Women and AI: Reflecting bias or reinforcing inequality?

Ask an image-generation model to create a CEO, a software engineer, or a successful entrepreneur, and chances are the result will be male. Ask for a nurse, a personal assistant, or a caregiver, and a woman is far more likely to appear.

Such outputs have fuelled growing concerns about gender bias in AI and the broader relationship between women and synthetic intelligence. Yet a more complicated question lies beneath the surface: are AI systems creating these stereotypes, or are they simply learning them from society?

AI learns patterns, not values 

AI is not neutral; it learns from historical and social data. From books and news archives to websites, social media posts, and workplace statistics, modern AI systems are trained on enormous quantities of human-generated content. If society has historically associated men with leadership and women with caregiving, AI is likely to learn those associations as statistical patterns. The real challenge emerges when these patterns are reproduced millions of times every day, shaping perceptions of what is normal, expected, or achievable.

The debate surrounding gender bias in AI is therefore not only about technology. It is also about how existing inequalities are translated into digital systems and whether AI ultimately reinforces or challenges them. 

Women and AI, gender bias
image via Magnific

How AI systems learn and reproduce gender bias

AI has often been portrayed as objective, rational, and free from human prejudice. Reality is more complicated. Machine learning models do not distinguish between desirable and undesirable social patterns. Their purpose is to identify relationships within data and use them to make predictions or generate outputs.

A landmark 2017 study published in Science demonstrated that AI language models learned many of the same implicit biases found among humans. Researchers discovered that word associations frequently linked men with careers, science, and leadership, while women were more closely associated with family and domestic roles. Importantly, the systems were not instructed to adopt these views. They simply learned them from the data available to them.

From a machine-learning perspective, stereotypes are not recognised as stereotypes. They are recognised as recurring patterns.

That distinction matters. AI does not understand concepts such as fairness, equality, or discrimination. It understands probabilities. If particular associations dominate books, websites, news reports, and online discussions, AI systems are likely to absorb those associations and reproduce them in their outputs.

Much of the discussion about women and AI begins here. Gender bias in AI is often less a product of malicious design and more a reflection of the social realities embedded in training data.

Women and AI, gender bias
image via Magnific

How AI amplifies gender stereotypes and inequality

Many experts argue that AI acts as a mirror of society. In some respects, that assessment is correct. If men currently occupy a majority of senior corporate leadership positions, the AI model that frequently depicts CEOs as male may simply be reflecting existing labour-market realities.

However, reflection is only part of the story.

Historically, stereotypes have spread through institutions, media, education systems, and interpersonal interactions. AI introduces a new dynamic because it operates at a scale no individual human can match. Search engines, recommendation systems, chatbots, virtual assistants, and generative AI platforms interact with millions of users simultaneously.

The concern, therefore, is not that AI can be biassed. Humans have always been biassed. The concern is that AI can replicate and distribute those biases with unprecedented speed, consistency, and reach.

A stereotype expressed by one individual has limited influence. A stereotype repeated by an algorithm millions of times can gradually shape expectations about who belongs in positions of authority, innovation, or expertise.

Questions surrounding AI and gender equality extend beyond technical accuracy. Even if an AI system reflects current realities, repeated exposure to those realities may reinforce the perception that they are natural, inevitable, or desirable.

Women and AI, gender bias
image via Magnific

How AI systems portray women and gender roles

Evidence of gender stereotypes in AI has appeared across a wide range of technologies.

Image-generation systems have repeatedly associated women with caregiving and support roles while portraying men as executives, scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs, and political leaders. Similar patterns have emerged in language models, search algorithms, and recommendation systems.

Such outputs raise concerns because representation influences perception. When leadership, technical expertise, and innovation are consistently presented through a male lens, AI may unintentionally reinforce assumptions about gender and professional capability.

Researchers often describe this phenomenon as representational harm. Unlike direct discrimination, representational harm does not necessarily involve financial loss or exclusion from opportunities. Instead, it affects how groups are perceived in society and how individuals understand their own potential.

For younger generations growing up alongside AI-powered technologies, these representations may become part of the digital environment through which social norms are learned. AI increasingly shapes the way people search for information, discover role models, and imagine future careers. As a result, the way women are portrayed by AI systems has implications that extend far beyond the technology sector itself.

