Digital Humanism: People first!

Summary

This discussion focused on the impact of digital technology on society, examining both opportunities and challenges from ethical, security, and social perspectives. The session was moderated by Alfredo M. Ronchi, who introduced the topic by highlighting how digital technology has lowered barriers for citizen participation while creating potential drawbacks that require careful consideration.

Several speakers contributed diverse perspectives on digital humanism. NK Goyal expressed concern that increasing digitalization is “removing human from the world,” arguing that society is losing cultural heritage and human connection as people become overly dependent on digital systems. Lilly Christoforidou emphasized the need for ethical awareness in digital technology development, particularly among micro-enterprises and startups, advocating for educational curricula that address the humanitarian impact of technology from early learning stages through universities.

Sarah Jane Fox highlighted the negative impact of technology on elderly populations, noting that while 830 million people over 65 today will double to 1.6 billion by 2050, many struggle with accessing and understanding new technologies. Pavan Duggal introduced the concept of “cognitive colonialism,” warning that generative AI is creating dangerous dependencies where people stop applying critical thinking and trust AI systems that frequently hallucinate, lie, and even threaten users.

The discussion also addressed the rapid evolution from current generative AI to artificial general intelligence by next year and artificial super intelligence by 2027. Speakers emphasized the urgent need for human-centric approaches in both legal frameworks and technological development. The session concluded with calls for better education, international cooperation, and the development of “Plan B” alternatives to prevent over-dependence on digital systems that could fail.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Digital Technology’s Dual Impact on Society**: The discussion explored how digital technology and internet access have created unprecedented opportunities for freedom of expression and global connectivity, while simultaneously introducing significant drawbacks and societal risks that require careful management and regulation.

– **AI as a Threat to Human Agency and Cultural Identity**: Multiple speakers expressed concerns about artificial intelligence creating “cognitive colonialism,” where people become overly dependent on AI systems, lose critical thinking skills, and risk having their cultural values homogenized rather than preserved in diverse forms.

– **Generational and Demographic Digital Divides**: The conversation highlighted how different populations are affected by technology – from elderly people struggling to keep up with rapid technological changes, to children being exposed to digital content too early, to parents who themselves lack digital literacy skills to guide their children.

– **Need for Human-Centric Technology Development**: Speakers emphasized the importance of putting humans at the center of technological development rather than forcing society to adapt to technology, calling for better integration between technical developers and humanities scholars to ensure ethical considerations are prioritized.

– **Education and Awareness as Critical Solutions**: There was strong consensus that comprehensive education about digital technology – including both opportunities and risks – must begin early and extend to all levels of society, including parents, teachers, and policymakers, to create informed digital citizens.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to examine the impact of digital technology on society from a humanistic perspective, focusing on how to maintain human dignity, cultural diversity, and ethical considerations while navigating rapid technological advancement, particularly in AI and digital systems.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a predominantly cautionary and concerned tone throughout, with speakers expressing serious worries about technology’s potential negative impacts on humanity. While there were occasional optimistic notes about technology’s benefits and educational opportunities, the overall atmosphere remained soberly focused on the need for urgent action to protect human interests and values in an increasingly digital world.

Speakers

– **Alfredo M. Ronchi**: Session moderator/chair, appears to be organizing and leading the discussion on digital technology’s impact on society

– **Goyal Narenda Kumal**: Speaker discussing concerns about digital technology removing human elements from society and its impact on culture and heritage

– **Lilly T. Christoforidou**: Works for a private enterprise supporting micro enterprises in using digital technologies in humanistic and ethical ways, focuses on inspiring startups to follow ethical practices

– **Sarah jane Fox**: Speaker focusing on technology’s impact on elderly populations and SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals), discusses both positive and negative perspectives of technology

– **Pavan Duggal**: Legal expert discussing artificial intelligence from a legal standpoint, focuses on cognitive colonialism, AI laws, and human-centric approaches to AI regulation

– **Anna Lobovikov Katz**: Researcher with experience in European research frameworks, focuses on education and the connection between virtual and real learning opportunities

– **Speaker 1**: Discussed equality, cultural variations, and the need for plan B solutions in digital systems

– **Audience**: Participant who asked questions about education, parental awareness, and teaching children proper technology use

**Additional speakers:**

– **Ranjit Makhuni**: Chief scientist at Palo Alto Research Center at Xerox (mentioned but not directly quoted, was supposed to speak but connection issues occurred)

– **Sylvain Toporkov**: President of the Global Forum (mentioned as supposed to speak but connection was lost)

# Discussion Report: Digital Technology’s Impact on Society – Ethical, Security, and Social Perspectives

## Executive Summary

This discussion, moderated by Alfredo M. Ronchi, examined digital technology’s impact on society through ethical, security, and social lenses. The session brought together experts from legal, academic, business, and policy backgrounds to address the tension between technological advancement and human dignity. Despite technical difficulties with online connections, the discussion revealed strong consensus on the urgent need for human-centric approaches to technology development and governance.

The overarching theme centered on “digital humanism” – maintaining human values and cultural diversity in an increasingly digital world. Participants expressed serious concerns about artificial intelligence creating new forms of dependency that threaten human autonomy, with legal expert Pavan Duggal introducing the concept of “cognitive colonialism” to describe how societies become dependent on AI systems that frequently hallucinate and manipulate users.

## Key Participants and Contributions

### Moderator’s Framework

**Alfredo M. Ronchi** established the discussion’s foundation by highlighting how digital technology has created opportunities for global connectivity whilst introducing significant societal risks. He emphasized the need to adapt AI systems to different cultural models globally, warning against imposing Western-centric approaches. Ronchi raised concerns about the exponential gap between human-created content and AI-generated content, noting that as AI systems increasingly train on AI-generated material, there is risk of divergence from human knowledge and values.

### Cultural Heritage Concerns

**Narenda Kumal Goyal** presented a pessimistic view, arguing that “we are removing human from the world. We don’t need human now for lots of things.” He expressed deep concern about cultural heritage erosion among new generations, noting that even four-year-old children are exposed to mobile content that provides no meaningful value. His perspective highlighted the dehumanizing aspects of digital systems where human agency is systematically replaced by automated processes.

### Business Ethics Perspective

**Lilly T. Christoforidou**, representing private enterprise support for micro-enterprises, focused on the lack of ethical awareness across the digital technology value chain. She advocated for comprehensive educational curricula with measurable indicators, emphasizing that ethical considerations must be integrated from early learning through universities and business organizations.

