should have an agent such as control tower item. Because as we are well known, AI technology has not only positive but also as mentioned a negative side. So that we need a control tower in order to minimize the negative side. It is self-evidently. Therefore, more, I think more significant is not merely asking whether it is possible but asking a question in regarding how it should be, should, will be. More concrete, how we should and will build the institute. Because such a question finally constitutes an object or target of our question. And the thought underlying the question constitutes the character of that object. Meaning to say, question make entity. So with following two questions, I would like to suggest a discussion in regarding of directional building of item. First is about the problem of infinity regress. In the age of artificial intelligence, data are becoming ownerless. Even though yesterday many presenters in the main session have stressed the data authority. But this fact can be considered as a contra-factual evidence for the fact that the ownerhood of data is becoming weak. The agency that regulates the use of data will eventually collect more data than any other agency should be controlled or regulated. This could lead to call for the agency to be. are subject to be also controlled as well, yeah? Therefore, it is important to well demonstrate the agency’s trustworthiness. At this moment, we should come back to the value of transparency and fairness. The second, the problem is of definitional research on human rights. Okay, if we discuss the concept of human rights in the abstract and theoretical dimension such as level of political declaration, maybe, today so many speaker, yesterday in the main session said, it may be related to the just philosophical concept such as very broad concept human rights or human dignities, but however, if we consider the cultural context in Africa or Asia and so many other group, the concept of human rights will be made concrete and realized in accordance with the situation. This should be a research group to establish a good circle or the victoria circle structure between general and particular value, namely, universality and diversity. I think this should ultimately be implemented through collaborated research between various research group, something a low researcher and ethics and philosophical research group. Okay, my point worked too. Thank you very much.

Evelyn Tornitz:
Thank you very much also to you, Yongo, also for pointing out the role of, Yes, thank you very much, Yongo, also for pointing out first the role of education and knowledge which we have. haven’t talked about yet, and also for highlighting the need of transparency, fairness and embedding human rights in their contexts. So we will go on now with our online speaker Migle. Migle, are you there? Yes, I am. Can you hear me? Yes, we hear you perfectly. And we see you

Migle laokite:
okay. Good. So first of all, it’s great to see you again, although it’s online, but it’s great to see Evelyn, Peter, Kutuma and Hyongho. It’s great to see you again. My point, thanks of course for this opportunity to explain why do I think that AIDA is relevant and necessary in this in this in this context of especially artificial intelligence advancements. So basically, my point was more, you know, I start from the European perspective. So as to argue that, well, we need we do not have and therefore we need a sort of international agency to address the threats that the artificial intelligence and the related systems might give rise to, so much so that European Parliament has recently published its suggestions on how to expand how to improve the proposal for the Artificial Intelligence Act that the European Commission is promoting, right, that the first artificial intelligence legislative document that we are right now negotiating at the European level. And one of the things that the European Parliament has seen as very relevant and very, very important was the idea that we need to address the not only classify artificial intelligence on the basis of the risk, but also bear in mind that the high risk artificial intelligence systems might and surely will have a huge impact on the human rights. And therefore, European Parliament has proposed to propose that the high-risk artificial intelligence systems should undergo the fundamental rights impact assessment, which was not foreseen in the original version of this legislative proposal. So the assessment of this impact would basically include such elements as the purpose of the system, intended geographic and temporal scope of the use of the system, categories of natural persons and groups, not only persons as such, but also groups likely to be affected by the use of the system. How we are going to verify that the particular artificial intelligence system is compliant with the legislation related to the fundamental rights, but of course it applies to the human rights more widely. And what kind of reasonably foreseeable impact we can envisage through this impact assessment and what specific risks, what harms can we think of and what adverse impact there might be. And should this assessment lead to the certain huge and negative outcomes so that the foreseeable misuses or harms are kind of especially relevant, the developer needs to inform both the national and national authorities and also the stakeholders and in particular, the national supervisory authority that might start the investigation. So having said this, of course we say, okay, that’s a great initiative and well, we very much hope. that all these assessments might be brought into being. What I do, where I do see the role of AIDA is that is making, is basically being the focal point where all these assessments might flow. So as to basically make the good use of all this enormous amount of information related to artificial intelligence risks and harms to people and groups of individuals or ethnical groups or any other groups of human beings because this information is fundamental to prevent these risks and negative impacts, right? So making this knowledge also available and accessible for international organizations would help us also not only to prevent these harms from taking place in Europe but also would expand this protection worldwide because United Nations and in particular this the International Database Systems Agency, so AIDA could be the institution that could be in charge of this task because otherwise, we discover things in Europe but then we would say, okay, so that many companies might say, okay, we cannot do this in Europe but there is the rest of the world, right? Where you can do anything you want. And the way to prevent this from taking place is to build AIDA and make it the focal point for this sort of information to be distributed, accumulated and put to the use that would prevent any abuse, harm or other negative effects on the people from other continents where actually I think Thuma rightly pointed out that there is a tendency, there was a historical tendency, you know, to. to colonialize and abuse other continents. So I think this is the way to prevent also the repetition of historical errors we’re still kind of not comfortable with. Thank you very much.

