OpenAI Archives | Digital Watch Observatory

OpenAI adds pinned chat feature to ChatGPT apps

The US tech company, OpenAI, has begun rolling out a pinned chats feature in ChatGPT across web, Android and iOS, allowing users to keep selected conversations fixed at the top of their chat history for faster access.

The function mirrors familiar behaviour from messaging platforms such as WhatsApp and Telegram instead of requiring repeated scrolling through past chats.

Users can pin a conversation by selecting the three-dot menu on the web or by long-pressing on mobile devices, ensuring that essential discussions remain visible regardless of how many new chats are created.

An update that follows earlier interface changes aimed at helping users explore conversation paths without losing the original discussion thread.

Alongside pinned chats, OpenAI is moving ChatGPT toward a more app-driven experience through an internal directory that allows users to connect third-party services directly within conversations.

The company says these integrations support tasks such as bookings, file handling and document creation without switching applications.

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

ChatGPT expands with a new app directory from OpenAI

OpenAI has opened submissions for third-party apps inside ChatGPT, allowing developers to publish tools that extend conversations with real-world actions. Approved apps will appear in a new in-product directory, enabling users to move directly from discussion to execution.

The initiative builds on OpenAI’s earlier DevDay announcement, where it outlined how apps could add specialised context to conversations. Developers can now submit apps for review, provided they meet the company’s requirements on safety, privacy, and user experience.

ChatGPT apps are designed to support practical workflows such as ordering groceries, creating slide decks, or searching for apartments. Apps can be activated during conversations via the tools menu, by mentioning them directly, or through automated recommendations based on context and usage signals.

To support adoption, OpenAI has released developer resources including best-practice guides, open-source example apps, and a chat-native UI library. An Apps SDK, currently in beta, allows developers to build experiences that integrate directly into conversational flows.

During the initial rollout, OpenAI’s monetisation is limited to external links directing users to developers’ own platforms. said it plans to explore additional revenue models over time as the app ecosystem matures.

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

UNGA High-level meeting on WSIS+20 review – Day 2

Dear readers,

Welcome to our overview of statements delivered during Day 2 at UNGA’s high-level meeting on the WSIS+20 review.

Speakers repeatedly underscored that the WSIS vision remains relevant, but that it needs to be matched with concrete action, sustained cooperation, and inclusive governance arrangements. Digital transformation was framed as both an opportunity and a risk: a powerful accelerator of sustainable development, resilience, and service delivery, but also a driver of new inequalities if structural gaps, concentration of power, and governance challenges are left unaddressed. Digital public infrastructure and digital public goods were highlighted as foundations for inclusive development, while persistent digital divides were described as urgent and unresolved. Artificial intelligence (AI) featured prominently as a general-purpose technology with transformative potential, but also with risks related to exclusion, labour, environmental sustainability, and governance capacity.

Particular attention was given to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), with widespread support for its permanent mandate, alongside calls to strengthen its funding, working modalities, and participation.

Throughout the day, speakers reaffirmed that no single stakeholder can deliver digital development alone, and that WSIS must continue to function as a people-centred, multistakeholder framework aligned with the SDGs and the Global Digital Compact (GDC).

DW team

Information and communication technologies for development

Digital transformation is no longer optional, underpinning early warning systems, disaster preparedness, climate adaptation, education, health services, and economic diversification, especially for Small Island Developing States (Fiji).

ICTs were widely framed as key enablers of sustainable development, innovation, resilience, and inclusive growth, and as major accelerators of the 2030 Agenda, particularly in contexts facing economic, climate, or security challenges (Ethiopia, Eritrea, Ukraine, Fiji, Colombia). It was noted that technologies, AI, and digital transformation must serve humanity through education, culture, science, communication, and information (UNESCO).

Strong emphasis was placed on digital public infrastructure (DPI) and digital public goods (DPGs) as foundations for inclusion, innovation, growth and public value (UNDP, Trinidad and Tobago, Malaysia). Digital public infrastructure was emphasised as needing to be secure, interoperable, and rights-based, grounded in safeguards, open systems, and public-interest governance (UNDP).

Digital commons, open-source solutions, and community-driven knowledge infrastructures were highlighted as central to sustainable development outcomes (IT for Change, Wikimedia, OIF). DPGs, such as open-source platforms, have been developed by stakeholders brought together by the WSIS process. However, member states need to create conditions for DPGs’ continued success within the WSIS framework (Wikimedia). Libraries were identified as global digital public infrastructure and significant public goods, with calls for their systematic integration into digital inclusion strategies and WSIS implementation efforts (International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions).

Persistent inequalities in sharing digitalisation gains were highlighted. While more than 6 billion people are online globally, low-income countries continue to lag significantly, including in digital commerce participation, underscoring the need for short-term policy choices that secure inclusive and sustainable development outcomes in the long term (UNCTAD).

The positive impact of digital technologies is considerably lower in developing countries compared to that in developed countries (Cuba). Concerns were raised that developing countries risk being locked into technological dependence, further deepening global asymmetries if left unaddressed (Colombia).

Environmental impacts

An environmentally sustainable information society was emphasised, with calls to align digital and green transformations to address climate change and resource scarcity, and to harness ICTs to achieve the SDGs (China).

Digital innovation was described as needing to support environmental sustainability and responsible resource use, ensuring positive long-term social and economic outcomes (Thailand).

The enabling environment for digital development

Speakers reaffirmed that enabling environments are central to the WSIS vision of a people-centred, inclusive, and development-oriented information society. Predictable, coherent, and transparent policy frameworks were highlighted as essential for enabling innovation and investment, and for ensuring that all countries can benefit from the digital economy (Microsoft, ICC).

These environments were linked to openness and coherence, including regulatory clarity and predictability, support for the free flow of information across borders, avoidance of unnecessary fragmentation, and the promotion of interoperability and scalable digital solutions (ICC). The importance of developing policies through dialogue with relevant stakeholders was also stressed (ICC).