Women and AI, gender bias
image via Magnific

The gender bias feedback loop in AI 

One of the most important concepts in discussions about gender bias in AI is the feedback loop.

Society creates patterns and inequalities.

These patterns are recorded in digital data.

AI learns from that data.

AI systems reproduce these patterns in their outputs.

People consume these outputs and may internalise them.

New data is generated that reflects the same assumptions.

The cycle then repeats itself.

Viewed through this lens, AI becomes part of a system through which existing inequalities can be continuously reproduced and normalised. 

Understanding this feedback loop shifts the debate away from the simple question of whether AI is biassed. A more important question emerges: what happens when social inequalities become embedded in technologies that many people perceive as objective and trustworthy?

That question sits at the heart of contemporary debates surrounding AI ethics, responsible AI development, and digital governance.

Women and AI, gender bias
image via Magnific

Why women in AI governance and development still matter 

Discussions about gender bias in AI often focus on the underrepresentation of women in AI and the broader technology sector. While diversity remains an important issue, it should not be viewed as a simple explanation for biassed outputs.

Increasing the number of women working in AI would not automatically eliminate stereotypes from the training data. Models trained on historical information would still learn many of the same social patterns.

However, representation becomes significant at the level of governance.

Decisions about whether biassed outputs should be corrected, contextualised, or left unchanged are ultimately human decisions. Diverse teams may be better positioned to identify harms that homogeneous groups overlook and to challenge assumptions that might otherwise remain embedded in AI systems.

The importance of women in AI, therefore, extends beyond mere representation. It relates to participation in the governance structures that determine how AI is developed, evaluated, and deployed.

The questions about fairness, accountability, and responsible AI are not purely technical. They are social and political questions that require a broad range of perspectives.

Women and AI, gender bias
image via Magnific

The future of gender equality in AI 

AI is frequently described as a transformative technology, yet its most disruptive impact may not be what it creates, but what it reveals. For centuries, societies have debated equality through laws, institutions, and cultural norms. AI introduces a different form of scrutiny. By converting human behaviour into data and data into predictions, it exposes patterns that often remain invisible until they are reflected back at scale.

In that sense, debates about women and AI are not merely debates about technology. They are discussions about who gets represented in the collective knowledge, whose experiences become part of the historical record, and which assumptions are treated as facts simply because they have been repeated often enough. As societies increasingly rely on algorithms to organise information and inform decisions, the line between what is statistically common and what is socially acceptable may become one of the defining questions of the digital age.

AI may never tell society what is right. Yet by revealing the patterns embedded in human history, it is forcing a deeper question: when machines learn from us, what exactly are we teaching them?

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

EU calls for stronger action against cyber violence targeting girls

The Council of the European Union has adopted conclusions calling for stronger action to protect girls and young women from cyber violence, urging member states and the European Commission to reinforce prevention, enforcement, and victim support.

Findings from the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) show that girls and young women are disproportionately affected by cyber violence, including online harassment, cyberstalking, non-consensual sharing of intimate images and sexist hate speech. Interviews with teenagers across the EU also suggest many believe existing prevention efforts are inadequate.

The Council called for improved access to mental health services, legal assistance and educational programmes covering digital consent, online safety and gender-responsive digital literacy. It also recommended providing parents and educators with practical guidance and training to help identify and respond to online abuse.

The Council also stressed the need for stronger enforcement of existing legislation, including the Digital Services Act and AI Act, while urging online platforms to take greater responsibility for user safety. It further called for increased investment in law enforcement resources, cross-border cooperation and research into the causes and impact of cyber violence.

Why does it matter? 

The Council’s conclusions recognise cyber violence as both an online safety challenge and a barrier to gender equality and digital inclusion. By combining prevention, victim support, stronger enforcement and platform accountability, the EU is signalling that tackling online abuse requires coordinated action across governments, technology companies and civil society.

The recommendations also reinforce the EU’s broader digital governance agenda. Linking cyber violence to legislation such as the Digital Services Act and AI Act demonstrates how existing regulatory frameworks are increasingly being used to address online harms alongside technological innovation.