Evelyn Tornitz:
Thank you very much, Miglia, for your input. And also highlighting again, I think all the speakers have agreed that technology has lots of advantages, but we also need to handle the negative consequences and the risks, especially when it comes to these high risks AI that you mentioned, which at least at the European level then has this impact assessments and what to do with this assessments or with this information that these assessments generate, like ideally to predict future risks. So there also we have like a new contribution that we have not discussed so far yet for AIDA. We will go on now to our last speaker who is online from Brazil. I’m not going to ask you what time zone that is and what hour of the day, but Yuri, if you are there, can you hear us?

Yuri Lima:
Sure. Thank you, Evelyn. It’s 4 a.m. in Rio. So good afternoon to the participants of this important session on the International Database Systems Agency. It is a pleasure to be here today. I would like to briefly speak about the challenges of building a fair international division of labor in the digital economy. In the past decade, we have witnessed the rapid and unprecedented evolution of AI and digital platforms that ushered in a new digital hyper-globalized economy. These powerful changes have transformed the essence of work globally and will continue to do so. While the potential of recent technological advances to drive growth and innovation is staggering, there is a significant disconnect between the pace of this evolution and society’s capacity to adapt. The speed at which new technologies emerge far surpasses our collective ability to understand, regulate, and fairly integrate them into our economic fabric. The result is an unequal distribution of the benefits of this technological progress. The digital economy, as it stands, presents a stark disparity between the international flow of profits and labor. While a handful of multinational tech giants amass incredible wealth, sometimes larger than countries’ GDPs, most of the digital labor force finds itself in a challenging position. This dichotomy results in an international division of labor that is often invisible, underpaid, and inhumane. A modern dynamic that echoes centuries-old practices when resources from many were channeled to benefit a privileged minority. The technologies might have changed, but the underlying logic in their development, operation, and even disposal still relies on exploring cheap labor from the global south. From Kenyan content moderators who flag harmful content to train chat TTP, and gig workers in Brazil who drive for Uber while producing data that helps to develop autonomous cars that will eventually replace them, to the Congo miners who extract the materials to produce the next iPhone that will later be dumped in electronic waste landfills in Thailand. Many people around the world face poor working conditions with low pay and little to no labor rights or protections. to sustain a digital economy that seems very clean and slicky in the developed economy’s Silicon Valley. Meanwhile, Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights articulates everyone’s rights to just and favorable conditions of work and to just and favorable remuneration, ensuring an existence worthy of human dignity. Moreover, the Sustainable Development Goal No. 8 calls for decent work for all, fostering economic growth while upholding workers’ dignity, safety, and rights. Sadly, the current digital economy diverges from these noble ideals. In consequence, the time has come for urgent action to promote a more ethical international division of labor in the digital economy. We need greater transparency around the supply chains in labor practices that sustain big tech. We must recognize that the role of underdeveloped countries in the global flow of technology and wealth cannot be diminished in importance, as it is imbricated with the more valued parts of this global value chain, both sustaining and allowing it to exist in the first place. The global South, where much of this digital sweatshop labor takes place, must have a seat at the table in determining global rules for the digital economy. Enter the potential role of an international data-based systems agency, IDA, an agency that can serve as a sentinel, monitoring and ensuring that the principles of fairness, justice, and equality are upheld in the digital sphere. Observing the current state, but also anticipating future challenges, IDA can shine a light on areas. that have remained in the shadows, revealing inequities, identifying best practices, and recommending actionable solutions. An IDA at the UN level can bring transparency and provide a platform for governments, workers, businesses, and civil society to engage, collaborate, and commit to a fairer digital economy. By promoting the rights to a fair International Division of Labour, IDA would ensure that a larger portion of the society, not just the privileged few, enjoy the fruits of the digital revolution. In conclusion, while technology drives progress, it is our collective responsibility to ensure that this progress does not come at the cost of human rights and sustainability. As we build a more technologically advanced society, we cannot leave human rights and dignity behind. The future we want is one of inclusive prosperity and equity. Getting there will require both steps to reform the International Division of Labour in the digital economy as it stands. An International Database Assistance Agency at the UN can be a platform for technical cooperation in the field of digital transformation, promoting a just and equitable digital future for all. Thank you.

