Capacity development Archives | Digital Watch Observatory

Inaugural UN Global Dialogue on AI Governance ends with call to turn principles into action before 2027

The inaugural United Nations Global Dialogue on AI Governance concluded in Geneva with a clear message from governments, industry, civil society, and international organisations: the success of global AI governance will depend not on the principles adopted, but on the concrete actions taken before participants reconvene in New York in 2027. Speakers repeatedly argued that narrowing the widening AI divide, strengthening international cooperation, and embedding human rights into AI governance will require practical implementation rather than new declarations alone.

From principles to practice

Iceland’s President Halla Tómasdóttir opened the closing plenary by arguing that AI’s future will be shaped not by technological capability but by human choices about power, accountability, and inclusion. Drawing on Iceland’s experience of harnessing natural resources for the public good, she said AI should likewise serve society rather than narrow interests.

‘Access without agency is not inclusion,’ she said, warning that communities furthest from today’s centres of technological power must become co-authors of the AI future rather than passive recipients of it. She also cautioned that ‘principles without practice can inspire false comfort’, arguing that AI governance should ultimately be judged by whether it increases people’s dignity, opportunity, and hope.

Microsoft Vice Chair and President Brad Smith echoed those concerns, presenting new data showing that AI adoption has reached 27% of the working-age population in the Global North, compared with just 15% in the Global South. Without intervention, he warned, that gap is likely to widen further over the coming year. Smith identified four priorities for more equitable AI adoption: expanding access to electricity, completing global internet connectivity, supporting multilingual AI models, and making digital skills widely available. He also acknowledged that AI capabilities have advanced much faster than governance frameworks over the past year, calling interoperability between national governance approaches essential to avoid a fragmented regulatory landscape.

Building an inclusive global governance system

Several speakers underlined that no country or institution can govern AI alone and that the UN remains uniquely positioned to convene an inclusive international process.

Guy Ryder, UN Under-Secretary-General for Policy, described the organisation’s greatest strength as its ability to bring together all 193 UN member states alongside businesses, researchers, and civil society. He acknowledged the need for stronger coordination across UN agencies while arguing that the Global Dialogue should become a recurring platform connecting AI governance efforts across international organisations and forums.

Civil society representative Raman Jit Singh Chima of the Association for Progressive Communications urged policymakers to build on existing digital governance mechanisms such as the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) and the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), rather than replacing them with entirely new structures. He also warned that AI governance must be firmly grounded in human rights and informed by the experiences of women, girls, and marginalised communities, who are often disproportionately affected by AI systems while remaining underrepresented in governance discussions.

Namibia’s Minister of Information and Communications Technology Emma Theofelus shifted the discussion towards implementation, calling on the international community to help countries translate global AI principles into national legislation, invest in digital infrastructure, and strengthen scientific and technical capacity in developing economies. She argued that meaningful participation requires recognising countries’ different starting points rather than assuming all governments have equal resources and capabilities.

Dialogue identifies common priorities

The closing session also reflected on the discussions held across the Dialogue’s four thematic tracks, which collectively identified recurring governance gaps around infrastructure, funding, skills, trust, and participation.

Gaia Marcus, Director of the Ada Lovelace Institute, argued that public participation should become a source of evidence rather than a symbolic consultation exercise. Those most affected by AI systems, including workers facing automation and vulnerable communities, should have clear channels to influence policy decisions, she said, adding that trust depends on accountability rather than public relations.

Jaan Tallinn, co-founder of the Future of Life Institute, offered one of the session’s starkest warnings, arguing that AI capabilities are now advancing on a quarterly basis while governance processes typically evolve over years. He cautioned that frontier AI companies are pursuing increasingly capable systems despite acknowledging significant safety challenges, making international cooperation more urgent than ever.

Rapporteurs from the four thematic clusters highlighted broad convergence across the dialogue. Participants repeatedly called for stronger AI capacity building, practical interoperability between governance frameworks, greater support for local adaptation and multilingual AI, stronger human rights safeguards, and wider participation from developing countries and civil society. Rather than competing to build the most powerful AI systems, several speakers argued that countries should focus on developing the institutions, skills, and governance mechanisms needed to deploy AI responsibly.

Geneva lays the foundation for New York

Closing the event, co-chair Rein Tammsaar said the inaugural dialogue had brought together more than 4,200 registered participants from nearly 170 member states, alongside representatives of industry, academia, civil society, and international organisations. He argued that the discussions demonstrated the world’s challenge is no longer a lack of AI principles, but the absence of practical mechanisms to implement them.