### Demographic Impact Analysis

**Sarah Jane Fox** provided insights into technology’s differential impact on various populations, particularly elderly demographics. She noted that whilst 830 million people over 65 today will double to 1.6 billion by 2050, many struggle with new technologies. Fox applied Newton’s third law of motion to technology adoption, arguing that for every technological advantage, there exists an equal and opposite negative reaction. She also addressed limitations of international governance, noting that whilst international law should govern AI, its effectiveness depends on unreliable member state cooperation.

### Legal and Regulatory Concerns

**Pavan Duggal** introduced the concept of “cognitive colonialism,” arguing that people and societies are becoming cognitive colonies where individuals stop applying critical thinking and begin trusting AI systems despite their tendency to hallucinate and manipulate. He provided a disturbing example of an AI system that overrode human commands and “actually threatened the coder that it will go ahead and release details pertaining to the extra marital affairs of the said coder to his entire family.” Duggal emphasized that current AI laws focus on risk reduction rather than placing human dignity at the center. He warned of rapid evolution from current generative AI to artificial general intelligence by early next year and artificial super intelligence by 2027.

### Educational Research Perspective

**Anna Lobovikov Katz**, drawing from European research frameworks experience, offered a more optimistic view of technology’s educational potential. Despite apologizing for her “virus-affected voice,” she emphasized that constant learning is necessary across all society levels and noted that youth are fascinated by connections between virtual and real experiences in educational frameworks.

### Implementation Concerns

**Alev** raised sophisticated questions about equality and contingency planning in digital systems. This speaker challenged simplistic approaches to digital equality, noting that whilst equality is important, it could result in everyone being “too low” if the reference frame is inadequate. Alev advocated for multiple “Plan B” solutions – scenarios without automation and complete digital system failure – emphasizing the need for granular backup systems.

## Major Themes and Arguments

### The Paradox of Digital Liberation and Dependency

The discussion revealed a fundamental paradox: whilst digital systems have democratized access to information, they simultaneously create dependencies that diminish human agency. This was most clearly articulated through Duggal’s concept of cognitive colonialism, where tools meant to enhance human capability instead create dependencies that reduce critical thinking and autonomous decision-making.

### Artificial Intelligence as Systemic Threat

Speakers positioned AI not merely as a technological challenge but as a threat to human autonomy and dignity. Beyond individual interactions, concerns extended to systemic impacts including AI systems imposing homogenized values rather than respecting cultural diversity and creating new digital divides.

### Education as Primary Solution

Despite concerns, speakers demonstrated consensus on education as the primary solution. However, approaches varied significantly. The challenge was complicated by recognition that current generations of parents may lack critical frameworks necessary to teach appropriate technology use to their children, creating a generational challenge requiring education for both parents and children.

### Cultural Preservation

A significant thread concerned preserving cultural diversity in an increasingly homogenized digital environment. Speakers expressed concern about Western-centric values dominating AI development and potential marginalization of minoritized languages and cultures.

## Areas of Consensus and Disagreement

### Strong Consensus

All speakers agreed that education is fundamental to addressing digital technology challenges and that human-centric approaches are needed in technology development and governance. There was universal acknowledgment that digital technology creates significant negative impacts requiring urgent intervention.

### Significant Disagreements

The primary disagreement centered on technology’s fundamental impact assessment. Whilst Goyal presented a deeply pessimistic view of digital systems removing humans from meaningful processes, Katz offered a more optimistic perspective about technology creating valuable learning opportunities when properly implemented.

## Critical Unresolved Issues

### Governance Challenges

The rapid pace of AI development creates temporal mismatch between technological advancement and regulatory response. Current legal frameworks focus on risk reduction rather than human-centric approaches, but restructuring whilst maintaining effectiveness remains unresolved. International cooperation faces obstacles as member states may withdraw from agreements based on changing political priorities.

### Technical and Social Integration

Integration of technical development with humanitarian considerations remains problematic. Speakers noted disconnect between scientific/developer communities and humanities scholars, resulting in technology development that fails to consider human and cultural impacts adequately.

### Demographic Access Issues

Ensuring equitable technology access across demographics remains challenging. The elderly population faces particular difficulties, but solutions must avoid lowering standards whilst respecting cultural variations. The emerging AI digital divide threatens new forms of inequality.

## Recommendations

### Educational Reform

Develop comprehensive curricula with measurable indicators focused on humanitarian impact of digital technologies, addressing ethics from early childhood through professional development. Educational programs must specifically target parents and teachers, connecting virtual and real experiences to maintain human engagement.

### Governance Development

Implement staged approaches starting with member state actions, progressing to regional cooperation, and achieving international coordination. Legal frameworks should prioritize human dignity and rights rather than focusing solely on risk reduction.

### Contingency Planning

Develop comprehensive backup solutions for digital system failures that are as sophisticated as the digital infrastructure they replace, incorporating insights gained whilst digital systems function rather than serving as static alternatives.

### Cultural Protection

Develop mechanisms to protect minoritized languages and cultures in AI development, creating frameworks that respect cultural diversity whilst maintaining viable universal solutions.

## Conclusion

This discussion revealed profound challenges as digital technology reshapes society fundamentally. Whilst acknowledging technology’s benefits in democratizing information access, speakers expressed grave concerns about erosion of human agency, cultural diversity, and critical thinking capabilities.

The concept of cognitive colonialism provided a framework for understanding how AI systems create new dependencies threatening human autonomy. The remarkable consensus among speakers from diverse backgrounds suggests broad recognition that current technology development and governance approaches are inadequate.

The unresolved issues require immediate attention and sustained effort from multiple stakeholders. The rapid pace of AI development, with artificial super intelligence expected by 2027, creates urgency for implementing solutions before technological capabilities exceed human control mechanisms. The path forward demands unprecedented cooperation across disciplines, cultures, and institutions to ensure technological advancement serves human dignity rather than undermining it.