Several speakers underlined that enabling environments must address persistent development gaps. The uneven distribution of the benefits of the information society, particularly in developing countries, was noted, alongside calls for enhanced international cooperation to facilitate investment, innovation, effective governance, and access to financial and technological resources (Holy See). Partnerships across all sectors were seen as essential to mobilise financing, capacity building, and technology transfer, given that governments cannot deliver alone (Fiji).

Divergent views were expressed on unilateral coercive measures. Some speakers argued that such measures impede economic and social development and hinder digital transformation, calling for international cooperation focused on capacity building, technology transfer, and financing of public digital infrastructure (Eritrea, Cuba). In contrast, a delegation stated that economic sanctions are lawful, legitimate, and effective tools for addressing threats to peace and security (USA).

Governance frameworks were identified as a core component of enabling environments. It was stressed that digital development must be safe, equitable, and rooted in trust, with adequate governance frameworks ensuring transparency, accountability, user protection, and meaningful stakeholder participation in line with the multistakeholder approach (Thailand).

Building confidence and security in the use of ICTs

Building confidence and security in the digital environment was framed as a prerequisite for realising the social and economic benefits of digitalisation, with trust and safety needing to be embedded across the entire digital ecosystem (Malaysia).

Trust was described as requiring regulation, accountability, and sustained public education to ensure that users can engage confidently with digital technologies (Malaysia).

Cybercrime was identified as a persistent and serious concern requiring concerted collective solutions beyond national approaches (Namibia).

Cybersecurity and cybercrime were highlighted as increasingly serious and complex challenges that undermine trust and risk eroding the socio-economic gains of digitalisation if left unaddressed (Thailand).

Investment in capacity building was emphasised as essential to strengthening national and individual resilience against cyber threats, alongside the adoption of security- and privacy-by-design principles (Thailand, International Federation for Information Processing).

Capacity development

Capacity development was consistently framed as a core enabler of inclusive digital transformation, with widespread recognition of persistent constraints in digital skills, institutional capacity, and governance capabilities (UNDP, Malaysia, Trinidad and Tobago).

Capacity development was identified as one of the most frequent requests from countries, particularly in relation to inclusive digital transformation (UNDP).

Effective capacity development was described as requiring institutional anchors, with centres of excellence highlighted as providing infrastructure and expertise that many countries—especially least developed countries, landlocked developing countries, and small island states—cannot afford independently (UNIDO).

Efforts are underway to establish a network of centres of excellence across the Global South, including in China, Ethiopia, the Western Balkans, Belarus, and Latin America (UNIDO).

Sustainable digital education was highlighted as essential, including fostering learner aspiration, addressing diversity and underrepresented communities, embedding computational thinking, and strengthening teacher preparation (International Federation for Information Processing). The emphasis should be on empowering people to understand information, question it, and use it wisely (UNESCO.

Libraries were highlighted as trusted, non-commercial public spaces that provide access to connectivity, devices, skills, and confidence-building support. For many people, particularly the most disenfranchised, libraries were described as the only way to get online and as key sources of diverse content and cultural heritage (International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions).

Financial mechanisms

Financing was described as a critical and non-negotiable component of implementing the WSIS vision, with repeated warnings that without adequate and predictable public and private resources, WSIS commitments risk remaining aspirational (APC).

Effective implementation was described as requiring a shift from fragmented, project-based funding toward systems-level financing approaches capable of delivering impact at scale (UNDP).

Calls were made for adequate, predictable, and accessible funding for digital infrastructure and capacity development, particularly to ensure effective participation of developing countries and the Global South (Colombia).

Support was expressed for the proposed establishment of a working group on future financial mechanisms for digital development, provided it focuses on the concrete needs of developing countries (Eritrea).

Financing challenges were also linked to linguistic and cultural diversity, with calls for decentralisation of computing capacity and ambitious strategies to finance digital development and AI, building on proposals by the UN Secretary-General (OIF).

Calls were made for UNGIS and ITU to ensure inclusive participation in the interagency financing task force and to approach the IGF’s permanent mandate with creativity and ambition (APC).

Existing financing mechanisms were highlighted for their tangible impact, including funds that have mobilised resources for digital infrastructure in more than 100 countries (Kuwait).

Human rights and the ethical dimensions of the information society

Human rights were reaffirmed as a foundational pillar of the WSIS vision, grounded in the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, with emphasis on ensuring that the same rights people enjoy offline are protected online (International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, Costa Rica, Austria).

Anchoring WSIS in international human rights law was highlighted as essential to preserving an open, free, interoperable, reliable, and secure internet, particularly amid trends toward fragmentation, surveillance-based governance, and concentration of technological power (International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, OHCHR).

The centrality of human rights and the multistakeholder character of digital governance were described as practical conditions for legitimacy and effectiveness, particularly as freedom online declines and civic space shrinks (GPD, APC).

Concerns were raised about harms associated with profit-driven algorithmic systems and platform design, including addiction, mental health impacts, polarisation, extremism, and erosion of trustworthy information, with particularly severe effects in developing countries (HitRecord, Brazil).

A rights-based approach to digital governance was described as necessary to ensure accountability, participation, impact assessment, and protection of rights such as privacy, non-discrimination, and freedom of expression (OHCHR, ICC).

Divergent views were expressed on content regulation. Some cautioned against any threats to freedom of speech and expression (USA), while others emphasised the legitimate authority of states to regulate the digital domain to protect citizens and uphold the principle that what is illegal offline must also be illegal online (Brazil).

Ethical frameworks were emphasised to protect privacy, personal data, children, women, and vulnerable groups, and to orient digital development toward human dignity, justice, and the common good, including embedding ethical principles by design and protecting cultural diversity and the rights of artists and creators in AI-driven environments (UNESCO, Holy See, International Federation for Information Processing, Costa Rica, Kuwait, Colombia, Foundation Cibervoluntarios, Eritrea).