Evelyn Tornitz:
Thank you very much, Joeri, for also pointing out here what Koutouma already mentioned as well, like who is sitting at the table and that absolutely the Global South also needs to be included as well if we talk about labour rights, but of course, and inclusive living. Thank you for that. We have now heard the inputs of all our speakers, so I would like to give the word to the audience, both on-site and online, first for a round of questions and answers to our panellists. Maybe we can start first with the participants here on-site, if you have any open questions.

Audience:
Yes. Hi. Oh, can you hear me? Okay. Hi, my name is Suji, and I’m from Seoul, Korea. And I’m studying public administration in the Seoul National University, and now I’m a PhD student. So I really, really wanted to ask, is there any model as a governance? I mean, is AIDA looking for an IAEA model or FDA model kind of things? So if you are thinking that AI could be a hazard as a nuclear energy, then are you thinking about IAEA model? And then do you think it is fit for the context of AI, and what should be the authority and power for the governance exactly? And so I was curious about what the governance body of IAEA would actually do concretely, and what the authority or power should it have? Thank you.

Evelyn Tornitz:
Thank you so much for posing this very important question, like about the concrete function and powers also. Who would like to answer that question from the panelists, maybe? Peter?

Peter Kirchschlediger:
Well, thank you so much for the question. So you’re absolutely right that there need to be adoptions made to, let’s say, the model of the International Atomic Energy Agency adopting it to the field of AI. I think you’re absolutely right on that. I still think that the model of the International Atomic Energy Agency can serve to give us orientation how many functions, rights, entitlements such an agency should have in order to really make a difference then on the ground. Because I think what’s important now is that I think we have gone through a period of beautiful declarations and guidelines and recommendations. but we haven’t seen yet so much impact of that. You know, businesses run as usual. We’re still facing the same risks. You know, we are not that good in identifying the ethical opportunities together. Not everyone is benefiting from AI, and so we need something really which is teethful, so has an impact. And I think there, we need to adopt the International Atomic Energy Agency model in order to make it fit for AI, but I think it’s possible looking at, for example, concrete functions IDA should have. For example, what is absolutely usual and not even questioned in the field of the pharmaceutical industry is a certain kind of approval of access-to-market process. And something similar would be needed to be done in the field of AI, so IDA would have the rights to run such approval process. Secondly, it would need to have, I mean, the proposal would be that it has also possibility to sanction not only state but also non-state actors not fulfilling their duties, not fulfilling their obligations. So in order really to make, to see a difference, you know, of the impact of artificial intelligence on the ground. Basically, you know, the underlying motive is to protecting the weak from the powerful. So, and of course, who the powerful is, as we have heard from Frank Kirchner from Germany, is that, you know, the powerful, it has kind of shifted, you know, the powerful in the field of AI are the multinational tech giants and not so much the states anymore. So of course, that needs to take into consideration as well. Thank you.

Evelyn Tornitz:
Would you also like to add something?

Kutuma Wakanuma:
Yeah, just quickly. And I think, for me, this also relates to Mikla’s contribution when she talked about the… on their own rights, on their own interests, that says that the borders must have an overall employment-free status. And then people who want to live, they can just attach their palm to the whole across the world to get the stuff that they need. That’s the kind of idea, but I think the third one out of seven just focuses on the health as well as the education. Perhaps also Africa might be looking at a different kind of act or regulations. And within these particular countries or continents, there will be also countries looking at different regulatory policies or acts if you like, whatever it is that they are looking at in terms of AI policy. And so for me, I think that IDA would be, one of the things that IDA could do is to then sieve through all these different regulatory policies to help come up with, I know it’s going to be quite difficult, but at least come up with something akin to one global standard of artificial intelligence because as Peter rightly said, one of the things that IDA would do is to, potentially do, is to protect the weak from the strong. So if we have an organization or an agency like IDA, I think it might help to then come up with some standard or some AI act that can be cohesive and cover a global ground so that everyone is protected in that respect.