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

OECD maps AI and citizen participation

The OECD has published a report examining how AI could support citizen participation and democratic innovation while highlighting the safeguards needed for its responsible use.

The report, Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Citizen Participation, was approved and declassified by the OECD Public Governance Committee on 22 June 2026. It was produced as part of the OECD Public Governance Reviews series in collaboration with the Bertelsmann Stiftung.

The report says public participation can help governments design better policies and strengthen trust. It cites OECD trust findings showing that people who feel they have a say in government decisions are far more likely to report high trust in government.

The OECD notes that governments have long relied on digital technologies, including online platforms and civic tech tools, to expand public participation. AI represents the next stage of this evolution, with governments increasingly experimenting with tools for consultation, deliberation, communication and policy analysis.

The report is based on desk research and analysis of 50 AI use cases in participation processes from 22 OECD member and partner countries. It proposes a typology to help public officials and practitioners understand where AI tools may be useful and what challenges they may address.

Based on an analysis of 50 AI use cases from 22 OECD member and partner countries, the report proposes a typology covering nine categories of AI applications, including information development, sense-making, translation, transcription, virtual assistance, moderation, facilitation, simulation and participation architecture.

These tools can support both front-office activities, where citizens interact directly with government, and back-office activities, where public administrations design, analyse and manage processes internally.

According to the OECD, AI could make participation processes more accessible and efficient by helping governments analyse large volumes of public input, improve communication, reduce administrative costs and broaden participation.

Sense-making tools can help analyse large amounts of text submitted during consultations. Translation and transcription tools can make processes more accessible across languages and formats, while virtual assistants can help people navigate information about citizen participation opportunities.

AI can also support moderation and facilitation. The report says such tools may help prevent spam, hate speech or manipulation in online discussions, and could support live deliberation by identifying common ground or structuring debate.

However, the OECD cautions against treating AI as a simple fix for democratic challenges. It says technology alone cannot solve problems such as weak links between participation processes and actual policy decisions.

The report also highlights ethical, operational and societal risks, including algorithmic bias, opaque decision-making, hallucinations, cybersecurity threats, digital exclusion and declining public trust if AI systems are poorly designed or deployed.

The OECD also highlights the risks of inaction, noting that governments may miss valuable opportunities if they avoid AI tools even when they could be applied responsibly.

The report says governments should establish guardrails for AI use in citizen participation, including transparency, compliance with democratic values, protection of civic space, attention to data divides and low-tech alternatives for citizens with limited digital access.

It also calls for stronger enablers, including AI literacy, skills development, citizen engagement in the design and governance of AI systems, open standards where appropriate, and support for scaling successful pilots.

The OECD concludes that most public-sector use of AI in citizen participation remains experimental. It argues that lasting benefits will depend on transparent governance, human oversight and continued efforts to strengthen democratic participation beyond technology alone.

Why does it matter?

Governments are increasingly exploring AI as a way to make public participation more accessible, scalable and responsive. The OECD’s report shows that AI can support consultation, deliberation and policy analysis, but only when accompanied by safeguards that protect transparency, inclusion and democratic accountability.

The report also reinforces a broader shift in AI governance from technical capability to institutional design. By emphasising human oversight, civic participation, digital inclusion and democratic values, the OECD argues that AI should enhance, not replace, the processes that underpin public trust and democratic decision-making.

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

Australia pushes more AI nudify services offline over child safety

Three more AI-powered ‘nudify’ services have withdrawn access for Australian users after enforcement action by Australia’s eSafety Commissioner under the country’s Age-Restricted Material codes.

The codes require AI services that allow users to access or generate age-restricted material, including sexually explicit material, to put appropriate age-assurance measures in place to prevent access by children under 18.

The latest action followed a formal Direction to Comply issued to one of the most widely used nudify services in Australia, requiring the provider to implement stronger protections within 14 days. Instead, the company disabled access for Australian users, while two associated services also withdrew.

eSafety said users in Australia will no longer be able to log in or use the service’s features, although landing pages may remain visible with content blurred.

The regulator said AI nudification tools pose serious risks because they can be used to create non-consensual sexually explicit deepfakes and child sexual exploitation material. It has also warned that such tools are increasingly being misused in school settings.