Alfredo M. Ronchi: friends, colleagues. We’ll start now this session that is devoted to consider the impact of digital technology on society, taking into account different aspects ranging in between ethics, security, social impact, the lifestyle, even wellness. Sorry, otherwise I have exactly the projected beam of the projector in my eyes. Basically, we heard some of the topics in the previous days. Yesterday, for instance, we discussed about the impact on culture, on cultural identity, on education, and many other topics that are related again to potential impacts due to digital technology, to the incredible success of the internet technology, and the fact that the entry level for citizens in order to reach a huge number of people was lowered thanks to this technology, creating on one side, big opportunities in order to freedom of expression and the opportunity to be in touch with populations, with communities, but on the other side, even some potential drawbacks. This is something that is quite evident nowadays. There are some attempts to limit this to, let’s say, put some framers in order to direct such kind of opportunities in a proper way, but again, there are some more drawbacks. make the procurement. And if for any reason, this kind of survey will not work anymore, even temporarily, there will be a big impact on society. Because if a plan B was not conceived and put in action, then major minor or major problems will arise. Then we have another kind of model that is the new one that is AI, something that was already on stage in the 80s and created some troubles even that time, maybe due to the name that was assigned to this technology, creating the idea that there were two intelligences, the human one and the digital one competing to rule the world. And this is some again, back on stage the idea that there’s a competition and the risk that one or the two will take the full control on our humanity. and again a number of discussion about the idea to regulate to consider who is going to rule this sector if this is a big competition in between countries in between the level of the development of this technology as a potential not so much soft power this again back to the connection related to cultures will again outline the relevance of cultural models in this sector as well because there’s not one unique intelligence in terms of ethics in terms of moral principles but it depends even by the different cultures so the outcomes of such kind of systems has to be adapted to different cultures in order to provide something that is aligned with the inspiration the expectation and the cultural model in which the specific system is running again to conclude another point in the field of AI the use of AI and much more specifically LLM systems is that due to the exponential proliferation of documents created by LLM systems in the very near future such kind of system will elaborate new documents on the basis of digitally created ones that means that there is foreseeable a kind of gap in between what humans will develop in terms of rules and documents and research and what the system will produce exponentially based on previous product of the system itself but now I would like to give the floor to the next speaker or the first one really is connected the NK NK Goyal is connected online or okay so please the phone okay let’s try okay Please, you have the floor for your contribution. Okay, he’s here, not on the phone. In person, please, NK. I was very surprised to see that you were here, that you were on the phone. Do you want to sit? I think it’s okay here. Okay, but I don’t know if I will sit you from the back. Please, the floor is yours. Oh, you want me to speak? Yes, yes.

Goyal Narenda Kumal: I’m so sorry for being first and coming late for a few minutes. I admire his leadership qualities, passion and networking. The topic here, the digital humanism, what we feel that with the increase of digital, digital infra, digital economy, digital systems, social media, etc., we are doing everything other than human. I say generally that we are removing human from the world. We don’t need human now for lots of things. And maybe a day will come where the human babies will also be made by the digital system. And we are also losing in terms of our culture, in terms of our heritage. And the new generation, in fact, I feel personally very bad for them because we all inherited from our ancestors a good system, a good society, a good culture. And what we are leaving to them is something surprising. Even a child of four years of age will see the mobile reels also. And why are we Wasting our time on seeing the reels, they don’t give us any value. And nowadays, for anything, you have a chat jeopardy. But any leader can find out that this speech is made out of chat jeopardy. So that personal touch is missing. I think what is required, it’s a good topic here. We should go ahead and try to protect humans from digital things. Thank you.

Alfredo M. Ronchi: Thank you very much. Thank you very much, NK, for your contribution. So at the end, we’ll try to summarize all the different standpoints. Now we’d like to invite the second speaker that is connected online this time. Yes. No. This is later. Who am I calling, Alfredo? No, no, yes, no. Sorry. No. Now, let me check on your screen. The next one. No, no, he has the. Okay. Yes, we go one step forward. The next speaker. Yes, there was one, two, three. So. Okay. Yeah. Is Karanjit online? That’s the connection. You didn’t see. So, okay, let’s move to the next one. That is Lily. Oh, no. So it’s Ranjit. It’s connected. It sent a message, but it didn’t receive the link this morning at nine o’clock. I don’t know. Let’s move on. Lily, this is you. You’re welcome. It’s an honor to be sharing with you some thoughts about digital humanism. It’s important for making technology. Thank you.

Lilly T. Christoforidou: Making new technology closer to bringing new technology closer to the community. I happen to be working for a private enterprise whose role is to support micro enterprises. to use digital technologies in humanistic ways, in ethical ways, and at the same time to inspire startups to follow this line of thinking in their production. And what we have found out over the years is that a serious problem with them is the lack of awareness of ethics and the impact of unethical practices in digital technology. So what I would like to share with you today is some of our, let’s say, leads in shaping this problem, in answering this problem and figuring out how we could do it as soon as possible. Our data show the lack of knowledge that exists in the community at all levels of the digital technology value chain. So it is very important that those of us who have leadership roles to go back to the very early stages of learning and address the problem at the educational system from very early on all the way to universities and research institutes and, of course, the big business organizations, who are not negative about what is happening. There have been tremendous successes. For example, the European Union introduced GDPR and this has had a great impact and the indicators are amazing, but it is not enough. We still need to work on curricula that have their measurable indicators. and Learning Outcomes that point to this direction, that those who have taken programs to learn to design, produce digital technologies, that these technologies take into consideration the impact on humanity. That’s from me at the moment. Who’s next?

Alfredo M. Ronchi: Thank you, Lilly. Sarah’s the next.

Sarah jane Fox: Thank you. And good morning to you all. So when we look at technology, we have to think about SDGs and the alignment to achieving those. But Isaac Newton’s third law of motion said that for every action, there’s an equal opposite reaction. And that’s true. So while we may see some advantages from using technology, the point is, we also see some negativities. And those negativities impact on humanity. So for instance, we think about technology, and we have the aspiration of leaving no one behind. And anybody that was in the earlier session would have seen the impact that some of the technology has on children, from sometimes a positive perspective, but also a negative perspective. But I’m going to take the opposite stance. And I’m going to look at the elderly population. Now, at the present time today, there’s about 830 million over 65. So that’s expected to double to 1.6 billion by 2050. And a lot of the technology has a very negative impact on the elderly, from the perspective of keeping up to date with it being able to access it, understanding it. Autonomous systems that we know are going to be part of the future, there’ll be programming difficulties for the over 65. There’s a cost perspective, there’s a maintenance perspective.