Concerns were raised about trends toward a more fragmented and state-centric internet, with warnings that such shifts pose risks to human rights, including privacy and freedom of expression, and could undermine the open and global nature of the internet (International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance).

Data governance

The growing importance of data was linked to the expansion of AI (UNCTAD). Unlocking the value of data in a responsible manner was presented as a common problem and a civilizational challenge (Internet and Jurisdiction Policy Network). Concerns were raised about an innovation economy built on data extractivism, dispossession, and disenfranchisement, with countries and people from the Global South resisting unjust trade arrangements and seeking to reclaim the internet and its promise (IT for Change).

Artificial intelligence

AI was described as a general-purpose technology at the centre of the technological revolution, shaping economic growth, national security, global competitiveness, and development trajectories (Brazil, the USA).

Concerns were raised that AI is currently being developed and deployed largely according to market-driven and engagement-maximising business models, similar to those that shaped social media. Without practical guardrails, AI risks reproducing harmful effects, and so governments need to move beyond historically hands-off approaches and play a more active role in governance (HitRecord).

Specific AI-related harms were identified, including deepfakes, rising environmental impacts from AI infrastructure (IT for Change), and labour impacts (Brazil). Concerns were expressed that AI adoption is contributing to job displacement and the fragilisation of labour rights, despite the centrality of decent work to the information society agenda (Brazil).

Noting uneven global capacities in AI development, deployment, and use, concerns were expressed that the speed of AI development may exceed the adaptive capacities of developing countries, including small island developing states, risking new forms of exclusion (Eritrea, Trinidad and Tobago). And it was highlighted that cultural and linguistic diversity is critically under-represented in AI systems (OIF).

Calls were made for AI governance frameworks to address AI-related risks and ensure that the technology is placed at the service of humanity (Kuwait, Namibia). Divergent views were expressed on governance approaches, with some cautioning against additional bureaucracy, while others stressed that relying on market forces alone will not ensure AI benefits all people (USA, HitRecord). It was also said that the UN should not shy away from looking into AI governance matters (Brazil).

From an industrial perspective, it was noted that regulation often lags behind AI developments, with support expressed for evidence-based policymaking and regulatory testbeds to de-risk innovation and translate AI strategies into practice (UNIDO).

Ethical safeguards were emphasised as essential, with AI described as opening new horizons for creativity while also raising serious concerns about its impact on humanity’s relationship to truth, beauty, and contemplation (Holy See).

Internet governance

Widespread support was expressed for the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), described as a central pillar of the WSIS architecture and a cornerstone of global digital cooperation (International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, GPD, APC, ICANN, ICC, UNESCO, Austria, Africa ICT Alliance, Meta, Italy, Colombia). Making the IGF permanent was seen as an affirmation of confidence in the multistakeholder model and its continued relevance for addressing governance issues (APC, ICC, OHCHR).

The IGF was also described as a unique and inclusive multistakeholder space, bringing together governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical community, academia, and international organisations on equal footing. This model was credited with helping the internet remain global, interoperable, resilient, and stable through periods of rapid technological and geopolitical change (Microsoft, ICANN, IGF Leadership Panel, Meta).

Several speakers highlighted that the IGF has evolved into a self-organised global network, with more than 170 national, regional, sub-regional, and youth IGFs, enabling voices from remote, marginalised, and under-represented communities to feed into global discussions and bridge the gap between high-level diplomacy and ground-level implementation (Internet and Jurisdiction Policy Network, IGF Leadership Panel, Africa ICT Alliance, Internet Society). At the same time, it was stressed that while the IGF represents a remarkable institutional innovation, it has not yet fulfilled its full potential. Calls were made to continue improving its working modalities, clarify its institutional evolution, and ensure sustainable and predictable funding (Internet and Jurisdiction Policy Network, Brazil, ICANN).

Protecting and reaffirming the multistakeholder model of internet governance was repeatedly identified as important to the success of WSIS implementation. This model – anchored in dialogue, transparency, inclusivity, and accountability – was presented as a practical governance tool rather than a symbolic principle, ensuring that those who build, use, and regulate the internet can jointly shape its future (International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, Wikimedia, Microsoft, ICANN, ICC).

At the same time, several speakers stressed the need for stronger and more effective government participation in governance processes. It was noted that governments have legitimate roles and responsibilities in shaping digital policy, and that intergovernmental spaces must be strengthened so that all governments – particularly those from developing countries – can effectively perform their roles in global digital governance (APC, Brazil, Cuba). In this context, there was also a concern that calls for greater government engagement in the IGF have been framed primarily toward developing countries, with emphasis placed instead on the need for equal-footing participation of governments from all regions to ensure the forum’s long-term sustainability (APC).

Monitoring and measurement

It was noted that WSIS+20 must deliver measurable commitments with verifiable indicators (Costa Rica). And a streamlined and inclusive monitoring and review framework was seen as essential moving forward (Cuba).

WSIS framework, follow-up and implementation

There was broad recognition that the WSIS framework remains a central reference for a people-centred, inclusive, and development-oriented information society, while requiring reinforcement to respond to growing complexity, concentration of digital power, and risks posed by advanced AI systems (Costa Rica, Malaysia, Cuba).

The multistakeholder model was repeatedly reaffirmed as a cornerstone of the WSIS vision, anchored in dialogue, transparency, inclusivity, and accountability, and seen as essential to maintaining a resilient and open digital ecosystem (International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, GPD, USA, Meta, ICC, Italy, Thailand). The inclusive nature of the WSIS+20 review process itself was highlighted, with the Informal Multi-Stakeholder Sounding Board described as enabling substantive contributions from diverse stakeholder groups that helped identify both achievements and gaps in WSIS implementation over the past 20 years (WSIS+20 Co-Facilitators Informal Multi-Stakeholder Sounding Board).