The action is part of eSafety’s broader enforcement focus on generative AI and nudify services now that Australia’s online safety codes and standards are in force. The regulator said seven of the most frequently accessed nudify services in Australia have either withdrawn from the market or introduced age-assurance measures following intervention.

Australia is also preparing further legislation to prohibit nudify services used to generate non-consensual sexually explicit material.

Why does it matter?

Australia’s approach shows how regulators can use age-assurance and online safety rules to restrict children’s access to high-risk generative AI tools before new AI-specific laws are fully in place. The case is also important because nudify services sit at the intersection of AI-generated abuse, child protection, image-based harm and platform accountability. By forcing services to either introduce safeguards or withdraw access, eSafety is creating a practical enforcement model that other jurisdictions may closely watch.

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

Microsoft and Europol disrupt Amadey and StealC malware infrastructure

Microsoft has disrupted more than 200 command-and-control servers linked to Amadey and StealC, two widely used cybercrime tools that support credential theft, fraud and ransomware attacks.

The company’s Digital Crimes Unit said the action targeted the shared infrastructure behind the two tools rather than treating them as separate threats. In the first two weeks of May, Amadey and StealC were linked to more than 140,000 infected computers worldwide.

Amadey is often used to gain access to devices, while StealC is used to steal passwords and sensitive information. Microsoft said the tools form part of a wider cybercrime supply chain in which specialised malware services help attackers turn initial access into fraud, ransomware, espionage or other operations.

Microsoft said investigators used AI, including Copilot, to analyse malware and identify connections between the two tools more quickly. The company said the analysis helped its legal team treat both malware families as part of a single conspiracy under the US Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

The action was carried out with Europol and industry partners, including ESET, BitSight, Lumen and Mitsui Bussan Secure Directions. Europol’s European Cybercrime Centre also investigated StealC as part of Operation Endgame, alongside European law enforcement partners and cybersecurity companies, including IBM X-Force and Proofpoint.

Microsoft said it has identified more than 18,000 victim computers since the start of the operation and is working with telecommunications providers to help protect affected users.

The company said findings from the case will feed into its Statutory Automated Disruption programme, which accelerates the removal of malicious domains and infrastructure.

Why does it matter?

The operation reflects a shift in cybercrime disruption strategy. Instead of targeting one malware family or service at a time, Microsoft and its partners focused on the shared infrastructure that allows criminal tools to work together. That matters because modern cybercrime increasingly operates as a modular supply chain: one tool gains access, another steals credentials, and other actors monetise that access through fraud, ransomware or espionage. The use of AI to accelerate malware analysis also points to how defenders are trying to match the speed and scale of cybercriminal operations.

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

UN experts call for gender-responsive AI governance

UN human rights experts have warned that AI and related digital technologies could deepen gender inequalities if they are developed and deployed without meaningful regulation.

The Working Group on discrimination against women and girls said AI is reshaping the conditions in which women and girls exercise their rights. In a report to the Human Rights Council, the experts said the absence of gender-responsive AI governance could amplify exclusion, reinforce harmful stereotypes and worsen structural inequalities.

The report says AI and digital technologies can support gender equality when designed responsibly, including by expanding access to education, healthcare, financial services and justice. However, the experts warned that poorly governed systems can also create new forms of exclusion across political, civic and economic life.

The Working Group identified three urgent preconditions for substantive gender equality in the digital age: closing the digital divide, ensuring that AI and digital technologies support rather than undermine women’s and girls’ human rights, and promoting their meaningful participation and leadership in public and political life.

The experts also raised concern over gendered harms linked to AI and digital technologies, including technology-facilitated gender-based violence, mass surveillance, armed conflict, lethal autonomous weapons and climate-related impacts.

They called on states to adopt human rights-based and feminist approaches to AI governance, strengthen regulation and accountability, and ensure that women and girls can participate meaningfully in technological development and decision-making.

The Working Group said technology must serve equality, human rights and human dignity, framing gender-responsive AI governance as an obligation rather than an optional policy choice.

Why does it matter?

The report frames AI governance as a gender equality and human rights issue, not only a technical or innovation challenge. Without gender-responsive rules, AI systems can reproduce discrimination through biassed data, unequal access, surveillance, online violence and exclusion from decision-making. The report also matters because it connects AI policy with digital inclusion and political participation, areas where women and girls are often affected by overlapping forms of discrimination.