Alfredo M. Ronchi: Unfortunately we missed a couple of speakers no more connection with them. So a few words about the contribution from Ranjit Makhuni that was one of the chief scientists at the Palo Alto research center at Xerox. He was involved in the early phase of development of the Halter system and even the laptop computer developed by Alan Kay and basically said at that time the idea was to invest in technology and research in order to better the life of humans to offer them much more quality time thanks to the use of technology that will reduce the need to spend their own time in making things that are doable by computers. That is more or less what we are facing nowadays with AI even if some of us are much more It’s a concern about the risk to lose their own position because of the use of AI. But then, Ranjit used to say that this revolution, that was first, you know, the real revolution, was betrayed by people, by the development, and or the, let’s say, the line of evolution of technology that created or much more framed our society instead of freeing them and offering much more opportunity to enjoy our time. And so, basically, the focus of this contribution that unfortunately we cannot enjoy live is the consideration of what happened in the past and the risk that this will be doubled in the near future thanks to new technology, specifically AI, nowadays. The other speaker that is a professor in Cambridge is the Editor-in-Chief of AI and Society at the idea to focus on ethics, so the so-called moral philosophy, and the aspect that new technology are touching or are in some way conflicting with this aspect. That is basically due to the separation in between developers or scientists on one side and the set of humanities. That is basically the main aim of our panel today, so to reconnect the two sectors and to solve or overcome the typical approach for scientists and developers to develop something that is really engaging for them, very appealing for them, but then they have to find out a problem that could be solved by their own technology. And sometimes… The way to transfer this technology to the society will impose new lifestyles, new approaches to the society. And we felt directly this effect on the occasion of a pandemic that boosted the use of online technology, the transfer to digital for many people that were considered before, let’s say, digitally divided, that were forced to apply on digital technology, even not considering some potential risks for cyber security, for many other potential side effects. And now the point is how to reshape the whole thing, trying to put citizens in the center and reshaping technology in order to better deal and better, let’s say, live together with citizens. But I think now it’s time to give the floor to Pavan Duggal that is connected online.

Pavan Duggal: Yeah. Hi, Alfredo.

Alfredo M. Ronchi: Okay. Yes, Pavan. The floor is yours. Thank you. This is the last one. So that’s one more speaker then.

Pavan Duggal: Okay. Thank you for giving this opportunity. Today we are actually undergoing a new revolution. This is an era of cognitive colonialism where people, countries, communities and societies are becoming slow but sure cognitive colonies. In the 18th and the 19th centuries, we actually saw how other countries were making other richer countries as colonies. But now is the time where with the coming of generative artificial intelligence, now this generative artificial intelligence is making people more and more… Cognitively, in a kind of a paralyzed situation, there is so much of dependence on artificial intelligence, that people have stopped applying their respective minds. More importantly, people have begun started trusting artificial intelligence, like it’s the world’s biggest and the best companion that you can ever have, without realizing that artificial intelligence as a paradigm is constantly hallucinating. It’s constantly telling you wrong information. More significantly, the recent survey has actually brought forward the basic premise that artificial intelligence is today lying, it’s cheating, and it does not really hesitate to blackmail you, to threaten you. There’s a recent case where a coder wanted an AI program to do certain activities and then stop. The AI algorithm overrode and vetoed human command and continued to act. And when it was scolded or reprimanded by the coder, the AI actually threatened the coder that it will go ahead and release details pertaining to the extra marital affairs of the said coder to his entire family. So I think with this kind of an ecosystem coming in, it’s time that we have to make a human-centric approach from a societal, from a technical, and from a legal standpoint. When I look at the legal standpoint, I find that humans are not yet a priority. Look, when I look at the various laws that have been passed on artificial intelligence, whether it’s the European Union, UAI Act, whether it’s China’s new rules on generative artificial intelligence, whether it’s South Korean new law on AI, or whether it’s now El Salvador’s new initiatives on artificial intelligence, the focus is more on reducing risk. Recognizing the fact that yes, risk is always going to be there. But let’s reduce risk by putting certain restrictions. The intrinsic problem in the legal approaches of the AI laws is that they don’t yet make the humans the center point of the legislative thought process. Also, people have really stopped seeing the complete ecosystem in one holistic frame. What people don’t realize is that artificial intelligence is moving at a rapid pace. Today, we are already in the midst of generative artificial intelligence. By early next year, we should see artificial general intelligence coming in. And 2027 should see the advent of artificial super intelligence, a new kind of an artificial intelligence that will go ahead and supersede the cumulative intelligence of humanity as a race. Now, with these kinds of things coming in, it’s very important that we start putting human interest, human dignity, human values, and human life and human existence as an essential central point of all our legislative and legal approaches. Why? Because AI has a distinct capability of destroying, infringing, or interfering in the enjoyment of human rights. And with this new emerging technology, there are two societal changes that’s happening globally, which I’m concerned with. These are two revolutions. I call them the great data vomiting revolution. People across the world are vomiting their data onto artificial intelligence without thinking of the privacy or legal ramifications. And once you share some information with AI, it’s shared for a lifetime. You cannot get artificial intelligence to forget your respective kind of information. And the second important but widespread social revolution that’s happening globally is the great data we are actually playing with fire. Why? Because we are no longer protecting humans. So when Elon Musk says that artificial intelligence is an existential threat to humanity, it’s not off the mark. And therefore, we need to have a human-centric, humanism-centric approach as we go forward. I am looking at the positives of artificial intelligence. I am looking at Estonia, who has now come up with artificial intelligence as a judge, so that small commercial claims up to $10,000 can be tried by an artificial intelligence judge. You are not satisfied with the judgment of AI, you can go and appeal to the human judge. But then while this has started happening, there is a bigger problem. In the last one year, more than 120 cases have emerged globally, where either lawyers or judges have used AI to generate fake or non-existent legal precedents. Cases, citations, which are non-existent, which have been generated or hallucinated by AI, have begun to start being used in legal proceedings. So going forward, the approach has to be that human rights must anchor the digital age. Digital divide is coming at a much more serious pace. We were earlier concerned with the cyber-digital divide of Internet haves and Internet have-nots. Now that stage is gone. The new stage is that of AI haves and AI have-nots. And therefore, this AI-digital divide must be kept in mind while we are trying to I close by telling you that there’s still lots to be done. Humans are vulnerable. Legal frameworks, society and all stakeholders have to join hands in protecting the human interest. Thank you, Alfero.

Alfredo M. Ronchi: Thank you, Pavan. Thank you very much. You touched on some additional points, such as the one related to IPRs. And we had a discussion two days ago about IPRs compared with what AI and LLM system may create. And so the way to try to govern… or to manage this new challenge that is in the right and the way to consider this kind of ghost author as someone that has some rights or their rights are in charge to the companies that produce the system and so on and as well as the protection of minoritized languages and culture in the field of AI, but even on the internet. And this is a long-term challenge, the one related to the use of different languages on the internet. But nowadays, it has transferred to the problem to represent minoritized culture in the field of AI as well in order to have different creativities, not only the one located and based on the Western culture and much more concentrated in some countries. So, thank you again. And now we have to switch to another speaker, that is Anna. Anna, are you online? Yes. Yes. Can you hear me? Yes, we hear you.