Speaking of inclusivity, many speakers stressed that no single stakeholder can deliver digital development alone, and called for collaboration among governments, private sector, civil society, academia, technical communities, and international organisations to mobilise resources, share knowledge, transfer technology, and support nationally driven digital strategies (ICC, Namibia, Italy, Thailand). There were also calls to include knowledge actors such as universities, libraries, archives, cultural figures, and public media, reflecting that digital governance now concerns the status of knowledge itself (OIF). Youth representatives called for funded programmes, institutionalised youth seats in WSIS action line implementation, and recognition of young people as co-designers of digital policy (AI for Good Young Leaders).

On matters related to WSIS action lines, human rights expertise was highlighted as requiring a stronger and more systematic role within the WSIS architecture (GPD, OHCHR). And gender equality was welcomed as an explicit implementation priority within WSIS action lines (APC).

Strengthening UN system-wide coherence was highlighted as a priority, including clearer action line roadmaps and improved coordination across the UN system (GPD, UNDP). Alignment among WSIS, the Global Digital Compact (GDC), the Pact for the Future, and the SDGs was seen as necessary to maximise impact and avoid duplication (International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, Meta, Brazil, Colombia, Austria, Cuba). At the same time, one delegation expressed reservations about references to the GDC in the final outcome document, noting also concerns about what they considered to be international organisations setting a standard that legitimises international governance of the internet (USA).

Looking ahead, the task was framed not as preserving WSIS, but reinforcing it so that it remains future-proof, capable of anticipating rapid technological change while staying anchored in people-centred values, human rights, and inclusive governance (UNESCO, GPD). It was also stressed that for many in the Global South, the WSIS vision remains aspirational, and that the next phase must ensure the information society becomes an effective right rather than an empty promise (Cuba).

Comments regarding the outcome document

In the last segment of the meeting, several delegations made statements regarding the WSIS+20 outcome document.

Some expressed concern about the limited transparency, inclusiveness, and predictability in the final phase of negotiations, stating that the process did not fully reflect multilateral dialogue and affected trust and collective ownership of the document (India, Israel, Iraq on behalf of Group of 77 and China, Iran).

Reservations were placed on language perceived as going beyond the WSIS mandate or national policy space, with reaffirmation of national sovereignty and the right of states to determine their own regulatory, social, and cultural frameworks. Concerns were raised regarding references to gender-related terminology, sexual and reproductive health, sexual and gender-based violence, misinformation, disinformation, and hate speech (Saudi Arabia, Argentina, Iran, Nigeria). Concerns were also noted regarding references to international instruments to which some states are not parties, citing concerns related to national legislation, culture, and sovereignty (Saudi Arabia). Dissociations were recorded from paragraphs related to human rights, information integrity, and the role of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in the digital sphere (Russian Federation). Concerns were further expressed that the outcome document advances what were described as divisive social themes, including climate change, gender, diversity, equity and inclusion, and the right to development (the USA).

Several delegations expressed concern that references to unilateral coercive measures were weakened and did not reflect their negative impact on access to technology, capacity building, and digital infrastructure in developing countries (Iraq on behalf of Group of 77 and China, Russian Federation, Iran). Others noted that such measures adopted in accordance with international law are legitimate foreign policy tools for addressing threats to peace and security (USA, Ukraine).

Some delegations noted that the outcome document does not sufficiently reflect the development dimension, particularly with regard to concrete commitments on financing, technology transfer, and capacity building, and that the absence of references to common but differentiated responsibilities weakens the development pillar (India, Iraq on behalf of Group of 77 and China, Iran). It was also said that the document does not adequately address the impacts of automation and artificial intelligence on labour and employment, despite requests from developing countries (Iraq on behalf of the Group of 77 and China).

While support for the multistakeholder nature of internet governance and the permanent nature of the IGF was noted, concerns were expressed that the outcome treats the IGF as a substitute rather than a complement to enhanced intergovernmental cooperation, and that the language regarding the intergovernmental segment for dialogue among governments has been weakened. It was said that intergovernmental spaces need to be strengthened so that all governments, particularly those from developing countries, can perform their roles in global governance (Iran, Iraq on behalf of Group of 77 and China).

Serious reservations were placed on language viewed as legitimising international governance of the Internet, with opposition expressed to references to the Global Digital Compact, the Summit for the Future, and the Independent International Scientific Panel on AI, alongside reaffirmed support for a multistakeholder model of internet governance (USA).

Despite these reservations, several delegations stated that they joined the consensus in the interest of multilateralism and unity, while placing their positions and dissociations on record (India, Iraq on behalf of the Group of 77 and China, Iran, Nigeria, USA).

For a detailed summary of the discussions, including session transcripts and data statistics from the WSIS+20 High-Level meeting, visit our dedicated web page, where we are following the event. To explore the WSIS+20 review process in more depth, including its objectives and ongoing developments, see the dedicated WSIS+20 web page.
.

UN General Assembly High-level meeting on WSIS+20 review

Twenty years after the WSIS, the WSIS+20 review assesses progress, identifies ICT gaps, and highlights challenges such as bridging the digital divide and leveraging ICTs for development. The review will conclude with a two-day UNGA high-level meeting on 16–17 December 2025, featuring plenary sessions and the adoption of the draft outcome document.

WSIS+20 Process

This page keeps track of the process leading to the UNGA meeting in December 2025. It also provides background information about WSIS and related activities and processes since 1998.

OpenAI expands AI training for newsrooms worldwide

The US tech company, OpenAI, has launched the OpenAI Academy for News Organisations, a new learning hub designed to support journalists, editors and publishers adopting AI in their work.

An initiative that builds on existing partnerships with the American Journalism Project and The Lenfest Institute for Journalism, reflecting a broader effort to strengthen journalism as a pillar of democratic life.

The Academy goes live with practical training, newsroom-focused playbooks and real-world examples aimed at helping news teams save time and focus on high-impact reporting.

Areas of focus include investigative research, multilingual reporting, data analysis, production efficiency and operational workflows that sustain news organisations over time.