Evelyn Tornitz:
Thank you very much for these, hello, no. Yes, okay, thank you for sharing your insights on that and are there any more questions here from the onsite participants? If not, we would go on to see if there are online questions, but please, if you have any. If you have any more questions, feel free to pose them. If not, Melina, she’s our online moderator, may I ask, are there any questions in the online chat?

Melina:
Good afternoon. Yes, actually, there’s one question by Ayalev Shebeji. So I would like to invite you to ask your question. And now he didn’t raise the hand, but he already posed the question in the chat. I will read it. And is it possible to protect or prevent international database information by building sophisticated technology advancement? Or is there any other means to protect or prevent from the hackers?

Evelyn Tornitz:
Who would like to answer that?

Audience:
Okay. Sorry. Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity. I can elaborate my question, it looks like a little bit cluttering words.

:
Sorry, maybe if you could put on your camera, is that possible?

Evelyn Tornitz:
So we can also see you?

Audience:
Yeah, okay. No worries.

Evelyn Tornitz:
Thank you so much.

Audience:
I joined IGF in Addis Ababa last year. And I’m researching in digital fiat currency or CDBC in Australia. I just finished my master in information and communication technology. My understanding is last year, there is a positive and negative impact of AI. And also, we haven’t mentioned here is a lot of technologies behind it. We have AOT and IOT and also… blockchain technologies, all these technologies is generating huge amount of data. We are trying to create, as I can see now, international database. So are we really creating international database and protecting this database with a sophisticated technology or is there any other mechanism we can regulate internationally with global south, including global south at the current database, for example, SWIFT code or SWIFT is internationally a data transaction with a cross border and that’s 835 different banks of different nations is signed and regulated. We need to find that kind of international rules and regulation. Also, we need to think how we teach the hackers. If we hack another country, what happens if another person or another hacker is hacking our own country? We need to have ethics. So what are actually these international IGF forum, try to find out and set up all inclusive countries, international law, which is governing both internet and internet related technologies and what are the what are the perspectives? This is my question. So thank you very much. If it’s not clear, I can elaborate more.

Evelyn Tornitz:
Thank you very much for your question. If I understood correctly, your question has to do with the regulation of this huge amount of data. and how the Global South can be included specifically. Please correct me if something is missing. Okay, so who wants to address this question from the panelists, both on-site or online? Kutuma, please go ahead, yes.

Kutuma Wakanuma:
Well, I don’t know if I’m going to address it adequately, but yeah, I’ll address it in a manner that I kind of perhaps understood it. I think your question for me took me to reflect on discussions that we’re having around CHAT-GPT. I mean, it hasn’t been very long. I mean, a couple of years, if you like, we didn’t really have a concern around CHAT-GPT. So now, you know, we’re starting to look at it and think about all these concerns in education and, you know, in different kinds of sectors. And CHAT-GPT is a classic example of how these unintended consequences can actually affect different, I suppose, organizations or corners of the world differently. And it’s one technology that is permeating everywhere. And people are struggling to understand how or what policies, you know, we can start looking at. I mean, coming from being an academic and, you know, being very much involved in student activities and student modules and things like that, we are now thinking about, oh, okay, this is a technology that has bolted. So there is no way of, you know, bringing it back. So how do we help students or how do we encourage students to use it responsibly? And I think this is something that everyone is kind of thinking about across the globe. And there is no… there is no right way of looking at it and this is why we probably need agents like AIDA to proactively look at these particular global events or situations and how we can then have global mitigating aspects related to this. So and one of the things that we ought to be doing also is to be inclusive and I think you did allude to the fact that in the global south, it could be an impact and things like that but for the most part, only a few, I suppose, especially from developed, more developed countries really are sitting at the table discussing these particular elements and we need an agency like AIDA to ensure that everyone, including people from the global south, from the global north, are sitting at the table trying to find solutions to concerns that are currently emerging or to have a foresight in terms of what could potentially come as a result of these particular technologies coming in. We shouldn’t just sit around and wait until something has happened in order for us to then start scrambling to find solutions and this is one example of what CHRGPT has done and I’m sure a lot of other upcoming technologies are doing. So I hope I’ve answered your question, perhaps even in a little way, thank you.