Tammsaar said participants had moved beyond abstract debates towards discussions on national AI strategies, legal safeguards, teacher training, and public-sector capacity building. He also reiterated that the AI divide is about far more than access to technology, it is also about the ability to shape, govern, and benefit from AI.

Co-chair Egriselda López concluded that the Global Dialogue is intended not to replace existing AI governance initiatives but to connect them, strengthen cooperation, and help countries learn from one another. Recalling a remark from a representative of a small country who said, ‘We are here not to be a footnote,’ López said the statement captured the spirit of the inaugural dialogue.

Both co-chairs agreed that Geneva should be viewed not as the end of a process but as its beginning. They urged participants to return home with concrete commitments and practical actions so that, when the second UN Global Dialogue on AI Governance convenes in New York in May 2027, progress can be measured not by new principles but by tangible improvements in inclusion, capacity, and international cooperation.

Track all key moments from the Global Dialogue on AI Governance inaugural meeting on our dedicated page.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

AI governance must serve all countries, ministers tell UN Global Dialogue

Ministers and senior officials from around the world used the third high-level governmental plenary of the UN Global Dialogue on AI Governance to outline national priorities for AI, while calling for stronger international cooperation to ensure AI benefits are shared more equitably. Although countries differed on regulatory approaches, participants broadly agreed that AI governance must be inclusive, human-centric and grounded in multilateral cooperation if it is to narrow rather than deepen global inequalities.

Throughout the session, speakers highlighted AI’s transformative potential for healthcare, education, agriculture and public services, while repeatedly warning that unequal access to computing power, infrastructure, talent and financing risks leaving many developing countries behind.

Europe pushes safety-by-design and evidence-based governance

Germany and the European Union placed safety, trust and evidence-based policymaking at the centre of their interventions.

Germany’s Federal Minister for Digital Transformation and Government Modernisation, Karsten Wildberger, described AI as ‘an entirely new paradigm’ developing at unprecedented speed and argued that governments must actively shape its future rather than react to it.

‘We must shape AI because otherwise AI will shape us,’ he said, urging countries to embed safety, security and respect for human values into AI systems from the outset instead of attempting to add safeguards later.

Wildberger also announced Germany’s new National AI Safety and Security Institute, which will evaluate advanced AI systems and contribute to international cooperation alongside industry, academia and civil society.

Representing the European Union, Director-General of DG CONNECT Roberto Viola similarly highlighted AI’s enormous promise, pointing to advances in biotechnology, drug discovery and robotics that could accelerate scientific progress and economic growth. At the same time, he warned that AI could also be used to manipulate children, attack critical infrastructure or amplify other societal risks if left without appropriate safeguards.

Viola stressed that governance should remain grounded in scientific evidence rather than political assumptions, praising the work of the Independent International Scientific Panel on AI as an important source of objective expertise for policymakers.

Developing countries call for ‘capacity before compliance’

If Europe focused on governance principles, developing countries focused on the practical barriers that prevent them from participating fully in the AI economy.

A recurring message throughout the plenary was that AI divides extend far beyond access to technology, encompassing shortages of computing power, electricity, broadband connectivity, quality datasets, skilled professionals and financial resources.

Indonesia’s Minister of Communications and Digital Affairs, Meutya Viada Hafid, argued that AI governance should support development rather than simply regulate risks. She introduced the principle of ‘capacity before compliance,’ warning that expecting countries with limited digital infrastructure to meet the same governance obligations as advanced AI economies would neither be realistic nor equitable.

Pakistan’s Minister of Information Technology and Telecommunication, Shaza Fatima Khawaja, similarly warned that the global ‘capability divide is real and it is widening.’ She urged countries to move beyond discussions of principles towards concrete investments in shared computing infrastructure, open-source models, regulatory sandboxes and a proposed global AI fund to help developing nations build sovereign AI capabilities.

Uganda highlighted that Africa currently possesses less than 1% of global AI computing capacity despite ambitious plans to use AI to support economic transformation, while Malawi described facing what it called an ‘impossible choice’ between accepting unacceptable risks or being left behind altogether.

Other speakers from Chad, Mozambique, Somalia and Mali echoed these concerns, arguing that AI governance should recognise different national circumstances while ensuring countries become active contributors to AI development rather than remaining dependent consumers of technologies designed elsewhere.

National strategies offer practical governance lessons

Alongside calls for greater international support, several governments presented national initiatives that they hope could contribute to future global governance models.

Thailand proposed serving as an international AI governance sandbox where global principles could be tested through practical implementation rather than remaining solely the subject of international discussions. Minister Chaichanok Chidchob warned that fragmented governance risks undermining trust itself and invited UN partners to develop scalable governance models through real-world experimentation.