Responsible use sits at the centre of the programme. Guidance on governance, internal policies and ethical deployment is intended to address concerns around trust, accuracy and newsroom culture, recognising that AI adoption raises structural questions rather than purely technical ones.

OpenAI plans to expand the Academy in the year ahead with additional courses, case studies and live programming.

Through collaboration with publishers, industry bodies and journalism networks worldwide, the Academy is positioned as a shared learning space that supports editorial independence while adapting journalism to an AI-shaped media environment.

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

OpenAI brings in former UK chancellor George Osborne

Former UK chancellor George Osborne has joined OpenAI in a London-based role. He will lead the OpenAI for Countries programme focused on government partnerships.

The initiative aims to help governments build AI capacity and ensure systems reflect democratic values. OpenAI says more than 50 countries are already involved.

Osborne will work on developing AI infrastructure, boosting AI literacy and improving public services. The role follows discussions with OpenAI chief executive Sam Altman.

His appointment comes as UK-US tech talks face setbacks and investment in AI accelerates. Against this backdrop, financial authorities have warned of risks linked to the sector’s rapid growth.

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

UNGA High-level meeting on WSIS+20 review – Day 1

Dear readers,

Welcome to our overview of statements delivered during Day 1 at UNGA’s high-level meeting on the WSIS+20 review.

Throughout the day, ICTs were framed as indispensable enablers of sustainable development and as core elements of economic participation and social inclusion. Speakers highlighted the transformative role of digital technologies across sectors such as education, health, agriculture, public administration, and disaster risk reduction, while underscoring the growing importance of digital public infrastructure and digital public goods as shared foundations for inclusive and resilient development. At the same time, advanced technologies, including artificial intelligence (AI), were described as reshaping economies and societies, offering new development opportunities while also introducing governance, capacity, and equity challenges that require coordinated international responses.

Discussions also returned repeatedly to the persistence of deep and multidimensional digital divides, spanning connectivity, affordability, skills, gender, geography, and access to emerging technologies. Speakers stressed that access alone is insufficient without trust, safety, institutional capacity, and respect for human rights.

Internet governance featured prominently, with support for an open, free, global, interoperable, and secure internet grounded in human rights and multistakeholder cooperation. The Internet Governance Forum was widely recognised as a central platform for inclusive dialogue, with many calling for its strengthening through a permanent mandate, sustainable funding, and broader participation, particularly from developing countries and underrepresented groups.

Across interventions, a shared message emerged that effective digital governance, strengthened international cooperation, and coherent implementation of WSIS commitments remain essential to ensuring that digital transformation leaves no one behind .

Our summary is structured around the thematic areas of the draft outcome document, which is expected to be adopted at the end of the high-level meeting, later today.

DW team

Information and communication technologies for development

ICTs were consistently framed as indispensable and critical enablers of sustainable development and no longer peripheral but at the heart of development strategies (Slovakia, Azerbaijan, Timor-Leste). They increasingly shape how societies govern, learn, innovate, and connect, and are essential tools to advance economic growth, social inclusion, and quality of life (Azerbaijan, Chile).

ICTs, including AI, were also described as tools to bring people closer together and collectively address sustainable development challenges, while boosting education and health, supporting climate adaptation and mitigation, and contributing to economic growth (Senegal, Israel). They were further framed as essential for transforming key sectors such as agriculture, health, education, and public administration (Uganda). The role of ICTs in disaster risk reduction and early warning systems was also highlighted, with emphasis on international cooperation through existing UN mechanisms (Japan).

Digital public infrastructure and digital public goods were highlighted as foundational backbones for inclusive and resilient development (India, Indonesia, Uganda, Kenya, Ghana). Shared digital foundations such as digital identity, payment systems, and data systems were described as transforming service delivery, expanding opportunities, and strengthening citizen engagement when built in ways that respect human rights and promote inclusion (Under-Secretary-General).

Emerging technologies, including AI, big data, and cloud computing, were described as reshaping economies, transforming modes of production, and creating new opportunities for innovation. For developing countries, these technologies were seen as holding significant potential to accelerate structural transformation, expand access to services, enhance productivity, and support the achievement of the SDGs (Tunisia). Emerging technologies were also framed as creating opportunities for development and innovation and helping to address major global challenges (Norway).

Several speakers stressed that digital transformation cannot be limited to the rollout of technology alone and must remain people-centred (Peru), while others emphasised its role in improving quality of life (Chile). However, it was emphasised that those without connectivity remain excluded from the opportunities that ICTs can give (President of the General Assembly).

Closing all digital divides

As highlighted during the entire WSIS+20 review process, persistent and multidimensional digital divides remain a central challenge that must be addressed if the WSIS vision of a truly inclusive information society is to be fully achieved. The divide was characterised as a ‘digital canyon’, reflecting stark disparities in access between and within countries, as well as a continuing gender gap in internet use (President of the General Assembly).

Digital divides were widely described as multidimensional, spanning connectivity, affordability, skills, institutions, data, and emerging technologies, including AI (Kenya, Pakistan). Particular concern was expressed that gaps are deepening both between and within countries, and increasingly between those who shape technology and those who are shaped by it (Türkiye, Norway). The persistence of divides along gender, age, rural–urban, and disability lines was repeatedly highlighted, with warnings that uneven access to digital public services, skills, and meaningful connectivity risks reinforcing existing inequalities (Slovenia, Luxembourg, Mongolia).

More than a quarter of the world’s population remains offline, and affordability remains a significant barrier (Secretary-General). However, a recurring message was that digital inclusion requires more than connectivity. Skills, affordability, trust, safety, institutional capacity, and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms online were repeatedly highlighted as essential components of meaningful access (Albania, Slovakia, Finland).

The inclusion of women and girls was identified as a critical priority for closing digital divides, with calls for targeted digital literacy, skills development, empowerment initiatives, and protection from online harms (President of the General Assembly, Israel, Finland, Belgium, Saudi Arabia).