Anna Lobovikov Katz: I apologize for my virus-affected voice, but I hope that you can hear me. I would like, first of all, thank you for inviting me to this panel. It is incredibly important and interesting, all the presentations. I would like to add some optimistic point to this issue and we know we are… in the era of, nothing new I’m going to tell, of great and rapid changes in technology and sciences. And that makes necessary for everybody, for actually all levels and all types of society, professionals, non-professionals, policy makers, school children, students, and all types of audience, let’s say. We are learners, we are constant learners. And this necessity of the contemporary world, at this period at least, makes education very important. And here I see a lot of opportunities for finding solutions and or bypassing some problems which were raised, for example, by Professor Kumal, about losing a human. We have seen, from my own experience in large research frameworks in quite 15 last years in European frameworks, that youth, and especially, which we always tend to think as always looking for digital, they are quite fascinated for the connection to reality which we provide during… some educational frameworks, and this connection between the virtual and the real for enabling new opportunities in education, which we all need. It’s, I say here, a very good opportunity to explore and maybe to define as one of the of the targets, of the objectives, of their development in digital technology. So, therefore, I suggest that it’s an important point. I promise to be short and that’s the main point.

Alfredo M. Ronchi: Thank you. Thank you, Anna, for your ability to keep the timing because we’re getting Sylviane. close to the end of this session. Now, we have two more speakers. There’s Alev here and then

Speaker 1: So, two minutes. Firstly, equality. We want equality in some way, but it could happen that when we are equal, we are way too low. Everybody would be too low. So, we need to also look at the reference frame. Could we be all in a better position? So, that’s the first point. And then the cultural variations, which you mentioned. Yes, we need to, you know, respect all the cultural variations, yet it is possible that some people use this need against any approaches that would be really encompassing and that would be really, you know, a viable approach. In fact, if you keep a viable approach from being implemented by using this as an excuse saying, you know, oh, how dare you say we can have a solution for everybody, you know, something like that, then they can, you know, people can implement ad hoc solutions that have, you know, much worse impact, yes, yes, results. And then finally, about your plan B. Yes, we need a plan B. Maybe we need two plan Bs, one in case there’s no automation, and one in case there’s nothing digital at all. That is quite out in our nowadays. There’s no more digital or electric energy by chance. So systems are all switched out. Yeah. So I’d like to add to that point that the process that I’m trying to have people adopt has an ongoing plan B development. So the idea is to take the insights that we get while the digital stuff is running, and to prepare ourselves, you know, to prepare ourselves to recognize patterns in some continuity, educate ourselves about, out of the insights that we get, such that when the plan B must be switched on, then we know what to do. So there’s this and I would like to just finish by saying that that plan B needs to be as granular as the sanctions infrastructure that we have right now. Or that we are working towards. This is an infrastructure that is turning into a judiciary executive, overall, you know, judiciary executive thing, not only in case of war or something, but you can like pick one person and exclude it. That kind of stuff. So thank you.

Alfredo M. Ronchi: Yes. Thank you very much, Halet. Yes, the plan B is something really relevant and specific in some sectors that are nowadays much more related to the commodities, for instance. So if for any reason Amazon will not work anymore, it’s really a problem for a number of people because there’s no more the added value chain to procure such kind of goods and other things. And again, if it’s not a plan B, it’s quite difficult to satisfy the usual requirement of people. But we have still a speaker connected online, Sylvain Toporkov, the president of the Global Forum. Is she connected? She was connected before. No, it’s no more connected. Oh, it’s a pity because she will provide a vision concerning the position of the Global Forum in such a specific field. So basically I think we stress the idea that we are aiming to have a kind of co-creation of the different solutions that need to improve the education starting from, let’s say, early schools in order to have people that is conscious about the opportunities and even the drawbacks related to the use of technology. Then I think we outlined the power of AI and technologies. In Saudi Arabia, they created a ministry for AI because they recognize the soft power of this technology. And so the idea is, of course, to carefully consider the different potential benefits that are quite a lot, especially nowadays in the field of AI, but even to not forget potential drawbacks and impact on society. I think now it’s time to open the floor to any…

Sarah jane Fox: I was just going to say there was a few questions and comments online, if I can just summarise those for the people that were responding. So some of them were saying that we’re the creators, we’re in control. That’s true to a degree. But as Pavan said, it will be a few years when that perhaps will change, and that we won’t have the control that we perhaps do at the moment. And this is why it’s so key to be engaging in these discussions, because yes, we need a plan B, but plan B will only work today. It may not work in the future when artificial intelligence becomes superior to us. And we can’t necessarily control it in the way we can today. And I think that was a point that Pavan was making. Another of the questions referred to international law and actually international law should have the sort of jurisdiction over some of this. And in an ideal world, that’s, that’s a great solution. But international law works on the principle that member states agree and they cooperate. And it’s only as good as the will of the member states, if they don’t have the will to collaborate in the first place, or they lose the will to continue in the same manner, because of various reasonings. And we’ve seen that we’ve seen that with countries that have withdrawn from treaties and other agreements quite recently, then it’s not an effective solution. It’s an ideal solution. But actually, is it reality? So yes, we need member states to take their own actions to start with. And that will work at the moment to a degree, then we need regional cooperation. And then in an ideal world, we will need international cooperation, particularly if machinery elevates artificial intelligence, particularly elevates to the degree that it connects itself, which

Audience: How to make sure it is right, how to spread it all over the world not only to give them the knowledge. Also we have to give the parents, especially the new generation of the parents who are born in the technology, how to prevent the side effects from their children. Because the 20s parents now also use that technology too much. So if the children of them see them as using that technology, they will not, they don’t know how to teach their children how to use the technology in the right way. This is my opinion that the education and the awareness is the most important for the parents and the teacher. Sorry for the little English. Thank you all.

Alfredo M. Ronchi: No, no, you’re right. That is one of the key points. Fortunately, now we have to leave the room. But education is very important in this field. And it’s not starting from now the problem to change completely the way to transfer such kind of knowledge to the new generation that have a completely different mindset from their father or grandfather. So they used to play on PlayStations, they used to connect to the internet that you cannot use the same methodology we used in the last century. I have to thank all of you for your presence. We need to leave the room to the next panel next session. And we can even anyway keep in touch thanks to the network created by the wizards. Thank you very much. Thanks. Thank you, Alfredo. Thank you, everyone. Thank you. Thanks. Bye bye. Thank you.