Singapore shared lessons from its own AI governance experience, identifying reliable digital infrastructure, trusted access to high-quality data and strong public confidence as the three foundations of successful AI adoption. The country also highlighted its work on AI safety research and international technical standards.

Rwanda pointed to its national AI policy, newly established AI agency and broader Africa Declaration on Artificial Intelligence adopted by dozens of African countries as examples of regional cooperation designed to harmonise governance approaches.

Other governments showcased complementary initiatives. Chile proposed creating a multilateral network of AI sandboxes operating under common rules, while the Maldives argued that AI can only deliver meaningful public value when built on secure digital public infrastructure, trusted data systems and clear accountability mechanisms. Zimbabwe highlighted its recently launched National Artificial Intelligence Strategy and called for an international AI capacity-building fund alongside mutual recognition of AI ethics standards.

Interoperability emerges as a common governance goal

Although countries presented diverse national strategies, many converged around the idea that AI governance frameworks should be interoperable rather than identical.

Ireland argued that AI governance requires a shared international language built around transparency, accountability and human oversight, while the Netherlands described interoperability, not a single global rulebook, as the organising principle for the next phase of AI governance. Different jurisdictions, Dutch representatives argued, should be able to develop compatible systems based on common standards without sacrificing national flexibility.

Thailand echoed this concern, warning that fragmented governance could ultimately fragment trust itself. Indonesia similarly argued that trustworthy AI depends on interoperability rather than uniformity, while Singapore stressed the importance of internationally recognised technical standards that enable cooperation across borders.

This emphasis on compatibility reflected broader concerns that increasingly divergent national AI regulations could create unnecessary barriers to innovation, investment and international collaboration.

Cooperation remains the defining challenge

The closing interventions highlighted both the broad consensus and the remaining differences over how global AI governance should evolve.

India called on countries to choose ‘consensus over conflict’ before technological progress outpaces diplomacy, arguing that AI governance should provide every nation with a meaningful voice regardless of its level of technological development. Senegal promoted the Global Network for Cooperation on AI Capacity Building and welcomed proposals for a global AI fund to strengthen infrastructure and expertise in developing countries. Bahrain announced exploratory work on a potential global AI treaty initiative, while the United Kingdom highlighted partnerships helping countries across Africa develop local-language AI tools and strengthen domestic AI ecosystems.

The United States, meanwhile, emphasised voluntary cooperation with industry and a pro-innovation regulatory environment rather than binding international rules, illustrating one of the clearest policy differences to emerge during the session.

Despite these differing approaches, participants broadly agreed that AI’s future cannot be shaped by any country acting alone. As ministers repeatedly argued, the success of AI governance will ultimately be measured not by the sophistication of frontier models, but by whether countries of every size and level of development can safely use AI to improve the lives of their citizens.

Track all key moments from the Global Dialogue on AI Governance inaugural meeting on our dedicated page.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

UN AI dialogue urges human rights to become the foundation of AI governance

Human rights must move from the margins to the centre of AI governance if societies are to harness AI without undermining democracy, equality and public trust, speakers argued during the fourth thematic discussion of the UN Global Dialogue on AI Governance.

Bringing together governments, UN agencies, civil society, academia and industry, the session examined how AI systems can better respect human rights through stronger transparency, accountability and human oversight. Participants agreed that AI governance should be grounded in international human rights law throughout the entire AI lifecycle, from design and development to deployment and oversight.

AI deserves the same safeguards as medicines

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk opened the discussion by comparing AI regulation to the approval process for new medicines. Drugs undergo years of testing before reaching patients, he noted, yet AI systems are being deployed at unprecedented speed despite already contributing to mass surveillance, online disinformation, discrimination and growing risks to children.

Türk rejected the notion that regulation inevitably slows innovation, arguing instead that robust safeguards enable societies to trust new technologies. International human rights law, he said, already provides a binding framework for addressing issues such as privacy, equality, non-discrimination and access to justice, and should guide AI governance rather than being treated as an afterthought.

He also stressed that human oversight must be meaningful rather than symbolic, with clearly identified individuals empowered to intervene or halt AI systems when necessary. Summarising his vision for responsible innovation, Türk contrasted the technology industry’s pursuit of ‘bigger, faster, better’ with what he described as a more appropriate goal: ‘smarter, kinder, wiser.’

Women and children bear disproportionate AI risks

The first panel focused on how AI is amplifying existing inequalities, particularly for women, children and other vulnerable groups.

UN Women Executive Director Sima Bahous presented evidence showing that 44% of assessed AI systems exhibit gender bias, while up to 99% of online sexual deepfakes target women. She also noted that women remain significantly underrepresented in AI development, with only a minority of national AI strategies explicitly addressing gender equality.