Attention was also drawn to intersecting forms of exclusion, including those affecting rural communities, persons with disabilities, older persons, and marginalised groups, with warnings that digital transformation risks reinforcing existing inequalities if these dimensions are not addressed systematically (Belgium, Luxembourg, Uganda, CANZ, Mongolia).

The emergence of an AI divide, linked to the concentration of infrastructure, data, and computing power, was also highlighted as a growing risk with far-reaching implications (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia). Concerns were raised that as global attention increasingly shifts toward AI and advanced technologies, many countries risk falling into perpetual catch-up without foundational investments in affordable and resilient broadband and in digital skills (Timor-Leste, Saudi Arabia, Philippines).

Developing countries highlighted structural constraints. The digital divide was described as a daily barrier to education, health care, and governance, with warnings that inequalities could deepen as global attention shifts toward AI and advanced technologies (Timor-Leste).

Strong calls were made for enhanced international cooperation, financing, and technology transfer to close all dimensions of the digital divide. Adequate, predictable, and affordable financing was described as indispensable for extending digital infrastructure, promoting universal and meaningful connectivity, and strengthening skills and capacities, particularly in developing countries (Bangladesh, Azerbaijan, Cambodia, Egypt, Senegal, Algeria, Tunisia). Speakers emphasised that no country can address digital divides alone and stressed the importance of coordinated global action, inclusive partnerships, and knowledge sharing (Singapore, Mongolia, Latvia).

More broadly, speakers emphasised that the WSIS process remains of vital importance for developing countries and must prioritise the closure of all digital divides through concrete, actionable measures and inclusive, multistakeholder cooperation (Iraq on behalf of G77 and China, CANZ, Tonga).

The digital economy

Speakers repeatedly linked digitalisation to economic participation, productivity, and inclusion, while cautioning that unequal access risks excluding many countries and communities from emerging digital economic opportunities. Digital technologies were framed as enablers of entrepreneurship, micro, small and medium-sized enterprises, and access to markets, particularly when supported by digital public infrastructure and digital public services (Indonesia, Zimbabwe, Ghana).

Several delegations stressed that participation in the digital economy depends not only on connectivity but also on access to digital identity, digital payments, and interoperable platforms that enable transactions between governments, businesses, and citizens. Digital public infrastructure was described as a foundation for economic activity, transparency, and efficiency, helping to integrate citizens and businesses into formal economic systems (India, Ghana, Indonesia).

Developing countries highlighted that structural digital divides constrain their ability to benefit from the digital economy. These constraints were described as affecting access to education, finance, employment opportunities, and innovation ecosystems, with warnings that attention to advanced technologies, such as AI, could widen economic gaps if foundational issues remain unaddressed (Timor-Leste, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Egypt, and Senegal).

Several speakers explicitly connected digital economy participation to global inequities. It was argued that without enhanced international cooperation, financing, and technology transfer, developing countries risk remaining marginalised in global digital value chains and digital governance processes (Bangladesh, Egypt, Algeria, CANZ).

At the same time, some interventions emphasised national strategies to modernise legal and regulatory frameworks governing the digital economy, including updates to legislation related to digital services, AI, and electronic transactions, as part of broader economic transformation agendas (Ghana, Kyrgyzstan).

Social and economic development

Several interventions described digitalisation as enabling more inclusive economic participation, particularly through support for micro, small and medium-sized enterprises and by widening access to markets and services in developing country contexts (Indonesia, Zimbabwe). In this sense, digital technologies were presented as tools for integrating more people and businesses into economic activity, rather than simply increasing efficiency.

Digitalisation was also linked to the functioning of the state and public institutions, with references to digital government and digital public services as ways to improve access, responsiveness, and service delivery for citizens (Belgium, Senegal, Timor-Leste, Morocco).

Beyond economic participation and public administration, digital technologies were associated with human development outcomes, including education, health, and social services. Several speakers referred to digital tools as supporting learning, healthcare delivery, and social inclusion, particularly where physical access to services remains limited (Egypt, Indonesia, Ghana). Digitalisation was also connected to livelihoods and rural development, including in agriculture, highlighting its relevance for poverty reduction and local economic resilience (Zimbabwe, Senegal).

Environmental impacts

Environmental dimensions of digitalisation were highlighted as a growing concern. The environmental footprint of digitalisation must be addressed, including energy use, critical minerals, and e-waste, calling for global standards and greener infrastructure (Secretary-General). Concerns were raised about the risk of e-waste and the importance of climate-resilient and sustainable digital infrastructure (Timor-Leste). The environmental impact of data centres and AI, and the need for circular economy approaches and responsible management of critical minerals, were also emphasised (Morocco). The role of governments and the private sector in ensuring sustainable and durable digital infrastructure, including opportunities to advance clean energy, was underlined (France).

The enabling environment for digital development

The importance of predictable policies, investment, and international cooperation featured prominently. Financing, technology transfer, and capacity-building were identified as prerequisites for inclusive digital development, particularly for developing countries (Algeria, Egypt, Cambodia, Bangladesh, Kenya). The need for a coherent UN digital governance architecture that builds on existing processes and avoids fragmentation was emphasised (Switzerland, Germany).

Concerns were raised that unilateral economic measures and unilateral coercive measures undermine the enabling environment for digital development by restricting access to technologies, digital infrastructure, financing, and capacity-building opportunities. Such measures were described as distorting the global supply chains and market order (Venezuela), exacerbating digital divides and disproportionately affecting developing countries, limiting their ability to participate meaningfully in the global digital economy and to implement WSIS commitments (Iraq on behalf of the Group of 77 and China, Venezuela on behalf of the Group of Friends in Defence of the UN Charter, Nicaragua).

Financial mechanisms

Financing was raised as a condition for implementation of the WSIS vision, with calls for adequate, predictable, and affordable financing to expand digital infrastructure and close persistent digital divides, particularly in developing countries (Iraq on behalf of the G77 and China, Algeria). It was stressed that political ambition cannot be realised without financing, alongside calls for sustained investment in digital public infrastructure and targeted financing for last-mile connectivity to reach underserved populations (Kenya, Timor-Leste).