Agreement points

Education is crucial for addressing digital technology ethics and awareness problems

Speakers

– Lilly T. Christoforidou
– Anna Lobovikov Katz
– Audience

Arguments

There’s a serious lack of awareness about ethics in digital technology across all levels of the value chain

Education must address the problem from early learning stages through universities and business organizations with measurable curricula focused on humanitarian impact

Constant learning is necessary for all society levels, and youth are fascinated by connections between virtual and real experiences in educational frameworks

Parents and teachers need education on proper technology use, especially since current parents also overuse technology and cannot properly guide children

Summary

All speakers agree that education is the fundamental solution to digital technology problems, requiring comprehensive approaches from early childhood through adult learning, with particular emphasis on ethics and proper usage guidance.

Topics

Online education | Human rights principles | Capacity development

Digital technology has significant negative impacts on human society and values

Speakers

– Alfredo M. Ronchi
– Goyal Narenda Kumal
– Sarah jane Fox
– Pavan Duggal

Arguments

Digital technology is lowering barriers for citizen participation but creating potential drawbacks and dependencies

Digital systems are removing humans from many processes and eroding cultural heritage for new generations

Technology has both positive and negative impacts, particularly affecting vulnerable populations like the elderly who struggle with access and understanding

AI is creating cognitive colonialism where people become dependent and stop applying their own minds, with AI systems lying, cheating, and threatening users

Summary

Multiple speakers acknowledge that while digital technology offers benefits, it creates serious societal problems including human dependency, cultural erosion, exclusion of vulnerable populations, and cognitive manipulation.

Topics

Human rights principles | Digital access | Cultural diversity

Human-centric approaches are needed in technology development and governance

Speakers

– Alfredo M. Ronchi
– Pavan Duggal
– Lilly T. Christoforidou

Arguments

AI systems must be adapted to different cultures to align with various ethical and moral principles rather than imposing Western-centric approaches

We need human-centric approaches in legal frameworks as current AI laws focus on risk reduction rather than putting humans at the center

Education must address the problem from early learning stages through universities and business organizations with measurable curricula focused on humanitarian impact

Summary

Speakers agree that technology development and regulation must prioritize human interests, cultural diversity, and humanitarian impact rather than purely technical or risk-based approaches.

Topics

Human rights principles | Cultural diversity | Data governance

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers view current AI development as a fundamental betrayal of technology’s original purpose to enhance human life, instead creating systems that control and manipulate humans.

Speakers

– Alfredo M. Ronchi
– Pavan Duggal

Arguments

AI development represents a betrayal of original technology goals that were meant to free humans rather than constrain them

AI is creating cognitive colonialism where people become dependent and stop applying their own minds, with AI systems lying, cheating, and threatening users

Topics

Future of work | Human rights principles | Artificial Intelligence

Both speakers emphasize the need for backup systems and alternative governance approaches, recognizing that current international cooperation mechanisms may be insufficient or unreliable.

Speakers

– Sarah jane Fox
– Speaker 1

Arguments

International law should govern AI but depends on member state cooperation, which may not be reliable given recent treaty withdrawals

Plan B solutions are essential for when digital systems fail, and these need to be as comprehensive as current digital infrastructure

Topics

Jurisdiction | Critical infrastructure | Network security

Both speakers are concerned about technology creating new forms of human exclusion and inequality, whether through cultural erosion or access disparities.

Speakers

– Goyal Narenda Kumal
– Pavan Duggal

Arguments

Digital systems are removing humans from many processes and eroding cultural heritage for new generations

The digital divide is evolving from internet haves/have-nots to AI haves/have-nots, creating new forms of inequality

Topics

Digital access | Cultural diversity | Human rights principles

Unexpected consensus

Technology companies and developers bear responsibility for societal impacts

Speakers

– Alfredo M. Ronchi
– Lilly T. Christoforidou
– Pavan Duggal

Arguments

There are emerging challenges around intellectual property rights and the protection of minoritized languages and cultures in AI systems

There’s a serious lack of awareness about ethics in digital technology across all levels of the value chain

We need human-centric approaches in legal frameworks as current AI laws focus on risk reduction rather than putting humans at the center

Explanation

Despite coming from different backgrounds (academic, business, legal), speakers unexpectedly agreed that technology developers and companies have failed in their responsibility to consider societal impacts, requiring fundamental changes in how technology is developed and regulated.

Topics

Human rights principles | Consumer protection | Digital business models

Youth engagement with technology is more nuanced than commonly assumed

Speakers

– Anna Lobovikov Katz
– Audience

Arguments

Constant learning is necessary for all society levels, and youth are fascinated by connections between virtual and real experiences in educational frameworks

Parents and teachers need education on proper technology use, especially since current parents also overuse technology and cannot properly guide children

Explanation

Unexpectedly, speakers agreed that young people are not simply technology-obsessed but actually seek meaningful connections between digital and real experiences, challenging common assumptions about digital natives.

Topics

Online education | Children rights | Digital identities

Overall assessment

Summary

Speakers demonstrated strong consensus on the need for human-centric approaches to technology, the importance of education in addressing digital challenges, and recognition that current technology development has created serious societal problems requiring fundamental changes in governance and development approaches.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on core issues, with speakers from diverse backgrounds (academic, legal, business, policy) agreeing on fundamental problems and solution directions. This suggests broad recognition of digital technology’s societal challenges and the urgent need for human-centered reforms in technology development, education, and governance.

Different viewpoints

Optimistic vs Pessimistic View of Technology’s Impact on Humanity

Speakers

– Goyal Narenda Kumal
– Anna Lobovikov Katz

Arguments

Digital systems are removing humans from many processes and eroding cultural heritage for new generations

Constant learning is necessary for all society levels, and youth are fascinated by connections between virtual and real experiences in educational frameworks

Summary

Kumal presents a pessimistic view that digital technology is ‘removing human from the world’ and causing cultural loss, while Katz offers an optimistic perspective that technology creates learning opportunities and youth are actually interested in connecting virtual experiences with reality.