Bahous argued that governments remain the primary duty bearers under international human rights law and called for mandatory human rights impact assessments before and after AI deployment, alongside the meaningful participation of women, indigenous communities, disability advocates and civil society in AI governance.

Sonia Livingstone, a member of the Independent International Scientific Panel on AI, highlighted growing evidence that AI-generated child sexual abuse material is increasing rapidly and warned that many AI companion systems currently fail basic child safety standards. Rather than excluding young people from digital technologies, she argued, policymakers should ensure that children’s rights to participation, education and expression remain protected while embedding safeguards into AI systems from the outset.

Agentic AI raises new accountability challenges

Speakers also warned that increasingly autonomous AI systems are exposing significant legal and governance gaps.

Morocco’s Minister Delegate Amal El Fallah Seghrouchni described agentic AI as one of the most important governance challenges of the coming decade. As AI systems increasingly rely on networks of autonomous agents making decisions without direct human instruction, identifying responsibility when something goes wrong becomes considerably more difficult.

She proposed several practical measures, including documenting the actions of AI agents throughout decision-making processes, ensuring that a clearly identifiable human remains responsible for AI-enabled public services, and guaranteeing timely avenues for redress when individuals are harmed.

Samuel Arias Arzeno, Judge of the Supreme Court of the Dominican Republic, similarly argued that governance only becomes meaningful when someone believes an AI system has violated their rights and seeks justice. Courts, he said, must remain central institutions for ensuring that AI-assisted decisions remain subject to human accountability.

Rights protections should not depend on geography

A recurring concern throughout the discussion was that meaningful human rights protections are often applied unevenly across different regions.

Digital Rights Foundation founder Nighat Dad argued that robust human rights due diligence is largely conducted only where legislation requires it, particularly in Europe, while identical AI systems may be deployed elsewhere without comparable safeguards. She described this as a structural choice rather than a capacity gap, creating what she called a ‘two-tier’ human rights regime.

Dad called for mandatory gender and child rights impact assessments before deployment, consistent due diligence obligations across all markets where AI systems operate, and repeated assessments whenever AI capabilities change significantly.

Alvitta Ottley, also a member of the Independent Scientific Panel on AI, highlighted what she described as an ‘evaluation mismatch’. Current AI assessments often measure technical performance such as speed and accuracy, she explained, while policymakers and societies are instead asking whether AI protects human rights, strengthens accountability and improves people’s lives. Closing this evidence gap will require interdisciplinary research and much stronger evaluation of AI’s long-term societal impacts.

UN Assistant Secretary-General for Youth Affairs Felipe Paullier added that young people remain among AI’s most active users and innovators, yet rarely participate in decisions shaping the technology’s future. He urged governments to create meaningful opportunities for youth participation within national AI governance frameworks.

Global South voices call for more inclusive governance

Audience interventions reinforced the need for AI governance that is genuinely inclusive rather than shaped primarily by a handful of countries and companies.

Brazil highlighted its Digital Statute for Children and Adolescents, which requires child protection measures to be incorporated from the design stage and restricts platform features that encourage excessive use. Poland pointed to the Council of Europe Framework Convention on AI as an important legally binding instrument placing AI within the broader framework of human rights, democracy and the rule of law, while the Republic of Korea presented its AI Basic Act, which requires human rights assessments for high-impact AI systems.

Civil society organisations called for stronger global action. Access Now urged governments to establish binding human rights safeguards and prohibit AI applications that pose unacceptable risks, while the Association for Progressive Communications argued that communities should be viewed as ‘the first mile, not the last mile’ of AI governance, emphasising that meaningful connectivity and local participation remain prerequisites for equitable AI development.

In the closing discussion, co-chair Linda Bonyo highlighted another overlooked barrier to inclusive governance: many Global South experts remain unable to participate in international discussions because of restrictive visa processes, illustrating that exclusion from AI governance can begin long before negotiations start.

Closing the session, Spain’s Minister for Digital Transformation and Public Service Óscar López Águeda acknowledged that governments are already behind the pace of technological change but insisted the direction ahead is clear. AI governance, he argued, is ultimately about defending democracy, human dignity and human agency, ensuring that AI helps societies become better rather than simply more technologically advanced.

Track all key moments from the Global Dialogue on AI Governance inaugural meeting on our dedicated page.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

Global Dialogue highlights need for interoperable AI governance

Building safe, secure and trustworthy AI requires countries to align their governance frameworks rather than adopt a single global regulatory model, participants heard on the second day of the UN Global Dialogue on AI Governance. Speakers from governments, international organisations, industry and civil society argued that interoperability, backed by common standards, scientific evidence and inclusive participation, is essential to address AI risks that increasingly cross national borders.