Several interventions called for concessional and innovative financing to support digital development in developing countries. References were made to the Task Force for Financial Mechanisms as a platform for sharing best practices and strengthening financing approaches for digital development and universal connectivity, alongside calls to expand concessional financing to enable investment in digital infrastructure and services (Bangladesh, United Kingdom, Côte d’Ivoire).

Some delegations also described national financing efforts and instruments, including large-scale investments in fibre infrastructure, digital public services, and cybersecurity, as well as the use of universal service mechanisms and dedicated digital investment tools. And a proposal was made to create a working group to examine financial mechanisms and present recommendations in 2027, prioritising financing on favourable terms and North-South, South-South and triangular partnerships (Senegal, Côte d’Ivoire, Morocco).

Building confidence and security in the use of ICTs

Building confidence and security in the use of ICTs was discussed through concrete governance and security measures at both national and international levels. National cybersecurity frameworks, legislation, and institutional arrangements were highlighted as essential for protecting digital infrastructure, data, and citizens, and for fostering trust in digital systems (Senegal, Morocco, Ghana). Capacity gaps in cybersecurity and technical expertise were identified as a major challenge, particularly for developing countries seeking to expand digital services while managing growing cyber risks (Uganda). The protection of critical infrastructure and citizens from cyber threats was emphasised as digitalisation deepens across public services and essential sectors (Timor-Leste, Zimbabwe).

At the international level, references were made to the UN Convention against Cybercrime (Uruguay, Venezuela, Russian Federation) and to the establishment of a permanent intergovernmental mechanism under UN auspices in the context of international information security and cooperation (Russian Federation).

Capacity development

Capacity development was presented as a prerequisite for inclusive digital transformation and for closing persistent digital divides. Several speakers emphasised that meaningful participation in the information society requires digital literacy, technical skills, institutional capacity, and policy expertise, particularly in developing countries and least developed countries (Albania, Egypt, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Uganda, Timor-Leste, Lesotho).

A recurring message was that access alone is insufficient without the skills and capabilities needed to use digital technologies safely, productively, and effectively. Digital skills development was linked to education, employability, participation in the digital economy, and confidence in digital public services (Albania, Egypt, Israel, South Africa).

Capacity gaps were highlighted in specific technical and governance areas, notably cybersecurity and emerging technologies, with warnings that skills shortages expose developing countries to heightened risks as they expand digital services and digitise public institutions (Timor-Leste, Uganda, Senegal).

International cooperation was framed as essential for capacity development, with references to the need for technology transfer, technical assistance, and sustained capacity-building support, particularly for developing countries and least developed countries. Strengthened North–South, South–South, and triangular cooperation was highlighted as a means to support skills development, knowledge sharing, hands-on training, and institutional and cybersecurity capacities aligned with national priorities and vulnerabilities (Cambodia, Bangladesh, Tunisia, Timor-Leste). Capacity building in emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence and cybersecurity, was also linked to international support, financing, and technology transfer (Nepal, Algeria).

Human rights and the ethical dimensions of the information society

Human rights were consistently framed as foundational to the information society and as a central reference point for digital governance. Numerous delegations reaffirmed that the same rights apply online and offline, with explicit references to international human rights law, including the rights to privacy, freedom of expression, access to information, and non-discrimination (Estonia, Spain, Belgium, Poland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Finland, France).

Several interventions stressed that digital technologies must respect and promote human dignity, with human dignity presented as a guiding value of the information society and a core ethical reference for digital transformation. Technological development, including artificial intelligence, was framed as needing to advance development and inclusion while enhancing dignity, autonomy, accountability, and respect for the individual, rather than treating people merely as data points or objects of automation (Estonia, Belgium, Lithuania, India, Türkiye, Slovenia).

Concerns were repeatedly raised about the misuse of digital technologies in ways that undermine fundamental rights. These included references to censorship, digital repression, surveillance practices that infringe on privacy, and restrictions on freedom of expression and civic space online (Belgium, Spain, Poland, Finland, France). Particular attention was drawn to risks faced by vulnerable groups, underscoring the need for safeguards, oversight, and accountability in the design and deployment of digital technologies (Belgium, Finland).

Artificial intelligence was explicitly cited as amplifying existing human rights challenges. Several interventions warned that AI systems, if not governed in line with human rights principles, could facilitate surveillance, enable censorship, or reinforce discrimination and exclusion, reinforcing calls to integrate human rights considerations throughout the lifecycle of emerging technologies (Belgium, Spain, France, Lithuania).

Data governance

Data governance was mentioned as an emerging governance concern, with broader implications for trust, ethics, and development. References were made to the establishment of national data governance frameworks, including efforts to build secure and interoperable data systems as part of digital transformation and public sector modernisation strategies (Morocco). Data governance was also identified as an outstanding challenge alongside data protection and digital capacity-building, particularly in relation to the deployment of AI (Chile). Several interventions framed data governance in terms of responsible and ethical data use, highlighting concerns about data concentration, data gaps, and the societal implications of data-driven technologies, while also linking data protection frameworks to trust in digital ecosystems and the effective functioning of digital government (Senegal, Saudi Arabia, Ghana). More broadly, data governance was framed through the lens of digital sovereignty and national authority over data, particularly from developing-country perspectives (Iraq on behalf of the G77 and China).

Artificial intelligence

Artificial intelligence featured prominently as both a development accelerator and a source of new risks. Ethical, human-centred, and rights-based approaches to AI governance were repeatedly emphasised, with references to human dignity, accountability, transparency, and the application of existing human rights obligations in AI-enabled systems (Estonia, Belgium, Spain, Albania, Lithuania, Indonesia, Israel, Senegal, Zimbabwe). Several speakers stressed that the rapid deployment of AI, particularly in public services, requires governance approaches that safeguard trust, inclusion, and democratic values (Albania, Lithuania, Türkiye).