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

UN to honour digital and AI-powered public service innovations

The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA) will honour 12 public sector initiatives at the 2026 UN Public Service Awards for advancing the Sustainable Development Goals through more inclusive, transparent and participatory public services.

The awards attracted more than 700 applications from 62 countries and recognise projects ranging from digital document verification and public procurement monitoring to improving education access and supporting coastal women.

According to UN DESA, several winning initiatives leverage digital government tools, information and communication technologies (ICTs) and AI to improve service delivery and strengthen public administration capacity.

The awards ceremony will be held during the UN Public Service Forum in Tbilisi, Georgia, following the commemoration of UN Public Service Day.

Why does it matter?

The awards highlight how governments are increasingly using digital technologies and AI to improve public service delivery, strengthen administrative capacity and advance sustainable development objectives. From digital verification systems to more transparent procurement processes, technology is becoming an important tool for making public institutions more efficient, accountable and accessible.

The initiative also demonstrates the growing role of digital transformation in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. By recognising successful public-sector innovations from around the world, the awards provide examples of how governments can use technology to address social, economic and governance challenges while promoting inclusion, transparency and citizen participation.

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

EU targets cross-border crime cooperation

The European Commission has proposed new measures to strengthen EU cooperation against cross-border crime, organised criminal networks, terrorism and hostile actors.

The Commission said crime is becoming more sophisticated, international and digital, requiring closer cooperation between police, customs authorities, prosecutors and courts from the start of investigations through to final judgments.

The package would strengthen the roles of Europol and Eurojust, the EU agencies that support national authorities in cross-border criminal investigations and judicial cooperation.

For Europol, the proposal would enable faster and more automated information sharing to support real-time collaboration during investigations. It would also create Europol Support Offices, staffed by former Europol officers, to provide operational assistance to the EU countries.

The Commission also wants to establish a technology and innovation hub within Europol to map law enforcement capability needs across the EU and support the use of new tools against cross-border crime.

Eurojust would receive stronger operational powers, including the ability to act on its own initiative to identify links between cases. Its mandate would also expand into emerging areas of crime, including cybercrime and gender-based violence.

The package would strengthen cooperation between Europol, Eurojust and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, while also expanding international cooperation with third countries.

The Commission is also proposing to update the European Investigation Order, the EU procedure for gathering evidence across borders in criminal cases. A new European Remote Participation Order would allow suspects, accused persons and victims to take part remotely in criminal court hearings from another EU country.

Why does it matter?

Cross-border crime is increasingly digital and difficult for national authorities to tackle on their own. The Commission’s proposal aims to make EU investigations faster and more coordinated by improving data sharing, evidence gathering and cooperation between police, prosecutors and courts. The cybercrime and technology-hub elements are especially relevant because law enforcement agencies need technical capacity, legal tools and cross-border coordination to respond to digital criminal networks.

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

EU drops browser-based cookie consent proposal from Digital Omnibus

The European Commission had proposed replacing cookie banners with an automated browser-based privacy signal as part of its ‘Digital Omnibus’ package, a move that would have allowed devices to communicate users’ tracking preferences directly to websites. The plan, outlined in Article 88b of the GDPR, was intended to cut red tape and reduce the burden on consumers navigating consent requests across the web.

According to digital rights organisation noyb, cookie banners were not created by data protection law but emerged as a mechanism for the online advertising industry to obtain users’ consent for data sharing with third parties. Studies suggest only 3 to 10 per cent of users actually wish to be tracked, yet so-called dark patterns, such as hidden ‘no’ buttons and pre-ticked boxes, allow the industry to achieve consent rates of up to 90 per cent. Across more than 450 million EU citizens, this results in billions of unnecessary clicks each year.

According to noyb, a lobbying document submitted by Google argued that removing cookie banners would effectively halt all online advertising, citing figures that the European Commission has since described as highly exaggerated. The Commission had made clear that consent would still be possible on a per-website and per-purpose basis, meaning users could grant access to specific outlets while withholding it from others. Google’s paper also claimed that media outlets would be harmed, despite the fact that they are explicitly exempt from the proposed provision.