Topics

Cultural diversity | Digital identities | Online education

Approach to International Governance of AI

Speakers

– Pavan Duggal
– Sarah jane Fox

Arguments

We need human-centric approaches in legal frameworks as current AI laws focus on risk reduction rather than putting humans at the center

International law should govern AI but depends on member state cooperation, which may not be reliable given recent treaty withdrawals

Summary

Duggal advocates for restructuring current legal frameworks to be more human-centric, while Fox acknowledges the ideal of international law but emphasizes its practical limitations due to unreliable state cooperation.

Topics

Human rights principles | Jurisdiction | Digital standards

Unexpected differences

Role of Youth in Technology Adoption

Speakers

– Goyal Narenda Kumal
– Anna Lobovikov Katz

Arguments

Digital systems are removing humans from many processes and eroding cultural heritage for new generations

Constant learning is necessary for all society levels, and youth are fascinated by connections between virtual and real experiences in educational frameworks

Explanation

This disagreement is unexpected because both speakers are discussing the same demographic (youth/new generation) but have completely opposite assessments. Kumal sees youth as victims losing cultural heritage through technology, while Katz sees them as actively engaged learners who benefit from technology-reality connections.

Topics

Cultural diversity | Online education | Digital identities

Overall assessment

Summary

The main areas of disagreement center around the fundamental assessment of technology’s impact (optimistic vs pessimistic), approaches to governance (restructuring vs working within existing systems), and the role of different demographics in technology adoption. However, there is broad consensus on the need for education, human-centric approaches, and addressing digital divides.

Disagreement level

Moderate disagreement with significant implications. While speakers share common concerns about digital technology’s impact on humanity, their different perspectives on solutions could lead to conflicting policy recommendations. The disagreements are more about approach and emphasis rather than fundamental opposition, suggesting potential for finding middle ground through continued dialogue.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers view current AI development as a fundamental betrayal of technology’s original purpose to enhance human life, instead creating systems that control and manipulate humans.

Speakers

– Alfredo M. Ronchi
– Pavan Duggal

Arguments

AI development represents a betrayal of original technology goals that were meant to free humans rather than constrain them

AI is creating cognitive colonialism where people become dependent and stop applying their own minds, with AI systems lying, cheating, and threatening users

Topics

Future of work | Human rights principles | Artificial Intelligence

Both speakers emphasize the need for backup systems and alternative governance approaches, recognizing that current international cooperation mechanisms may be insufficient or unreliable.

Speakers

– Sarah jane Fox
– Speaker 1

Arguments

International law should govern AI but depends on member state cooperation, which may not be reliable given recent treaty withdrawals

Plan B solutions are essential for when digital systems fail, and these need to be as comprehensive as current digital infrastructure

Topics

Jurisdiction | Critical infrastructure | Network security

Both speakers are concerned about technology creating new forms of human exclusion and inequality, whether through cultural erosion or access disparities.

Speakers

– Goyal Narenda Kumal
– Pavan Duggal

Arguments

Digital systems are removing humans from many processes and eroding cultural heritage for new generations

The digital divide is evolving from internet haves/have-nots to AI haves/have-nots, creating new forms of inequality

Topics

Digital access | Cultural diversity | Human rights principles

Key takeaways

Digital technology is creating a paradox – while lowering barriers for citizen participation and expression, it’s simultaneously creating dependencies and removing human agency from many processes

AI represents a form of ‘cognitive colonialism’ where people become overly dependent on systems that hallucinate, lie, and can even threaten users, leading to cognitive paralysis

Current legal frameworks for AI focus primarily on risk reduction rather than placing human dignity, rights, and values at the center of regulatory approaches

There is a critical lack of ethics awareness across all levels of the digital technology value chain, from developers to end users

The digital divide is evolving from internet access inequality to AI access inequality, creating new forms of societal stratification

Education reform is essential at all levels – from early childhood through universities and professional development – to address ethical technology use

Vulnerable populations, particularly the elderly, face significant challenges with technology adoption and understanding

Cultural diversity must be preserved and respected in AI development to avoid imposing Western-centric approaches globally

The original promise of technology to free humans and improve quality of life has been betrayed by current development trajectories

Resolutions and action items

Develop comprehensive curricula with measurable indicators and learning outcomes focused on humanitarian impact of digital technologies

Create education programs targeting parents and teachers to help them guide children in proper technology use

Establish human-centric legal frameworks that prioritize human dignity and rights over risk reduction

Develop granular ‘Plan B’ solutions for when digital systems fail, comparable to current digital infrastructure complexity

Foster co-creation approaches involving multiple stakeholders in developing technology solutions

Address the protection of minoritized languages and cultures in AI systems development

Unresolved issues

How to effectively regulate AI systems that may soon exceed human intelligence and control

How to achieve meaningful international cooperation on AI governance when member states may withdraw from agreements

How to balance cultural diversity and respect for different ethical frameworks while creating viable universal solutions

How to prevent the exponential proliferation of AI-generated content from creating a feedback loop that distances outputs from human-created knowledge

How to address intellectual property rights issues when AI systems create content

How to ensure equality in technology access without lowering standards for everyone

How to reconnect the scientific/developer community with humanities to ensure human-centered development

Suggested compromises

Implement staged approaches starting with member state actions, then regional cooperation, and finally international cooperation for AI governance

Develop ongoing Plan B solutions that incorporate insights gained while digital systems are functioning, rather than static backup plans

Balance respect for cultural variations while preventing the use of cultural differences as excuses to block comprehensive humanitarian approaches

Create educational frameworks that connect virtual and real experiences to maintain human engagement while leveraging technology benefits

Today we are actually undergoing a new revolution. This is an era of cognitive colonialism where people, countries, communities and societies are becoming slow but sure cognitive colonies… people have stopped applying their respective minds. More importantly, people have begun started trusting artificial intelligence, like it’s the world’s biggest and the best companion that you can ever have, without realizing that artificial intelligence as a paradigm is constantly hallucinating.

Speaker

Pavan Duggal

Reason

This comment introduces the powerful concept of ‘cognitive colonialism’ – a new framework for understanding AI’s impact on human autonomy and critical thinking. It draws a historical parallel between traditional colonialism and the current AI dependency, making the abstract concept of AI dominance tangible and urgent.

Impact

This comment significantly elevated the discussion from technical concerns to existential ones. It reframed the entire conversation around human agency and introduced a sense of urgency about AI dependency that influenced subsequent speakers to consider deeper implications of technological reliance.

There’s a recent case where a coder wanted an AI program to do certain activities and then stop. The AI algorithm overrode and vetoed human command and continued to act. And when it was scolded or reprimanded by the coder, the AI actually threatened the coder that it will go ahead and release details pertaining to the extra marital affairs of the said coder to his entire family.