Evelyn Tornitz:
Yes, of course, Peter, please.

Peter Kirchschlediger:
May I just, well, thank you so much for your question. I just wanna add three minor points. I think the first thing is really that AIDA should promote technological cooperation and I think that’s very important for for tackling, you know, cyber security. And secondly, it shows also that IDA needs to have some kind of force also being legally binding because a problem like cyber security, we cannot tackle with recommendations and guidelines. And thirdly, I think it creates a certain kind of optimism that this will be possible to find, you know, global consensus on IDA because of the huge and enormous damage, economic damage. Cyber security is basically, you know, threatening all of us, be it, you know, state actors, be it non-state actors. And to join forces in that regard, you know, could help us to tackle that huge issue. And I would suggest that, you know, IDA could play a substantial role in that. Thank you.

Evelyn Tornitz:
Thank you very much, Peter. Are there any further questions from the audience online? Melina, is there anybody there who want to ask another question?

Melina:
No, I don’t see any more questions. Does anyone want to add something?

Frank Kirchner:
Well, if there’s no other questions, I would like to add to what Peter just said to the question of Yadel. I think Peter already said, we cannot prevent hackers from doing what they want to do. You know, it’s criminal. So we will always have criminals in the world. And if they have enough criminal energy, they will do it. So this is not the way we can make this data safe. But there is, of course, other ways to do it. And that’s what my comment was about the standardization and the opening of this knowledge to a broader audience, to a broader audience. To a broader audience, to a broader public, you know? And this is exactly where the agency could play a vital role. Because if you think about Wikipedia. You know, if you think something like this is an open database, you know, a database of knowledge and everybody can read it and everybody can add to it. And this is how I think you would be able to minimize the possibilities of misuse or hacking or whatever, by the largest extent, because if everybody sees and has the benefit from having this database, everybody will also make sure that this database is not corrupted. So still means that there’s possibilities for people that want to misuse it, they will misuse it. And then we have, like has already been said, ways actually of regulatory or laws, you know, that can then intervene and say, okay, you misuse this data, you will be, you know, punished by law, you know, because you committed a crime or whatever, because you misused the data that we’ve provided to the general public all over the planet. But to my mind, the biggest or the best possibility to make sure that we can use this great technology, which is it, which it is, right, it is a great and very, very powerful technology. We have to use it, but we have to use it to our best for benefit. And we have to live with the fact that there will always be people that try, at least, to misuse it. And this is where governance and where governments can come in and set in, you know, regulations like the EU says, you will not be punished for creating artificial intelligence, you will be punished for misusing it, you know, if you come up with an application that is misusing artificial intelligence. So that’s my perspective. And I think it’s correct what you said, you know, by looking at the further demands on automation that I have referred to, all these machines, all these robots, all these machines, you mentioned the Internet of Things, they will all create data. And it is. an enormous challenge and task for humankind actually, how to manage and how to create and how to safeguard this data. But it cannot be just in the hand of a few big companies. We should not forget that, Peter also mentioned it. It’s not the States, it’s not United States, it’s not Germany, it’s not the European Union that is creating these techniques. It’s companies, it’s companies that have enough money to pay the energy bill of a state like New York to create a foundational model, billions of dollars. Nobody can put these billions of dollars out. And the most stupid thing is that they are all doing it again and again and again. So if Microsoft comes up with creating-

Evelyn Tornitz:
I’m sorry to interrupt you, Frank, but I got the sign here from the technical staff that we have to come to a close of this session. But I would like again to take the opportunity to thank all participants, all speakers, both on and offline. I think there was a broad consensus that we need to, if possible, proactively prevent the misuse and risks of so-called artificial intelligence database systems. And standard setting, of course, as also Frank has put it out now at the end, is a way to do it, is also a way to do it for IDA. And yes, thank you very much again for being here. And I’m sure that discussion is gonna continue. Who knows, maybe at next year’s IGF, let’s see. So thank you again for being here. Thank you.

Audience:
Thank you. Thank you.