According to noyb, the lobbying campaign appears to have influenced the legislative process. In the Council’s position paper of 18 June 2026, Article 88b was removed entirely from the Digital Omnibus. Noyb added that Germany, France, and Poland were among the member states supporting the article’s removal following lobbying by the online advertising industry.

The outcome is particularly striking given that many of the same member states have long called on the EU to simplify regulation and cut red tape. noyb, the European digital rights organisation, has described the result as a victory for lobbying over public interest, noting that the majority of EU citizens have consistently expressed frustration with cookie banners.

The European Parliament has not yet taken a position on Article 88b, and negotiations between the Parliament and the Council are ongoing. Noyb has urged the European Parliament to support reinstating Article 88b during the next stage of negotiations.

Why does it matter?

The debate highlights the growing tension between digital simplification efforts, privacy protection and the economic interests of the online advertising ecosystem. Browser-based privacy signals have long been discussed as a way to reduce repetitive consent requests while preserving users’ ability to decide when and how their personal data may be used.

The proposal’s removal also illustrates the influence that industry stakeholders can have during the EU legislative process. Whether Article 88b is reinstated during negotiations with the European Parliament could shape the future of online consent management in Europe, affecting digital advertising, user experience and the practical implementation of data protection rules.

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

Geneva at the centre of AI governance: Where technology, diplomacy, and humanity converge

Geneva’s growing role in the AI era

As AI reshapes economies, societies, and governance systems worldwide, Geneva is increasingly emerging as one of the most important global centres for discussions on the future of digital technologies.

In a recent interview, Diplo Executive Director Jovan Kurbalija described Geneva as a place where multiple dimensions of AI governance intersect. From technical standards and international trade to human rights, humanitarian action, and diplomacy, the city hosts institutions and processes that shape how digital technologies are developed, governed, and used worldwide.

According to Kurbalija, a significant share of global discussions on AI and digital governance takes place within a relatively small area surrounding Geneva’s international district. The concentration of international organisations, diplomatic missions, standards-setting bodies, and expert communities has positioned the city as a unique meeting point for addressing the opportunities and challenges associated with AI.

A hub for global digital governance

Geneva’s importance in digital governance stems largely from the presence of international organisations whose work directly affects the digital ecosystem.

Among them is the World Trade Organization (WTO), which plays a role in shaping the global rules governing trade, supply chains, e-commerce, and the international movement of goods and services that underpin the digital economy. Decisions and discussions within the WTO influence the broader environment in which digital technologies are produced, exchanged, and deployed.

Another key institution is the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), the UN specialised agency for information and communication technologies. ITU has long served as a forum for international cooperation on telecommunications and digital technologies, and today plays an increasingly prominent role in discussions related to AI and digital governance.

Geneva is also home to major international standards organisations, including the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). These organisations develop technical standards that enable digital devices, networks, and systems to function together across borders and industries.

Although often invisible to users, technical standards play a fundamental role in ensuring interoperability, connectivity, and trust in digital systems. As AI technologies become more integrated into everyday life, standards are expected to play an increasingly important role in areas such as safety, transparency, and accountability.

From Frankenstein to AI: Geneva’s intellectual legacy

Kurbalija also highlighted a less visible but equally important dimension of Geneva’s role in AI governance, its intellectual and historical heritage.

He referred to what Diplo describes as the EspriTech de Genève, the intersection between technological developments and ideas that have emerged from thinkers associated with Geneva throughout history.

One of the most notable examples is Mary Shelley, who wrote Frankenstein near Lake Geneva in 1816. Often regarded as one of the earliest works of science fiction, the novel explores the relationship between creators and their creations, raising questions about responsibility, unintended consequences, and the limits of human control.

More than two centuries later, similar questions continue to shape contemporary debates on AI governance. Discussions surrounding increasingly capable AI systems frequently return to concerns about human oversight, accountability, and the potential consequences of technologies that may act in ways not fully anticipated by their creators.

 Adult, Male, Man, Person, Accessories, Glasses, Formal Wear, Tie, Body Part, Finger, Hand, Clothing, Suit, Coat

Kurbalija also pointed to the work of Argentine writer Jorge Luis Borges, whose reflections on knowledge, information, and human cognition continue to resonate in an era characterised by large-scale data processing and machine-generated content.