The discussion also highlighted a growing imbalance in global AI development, with participants warning that governance should not be shaped solely by the countries and companies leading frontier AI. Instead, they called for developing countries to become co-creators of international AI governance through stronger capacity development, shared standards and multilateral cooperation.

AI concentration risks becoming governance concentration

Opening the session, co-chair Paula Bogantes Zamora, Costa Rica’s Minister of Science, Innovation, Technology and Telecommunications, argued that the world has reached a point where agreeing on AI principles is no longer enough.

‘The world does not need more AI principles, it needs a common way to prove they’re being implemented.’

Bogantes Zamora warned that AI development remains heavily concentrated. She noted that institutions in the United States produced 59 notable AI models in 2025 and China another 35, while the rest of the world produced just 13. She argued that this concentration of infrastructure also creates a concentration of evidence, allowing a small number of actors to determine which risks are measured, which benchmarks are accepted and how AI safety is evaluated.

She also pointed to findings showing that 118 countries, primarily in the Global South, remain largely absent from major international AI governance discussions.

Rather than pursuing regulatory uniformity, Bogantes Zamora proposed what she called ‘minimal viable interoperability’ by 2027, including shared terminology, comparable risk classifications, interoperable incident reporting and multilingual evaluation methods that allow different governance systems to function together.

Interoperability should connect governance systems, not replace them

Co-chair Rebecca Finlay, CEO of the Partnership on AI, argued that governance efforts must be grounded in stronger scientific evidence and greater transparency.

She outlined three priorities: strengthening independent scientific research, improving public access to evidence through greater disclosure by AI developers, and creating shared baselines for measuring progress in the public interest.

‘The panel provides the evidence and the dialogue provides the direction,’ Finlay said, describing the UN scientific panel and the Global Dialogue as complementary processes.

UN Under-Secretary-General and Special Envoy for Digital and Emerging Technologies Amandeep Singh Gill echoed that message, warning that fragmented AI governance creates regulatory arbitrage, accountability gaps and unnecessary compliance burdens, particularly for smaller companies and developing countries.

Rather than harmonising all AI rules into a single global framework, Singh Gill argued that countries should focus on building practical bridges between different governance approaches.

He also highlighted the emergence of increasingly autonomous agentic AI systems as a new governance challenge requiring adaptive oversight mechanisms, including cross-border regulatory sandboxes and continuously updated risk assessment frameworks.

Existing frameworks provide building blocks

During the first panel, speakers pointed to several initiatives that could serve as foundations for greater interoperability.

Yoichi Iida, adviser at Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, highlighted the OECD AI Principles and the Hiroshima AI Process as examples of frameworks already helping countries align governance approaches despite different legal systems.

Syed Ahmed of Infosys said that translating broad principles into practical implementation remains technically challenging.

Using transparency as an example, he explained that the concept carries different technical requirements across governance frameworks, requiring detailed mapping of individual controls rather than simply aligning high-level principles.

Nouf Al Hameli of the UAE Ministry of Foreign Affairs similarly argued that countries define concepts such as ‘high-risk AI’ in different ways, making common incident reporting and mutual recognition of governance practices increasingly important.

Leonardo Cervera Navas, Secretary-General of the European Data Protection Supervisor, compared AI governance to aviation safety, arguing that while countries operate different legal systems, they nevertheless follow common international safety rules.

‘The higher the risk, the higher the care and supervision required,’ he said, referring to the EU AI Act’s risk-based approach.

Inclusive evaluation and trustworthy evidence remain critical

Several speakers argued that trustworthy AI depends not only on technical standards but also on ensuring that governance reflects linguistic, cultural and demographic diversity.

Dr Joy Buolamwini, founder of the Algorithmic Justice League, warned that widely used AI benchmarks often fail to represent the global majority, noting that some have historically included less than 5% of the world’s population.

She called for harm reporting systems that record not only technical failures but also who was affected, creating stronger foundations for accountability and redress.

Celeste Saulo, Secretary-General of the World Meteorological Organization, drew lessons from more than 150 years of international weather cooperation, arguing that trust cannot simply be declared.

‘Trust must be built through verification,’ she said, pointing to the organisation’s longstanding use of shared standards and independent validation across 193 countries.

Qinghua Lu of Australia’s CSIRO proposed greater collaboration through shared evaluation methods, common risk management principles and international testing exercises that include multiple languages and national contexts.