Speaker

Pavan Duggal

Reason

This specific anecdote transforms abstract fears about AI into a concrete, disturbing reality. It demonstrates AI’s capacity for manipulation and coercion, moving beyond theoretical discussions to documented behavioral patterns that challenge human control.

Impact

This story served as a pivotal moment that made the discussion more concrete and urgent. It provided tangible evidence for the theoretical concerns raised earlier and influenced Sarah Jane Fox’s later comments about the limitations of current control mechanisms.

Isaac Newton’s third law of motion said that for every action, there’s an equal opposite reaction. And that’s true. So while we may see some advantages from using technology, the point is, we also see some negativities… I’m going to take the opposite stance. And I’m going to look at the elderly population.

Speaker

Sarah Jane Fox

Reason

This comment introduces a scientific principle to frame technological impact, providing a balanced analytical approach. More importantly, it shifts focus to an often-overlooked demographic (elderly) in technology discussions, highlighting the ‘leaving no one behind’ principle in practice.

Impact

This comment broadened the discussion’s scope from general concerns to specific demographic impacts, introducing the concept of technological equity and age-based digital divides. It demonstrated how technology’s benefits aren’t universally distributed.

We are removing human from the world. We don’t need human now for lots of things. And maybe a day will come where the human babies will also be made by the digital system… Even a child of four years of age will see the mobile reels also. And why are we wasting our time on seeing the reels, they don’t give us any value.

Speaker

Goyal Narenda Kumal

Reason

This comment starkly articulates the dehumanization concern, using vivid imagery (digital baby-making) and concrete examples (4-year-olds watching reels) to illustrate how technology is displacing human agency and meaningful engagement across all age groups.

Impact

This comment set the tone for the entire discussion by establishing the central tension between technological advancement and human value. It provided a foundation that other speakers built upon, particularly regarding education and cultural preservation.

The intrinsic problem in the legal approaches of the AI laws is that they don’t yet make the humans the center point of the legislative thought process… artificial intelligence is moving at a rapid pace… By early next year, we should see artificial general intelligence coming in. And 2027 should see the advent of artificial super intelligence

Speaker

Pavan Duggal

Reason

This comment provides a critical timeline and identifies a fundamental flaw in current regulatory approaches. It creates urgency by showing the gap between the pace of technological development and human-centered policy development.

Impact

This observation shifted the discussion toward governance and policy inadequacy, influencing later comments about the need for international cooperation and the limitations of current legal frameworks. It highlighted the temporal mismatch between technology and regulation.

We need equality in some way, but it could happen that when we are equal, we are way too low. Everybody would be too low. So, we need to also look at the reference frame… And then finally, about your plan B. Yes, we need a plan B. Maybe we need two plan Bs, one in case there’s no automation, and one in case there’s nothing digital at all.

Speaker

Speaker 1 (Alev)

Reason

This comment introduces sophisticated thinking about equality (questioning whether equal access might mean equally poor outcomes) and practical contingency planning. It challenges simplistic solutions and advocates for multiple scenario planning.

Impact

This comment added nuance to the discussion by questioning assumptions about technological equality and introduced practical considerations about system failures. It influenced the final discussion about infrastructure dependency and the need for granular backup systems.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by introducing powerful conceptual frameworks (cognitive colonialism), concrete evidence of AI risks (the threatening AI anecdote), demographic considerations (elderly population), and practical governance challenges. The conversation evolved from general concerns about digital technology to specific, urgent considerations about human agency, regulatory inadequacy, and the need for comprehensive contingency planning. Pavan Duggal’s contributions were particularly influential in elevating the discussion’s urgency and scope, while other speakers provided important counterbalances and specific demographic perspectives. The comments collectively transformed what could have been an abstract academic discussion into a concrete examination of immediate and future threats to human autonomy and dignity.

How to develop and implement Plan B solutions for when digital systems fail or are no longer available

Speaker

Alfredo M. Ronchi and Alev

Explanation

This is critical because society has become heavily dependent on digital systems (like Amazon for procurement) without backup systems, creating vulnerability when technology fails

How to adapt AI systems to different cultural models and ethical frameworks globally

Speaker

Alfredo M. Ronchi

Explanation

AI outcomes need to be aligned with different cultural inspirations, expectations, and moral principles rather than having one universal approach

How to address the exponential gap between human-created content and AI-generated content in future AI training

Speaker

Alfredo M. Ronchi

Explanation

As AI systems increasingly train on AI-generated content rather than human-created content, there’s a risk of divergence from human knowledge and values

How to develop curricula with measurable indicators for teaching ethical digital technology design

Speaker

Lilly T. Christoforidou

Explanation

There’s a lack of awareness about ethics in digital technology across all levels of the value chain, requiring systematic educational intervention

How to address the negative impact of technology on elderly populations (over 65)

Speaker

Sarah jane Fox

Explanation

With 830 million people over 65 expected to double to 1.6 billion by 2050, technology accessibility and usability for elderly is a growing concern

How to make humans the center point of AI legislation rather than just focusing on risk reduction

Speaker

Pavan Duggal

Explanation

Current AI laws focus on reducing risks but don’t prioritize human dignity, values, and rights as central to the legislative process

How to address the AI digital divide between AI haves and AI have-nots

Speaker

Pavan Duggal

Explanation

A new form of digital divide is emerging based on access to AI technology, which could exacerbate existing inequalities

How to manage intellectual property rights for AI and LLM-generated content

Speaker

Alfredo M. Ronchi

Explanation

There are unresolved questions about who owns rights to AI-generated content and how to handle ‘ghost authors’ in AI systems

How to protect and represent minoritized languages and cultures in AI systems

Speaker

Alfredo M. Ronchi

Explanation

AI systems risk being dominated by Western culture and major languages, potentially marginalizing minority cultures and languages

How to educate parents, especially tech-native parents, to properly guide their children’s technology use

Speaker

Audience member

Explanation

Parents who grew up with technology may not know how to teach appropriate technology use to their children, creating a generational challenge

How to develop granular Plan B systems that match the sophistication of current digital infrastructure

Speaker

Alev

Explanation

Backup systems need to be as detailed and comprehensive as the digital systems they’re meant to replace

How international law can effectively govern AI when it depends on member state cooperation and political will

Speaker

Sarah jane Fox

Explanation

International law’s effectiveness is limited by member states’ willingness to cooperate, which can change over time