The intellectual traditions associated with Geneva provide a broader context for understanding contemporary AI debates, linking present-day governance questions to longer-standing discussions about technology, knowledge, and humanity.

Geneva as a centre for AI diplomacy

Beyond its historical and institutional significance, Geneva has become an increasingly active venue for international discussions on AI governance.

The city hosts a growing number of meetings, conferences, and policy dialogues dedicated to the governance of AI and other emerging technologies. Among the most prominent is the annual AI for Good Summit, organised by ITU in partnership with other UN agencies and stakeholders. The event brings together governments, international organisations, researchers, private sector representatives, and civil society to explore the societal implications of AI and identify opportunities for international cooperation.

Geneva also hosts a range of other initiatives focused on AI governance, including policy dialogues, expert consultations, and multistakeholder discussions addressing issues such as human rights, health, humanitarian action, sustainable development, trade, and technical standards.

Geneva
Image via freepik

According to Kurbalija, AI is now on the agenda of many international organisations based in Geneva. Whether addressing healthcare, humanitarian assistance, trade, education, telecommunications, or development, institutions increasingly examine how AI affects their respective mandates and policy objectives.

This growing presence reflects the recognition that AI is not solely a technological issue. Instead, it spans multiple policy domains, requiring coordination among technical experts, policymakers, diplomats, regulators, and affected communities.

Reducing ‘lost in translation’ in AI governance

As AI discussions become more widespread, one challenge frequently identified by policymakers and international organisations is the gap between technological developments and policy understanding.

Kurbalija argues that many stakeholders remain ‘lost in translation’ when trying to understand the implications of AI. Technical terminology, rapidly evolving technologies, and complex governance debates often create barriers for diplomats, policymakers, and officials who are expected to make decisions about AI despite not having technical backgrounds.

To address this challenge, Diplo combines research, capacity development, and practical experimentation.

The organisation conducts research on both the historical roots of AI-related thinking and contemporary governance challenges. At the same time, it develops tools and educational programmes designed to help policymakers better understand the technology and its implications.

A central component of this effort is Diplo’s AI Apprenticeship programme.

Rather than teaching AI solely through theory, the programme encourages participants to learn by building AI applications themselves. Diplomats and officials from different countries work directly with AI tools, gaining practical experience with concepts such as neural networks, large language models (LLMs), and AI systems development.

According to Kurbalija, direct engagement with AI technologies allows participants to move beyond abstract discussions and develop a more practical understanding of how these systems function and where their limitations lie.

Where technology meets humanity

Kurbalija described Geneva as a place where several distinct but interconnected forces converge.

The first is the technological dimension, represented by organisations working on telecommunications, standards, digital infrastructure, and emerging technologies.

The second is the historical and intellectual dimension, reflected in the ideas of thinkers associated with Geneva and the broader region, whose work continues to inform contemporary discussions about technology and society.

Geneva
Image via Freepik

The third is the diplomatic dimension. Geneva remains one of the world’s most active centres of multilateral diplomacy, hosting permanent missions and representatives from nearly every country. Discussions in Geneva frequently shape global approaches to issues ranging from trade and humanitarian affairs to digital governance and AI.

The fourth is what Kurbalija describes as the human dimension. Many Geneva-based institutions focus on protecting and advancing human welfare through work on human rights, humanitarian action, health, labour, migration, and development.

Together, these dimensions create an environment in which technological innovation can be discussed alongside its social, ethical, economic, and political implications.

Looking ahead

As governments, international organisations, and societies continue to grapple with the opportunities and risks associated with AI, Geneva’s role as a centre for digital governance is likely to become increasingly significant.

The city’s unique combination of technical expertise, standards-setting institutions, diplomatic networks, and human-centred governance traditions provides a platform for addressing complex questions that no single actor or sector can solve alone.

For Kurbalija, this convergence of technology, diplomacy, and humanity represents one of Geneva’s defining characteristics. In a period marked by rapid technological change and growing uncertainty, the city continues to serve as a place where different perspectives can meet to shape the future of AI governance.

As debates around AI evolve, Geneva is likely to remain one of the key venues where those discussions are translated into international cooperation, governance frameworks, and practical solutions with global impact.

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