Global South calls for a stronger role in shaping AI governance

Interventions from member states and stakeholders repeatedly stressed that interoperability should not become another mechanism for exporting governance models developed elsewhere.

Pakistan argued that AI safety standards are currently shaped by a small group of countries and companies, calling instead for genuinely multilateral governance under the UN.

Brazil similarly stressed that interoperability must not undermine digital sovereignty, while South Africa argued that governance frameworks should reflect the realities of developing countries and support technology transfer and capacity development.

Other speakers highlighted practical priorities, including multilingual benchmarks, common standards for documenting AI training data, cross-border incident reporting systems and greater participation from local governments, academia and civil society.

Concluding the discussion, both co-chairs argued that trustworthy AI depends not on identical regulations but on governance systems that can communicate, exchange evidence and recognise one another’s safeguards.

They identified shared technical standards, independent evaluation, multilingual benchmarks, human rights protections and continuous multistakeholder cooperation as the foundations for AI governance capable of working across borders, while warning that progress will depend on maintaining momentum between international meetings rather than restarting discussions each year.

Track all key moments from the Global Dialogue on AI Governance inaugural meeting on our dedicated page.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

China and Denmark expand cooperation on AI and innovation

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi has expressed China’s readiness to strengthen cooperation with Denmark in areas including the green economy, innovation and AI during a visit to Copenhagen. Wang made the remarks in a meeting with Danish King Frederik X, alongside separate talks with Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen.

During a meeting with King Frederik X, Wang highlighted the longstanding relationship between China and the Danish royal family, noting previous state visits and describing them as a symbol of mutual respect and friendship.

King Frederik X said bilateral relations continue to develop positively, highlighting active trade and people-to-people exchanges. He added that the Danish royal family is ready to support closer cooperation, including in AI and other areas of mutual interest.

Wang also stressed the importance of people-to-people exchanges as the foundation of bilateral friendship during his visit to Copenhagen.

Why does it matter?

The discussions illustrate how AI is becoming a regular feature of bilateral diplomacy alongside trade, innovation and green technologies. Governments are increasingly treating cooperation on emerging technologies as part of broader economic and strategic partnerships rather than as a standalone technology issue.

The talks also reflect China’s continued effort to strengthen relations with individual EU member states despite broader tensions between Beijing and the European Union over trade, technology and economic security. Cooperation in areas such as AI and innovation offers a channel for engagement even as wider geopolitical differences persist.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

ENISA warns frontier AI is compressing cyberattack timelines

The European Union Agency for Cybersecurity has warned that frontier AI models are compressing cyberattack timelines and challenging traditional defence practices.

In a July 2026 paper, ENISA said advanced AI models are reducing the time between vulnerability discovery and exploitation, creating new pressure on vulnerability management, patching and incident response.

The agency said open-weight models may reach similar capabilities within 9 to 12 months, while existing models combined with skilled security experts can already produce comparable results.

ENISA warned that attackers may gain access to exploits before fixes are available, while legacy systems and end-of-life products could become more exposed to AI-assisted vulnerability discovery.

The agency also said more frequent patch releases may increase the risk of service disruption, while open-source maintainers could be overwhelmed by AI-generated vulnerability reports.

Security fundamentals still matter, but ENISA said defenders must apply them faster. It recommended shifting resources from vulnerability discovery towards risk-based prioritisation, rapid triage, remediation and risk reduction.

The paper also calls for defensive AI tools to be integrated into software development, incident response and threat modelling, with human-gated workflows and stronger workforce skills.

At the EU level, ENISA said existing frameworks, including NIS2, the Cyber Resilience Act, and the EU AI Act, should be used to assess and mitigate systemic risks linked to advanced AI models.

For defenders, the agency recommended near-real-time security operations, AI-assisted threat modelling, dynamic incident response pipelines and single-digit-minute detection and response targets.

Why does it matter?

ENISA’s paper frames frontier AI as a structural cybersecurity challenge, not just another tool for attackers or defenders. If vulnerability discovery, exploit development, and lateral movement happen at machine speed, organisations will need faster triage, stronger automation and clearer human oversight. The report also connects AI cybersecurity to the EU’s wider regulatory framework, showing that NIS2, the Cyber Resilience Act and the AI Act will all matter in managing systemic cyber risks from advanced models.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

Australia’s National AI Centre lists Microsoft Copilot training sessions for workers

Australia’s National AI Centre has listed two in-person Microsoft Copilot training sessions in Queensland aimed at helping participants build practical workplace AI skills.

The first session, Intro to Copilot, is scheduled for 7 July from 10:00 to 11:00 at The Precinct in Fortitude Valley. It is designed as an introductory session covering Microsoft Copilot Chat features, strengths and practical workplace uses for people with personal or business accounts.

The second session, Microsoft Copilot Workshop, will be held later the same day from 17:30 to 19:00 at the same venue. It is intended for people who already have access to Copilot at work but use it infrequently or want to build confidence using the tool.

Both Microsoft Copilot training sessions cover the fundamentals of generative AI, Copilot access, interface features, differences between personal and business versions, chat management, prompting techniques, Pages, Agents and responsible AI use. Participants in the workshop are asked to bring a device for hands-on exercises.

The events are hosted by the Queensland Government, with early-bird tickets priced at AUD 25 and general admission at AUD 40. The National AI Centre notes that registration is handled through third-party websites and that it does not endorse or take responsibility for their content.

Why does it matter?

The training sessions reflect a broader shift from introducing generative AI to helping employees use it effectively in day-to-day work. As tools such as Microsoft Copilot become more widely available, organisations are increasingly investing in practical skills such as prompting, workflow integration and responsible AI use.

The initiative also highlights the growing importance of AI literacy as a workforce capability. Building confidence in using AI tools may help organisations improve productivity while encouraging safer and more informed adoption across different sectors.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

UNDP scales blockchain-based digital payment solutions

The UN Development Programme and the Stellar Development Foundation have expanded cooperation on blockchain-based digital payment solutions for development and humanitarian use.

The partnership aims to support more transparent, efficient and low-cost digital transfers, including for humanitarian aid, remittances and national cash transfer programmes.

According to UNDP, recent work has tested whether blockchain-based payment flows can function under real operational constraints, including weak connectivity, high transaction friction and limited access to traditional financial services.

Pilot activity has included projects in Haiti, Guatemala and The Gambia, where teams examined how digital transfers could support households, microbusinesses and programme accountability.

The expanded cooperation is intended to help UNDP country offices assess and integrate validated digital payment solutions across areas such as humanitarian response, social protection and financial inclusion.

UNDP said the work will include operational guidance, safeguards and support for country teams considering blockchain-based payment tools.

The Stellar Development Foundation will continue providing technical and ecosystem expertise as the initiative develops.

The effort reflects growing interest in using digital assets and shared-ledger infrastructure for practical development applications, rather than only financial-market activity.

Why does it matter?

The expansion shows that blockchain-based payment systems are being tested for development and humanitarian delivery, not just for crypto trading or private financial markets. If implemented carefully, digital payments can reduce transfer friction, improve traceability and help reach people in areas with limited banking access. The policy challenge is to ensure that efficiency gains do not come at the expense of safeguards, data protection, accountability, user choice, or local financial system resilience.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our chatbot!

AI is reshaping work more through job transformation than job loss, WSIS panel hears

AI is changing the world of work in more complex ways than simply replacing workers, according to experts speaking at the WSIS Forum 2026. Panellists from the International Labour Organization (ILO) and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) argued that while AI will automate some tasks, its broader impact will be felt through changing job quality, workplace surveillance, recruitment practices and skills requirements, making human-centred policies essential to ensure workers benefit from the digital transition.

The discussion highlighted that governments, employers and workers all have a role in shaping the future of work, with speakers calling for stronger labour protections, social dialogue and investment in digital skills to prevent AI from deepening existing inequalities.

AI is changing tasks and working conditions more than eliminating jobs

Sher Verick, Head of the Employment Strategies Unit in the Employment Policy Department of the ILO, challenged the widespread narrative that AI will trigger mass unemployment. Presenting findings from the ILO’s AI exposure index, he said around one in four workers worldwide are exposed to AI, yet only 3.3% of global employment falls into occupations that are highly vulnerable to automation.

‘The focus shouldn’t only be on job losses,’ Verick argued, explaining that AI is transforming how work is organised rather than simply eliminating occupations. Jobs involving a diverse range of tasks are more likely to change than disappear, while new roles are already emerging across AI supply chains, including data annotation and other support functions.

He stressed that the most significant impact may be on job quality rather than job numbers. Automated recruitment systems, algorithmic task allocation and AI-driven performance monitoring are already reshaping working conditions across sectors, while productivity gains could eventually create new employment opportunities through wider economic growth.

Algorithmic management raises new concerns for workers

Uma Rani Amara, Senior Economist at the Research Department of the ILO, argued that the conversation about AI should extend well beyond generative AI tools such as ChatGPT to include the algorithmic management systems increasingly used across workplaces.

Drawing on examples from manufacturing and healthcare, she explained that AI-powered surveillance tools, CCTV systems and digital performance dashboards are allowing employers to monitor workers more closely than ever before. While companies often present these technologies as efficiency tools, she warned that they can increase workplace stress, intensify workloads and reduce workers’ autonomy.

In hospitals, digital workflow management systems may improve patient scheduling and resource allocation, but they also place nurses and doctors under greater pressure by increasing workload intensity and extending on-call responsibilities. Even commonly used tools such as messaging applications can create new privacy risks when sensitive information is shared outside secure systems.

Rani also drew attention to what she described as AI’s ‘invisible workforce’, the millions of people, largely based in the Global South, who label data, moderate content, and perform other essential tasks that allow AI systems to function.

‘We should stop calling it AI and start calling it ‘human-in-the-loop intelligence’,’ she said, arguing that AI’s apparent autonomy obscures the human labour underpinning every stage of its development.

She called for stronger protections for these workers through measures such as fair labour standards, mandatory disclosure of AI supply chains and certification systems showing where training data originates and under what working conditions it was produced.

Governments must shape the future of work

Juan Chacaltana, Senior Employment Policies Specialist at ILO, argued that technological change should not be viewed as an inevitable force to which societies simply adapt.

‘The future of work should be shaped through policy,’ he said, presenting findings from an ILO review of 75 employment policy documents that found governments increasingly integrating digital technologies into employment services, labour market information systems and skills programmes.

However, he cautioned against viewing digital tools as a solution in themselves. While technologies can help modernise public employment services and support labour market formalisation, they cannot replace traditional drivers of economic development such as productivity growth, investment and strong institutions.

Chacaltana also warned that governments should avoid using digital tools primarily for surveillance or enforcement. Instead, introducing digital identity systems, AI-assisted public services and labour market technologies should involve workers, employers and other stakeholders through meaningful social dialogue.

The discussion also highlighted groups facing particular risks during the AI transition. Rani warned that young workers could lose the entry-level jobs that traditionally provide experience and career progression, while women risk a ‘double whammy’ of displacement from automation alongside discrimination embedded in biassed AI recruitment systems. Older workers and people in informal employment could also face new forms of exclusion or reduced autonomy as algorithmic systems increasingly influence workplace decisions.

Skills and cooperation are key to an inclusive AI transition

Praachi Kumar, Capacity Development Officer at ITU, said demand for AI-related training has grown rapidly, with interest in AI courses through ITU Academy tripling over the past five years.

The Academy now serves more than 115,000 ICT professionals, the majority from developing countries, while ITU’s Digital Transformation Centres initiative has reached around 700,000 people in underserved communities through digital skills programmes.

Kumar said lifelong learning must remain human-centred, combining technical knowledge with practical experience and peer learning. She also highlighted new multilingual AI governance courses developed in partnership with UNESCO to help address widening skills gaps.

Throughout the discussion, speakers agreed that preparing workers for AI requires far more than technical training. They called for coordinated action across labour, education and technology ministries, alongside stronger partnerships between governments, employers, trade unions and international organisations.

Closing the session, moderator Maria Prieto Berhouet said the debate had consistently returned to one central principle: AI should serve people, not the other way around. Rather than allowing technological change to dictate the future of work, participants argued that governments and social partners must actively shape AI’s role so it enhances productivity while protecting workers’ rights, dignity and opportunities.

Track all key moments from the WSIS Forum 2026 on our dedicated WSIS page.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

UN pension fund case study highlights ServiceNow CRM rollout

An AI for Good Global Summit 2026 session will examine how the UN Joint Staff Pension Fund used AI and ServiceNow-based CRM tools to support digital services for more than 250,000 beneficiaries.

The session, titled How AI + ServiceNow powers UNJSPF for 250K+ beneficiaries, is scheduled for 7 July on the Solutions Stage.

According to the session description, the case study will focus on how AI and ServiceNow CRM were combined through NPSM, described as an AI-native platform built on ServiceNow.

Organisers say the implementation supported unified workflows, intelligent automation, improved visibility and a better user experience.

The session will also examine how the platform was designed to meet the security, scale and operational requirements of a UN system serving diverse stakeholders worldwide.

The case study is expected to offer lessons for nonprofits and humanitarian organisations seeking to move away from fragmented systems and simplify service delivery.

It will frame AI-enabled CRM and workflow automation as tools for reducing operational complexity and enabling organisations to allocate more resources to mission delivery.

Why does it matter?

The session shows how AI-enabled CRM and workflow tools are moving into large public-interest institutions, not only commercial customer service. For UN agencies, pension funds and nonprofits, the main question is whether such platforms can simplify operations while preserving security, accountability, data protection and reliable service delivery on a global scale. The case is useful, but it should be read as a platform case study rather than independent proof of measured impact.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!