Attention was drawn to structural AI divides. Unequal access to computing capacity, algorithms, data, and linguistic resources was identified as a growing concern, with the risk that lack of access to AI capabilities translates into exclusion from future employment, education, and economic opportunities (Saudi Arabia). Concerns were also expressed that disparities in AI infrastructure, skills, and institutional capacity could reinforce existing inequalities, particularly for the least developed and small developing countries. Without targeted international support, AI was seen as likely to widen development gaps rather than close them (Timor-Leste, Bangladesh, Lesotho).

The need to strengthen capacity within public institutions was underlined, extending beyond technical expertise to include policymakers, regulators, and civil servants responsible for oversight and implementation. National AI strategies were presented as tools to anchor AI use in public value and ethical governance rather than purely market-driven deployment (Kenya, Ghana).

The international governance of AI was discussed primarily in terms of coherence, coordination, and institutional continuity. Several interventions stressed the importance of building on existing international processes and initiatives, particularly within the UN system, and warned against fragmentation or duplication in global AI governance efforts (Japan, Estonia). AI governance was also situated within broader international challenges related to information manipulation, disinformation, and democratic resilience, reinforcing calls for approaches that strengthen trust and information integrity as part of global digital cooperation frameworks (France, Lithuania). More generally, AI governance was framed as needing to serve humanity and to be embedded within a strengthened global digital governance architecture grounded in human rights and multistakeholder cooperation, without reference to specific institutional mechanisms (Switzerland, European Union).

Internet governance

Many speakers reaffirmed the multistakeholder model as a core principle of internet governance. They emphasised the importance of inclusive participation by governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical community, academia, and users, and stressed that no single actor or group of actors should control the internet or global internet governance processes. The multistakeholder approach was framed as essential for transparency, trust, legitimacy, and effective governance of the internet (President of the General Assembly, Estonia, Germany, Poland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Ireland, Israel, Nigeria, Finland).

Several statements highlighted support for an internet that is open, free, global, interoperable, secure, and inclusive, and rooted in respect for human rights. This vision was linked to economic development, democratic participation, access to knowledge, and the protection of fundamental freedoms (European Union, President of the General Assembly, Germany, Estonia, Spain, Poland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Finland, Norway). Some speakers warned that fragmentation, excessive centralisation, or restrictive approaches to internet governance could undermine this vision and weaken the global nature of the Internet (Germany, Estonia, Poland, Lithuania, Norway). There were also references to an ongoing process of fragmentation of the digital space and what was described as the lack of practical action to preserve a unified global network (Russian Federation).

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) was widely referenced as a central space for multistakeholder dialogue on internet-related public policy issues, with several speakers also pointing to its role as an inclusive platform for broader digital governance discussions, including emerging technologies and cross-cutting digital policy challenges (Under-Secretary-General, Japan, Estonia). Many expressed support for strengthening the IGF, including through elements such as a permanent mandate, predictable and sustainable funding, a strengthened Secretariat, enhanced intersessional work, and broader participation, particularly from developing countries and underrepresented groups. Concrete expressions of support included financial contributions to reinforce the IGF’s work and sustainability (Germany).

At the same time, some speakers questioned whether the IGF’s non-decision-making nature enables governments to participate on an equal footing in addressing international public policy issues related to the internet, as envisaged in the Tunis Agenda (Iran, Venezuela). There were also arguments according to which current internet governance arrangements remain unjust or incomplete; these were accompanied by calls for stronger intergovernmental cooperation, including legally binding frameworks and a more central role for the United Nations and its specialised bodies in addressing international internet public policy issues (Russian Federation, Venezuela). The mandate for enhanced cooperation, as set out in the Tunis Agenda, was described as unfinished in a few statements, which pointed out that progress in operationalising this mandate has been limited or blocked, and that existing arrangements do not allow governments to carry out their roles and responsibilities on an equal footing in international internet public policy discussions (Venezuela, Iran, Nicaragua).

Monitoring and measurement

References to monitoring and measurement were limited. While some statements noted a need for WSIS action lines to be applied in more measurable and dynamic ways (South Africa, Switzerland), there were no substantive discussions on indicators, metrics, data collection, or monitoring frameworks for assessing WSIS implementation.

WSIS framework & Follow-up and review

There was strong and consistent support for the WSIS framework and its continued relevance. Several speakers reaffirmed the original WSIS outcome documents – in particular the Geneva Declaration and the Tunis Agenda – as enduring foundations of a people-centred, inclusive, and development-oriented information society. The WSIS+20 outcome document – yet to be adopted – was welcomed as reaffirming the WSIS vision, while recognising the need for the framework to adapt to changes in the digital landscape. Such adaptation should preserve the foundations of WSIS and its multistakeholder character (South Africa, Switzerland, Lesotho).

The relevance of the WSIS action lines was also reaffirmed, alongside calls to apply them in more agile, measurable, and context-responsive ways. Some delegations argued that the action lines should be operationalised more dynamically, to reflect emerging technologies such as AI while maintaining consistency with the Geneva Declaration and Tunis Agenda and with broader sustainable development objectives (South Africa, Poland, Switzerland).

Speakers also referred to institutional arrangements supporting WSIS implementation and follow-up. In addition to the repeated support for the IGF, several interventions noted the WSIS Forum, for instance in the context of its preparatory contributions to the WSIS+20 review and its continued annual convening (South Africa, Bangladesh, Russian Federation, UAE, ITU, Switzerland). References were also made to the United Nations Group on the Information Society as a coordination mechanism within the UN system, with speakers highlighting its role in facilitating coordination and increased efficiency across UN digital processes, including through the joint WSIS-GDC implementation roadmap that the draft outcome document tasks it with producing (Morocco, Republic of Korea).

Speakers repeatedly referred to the relationship between WSIS, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, and the Global Digital Compact. Several emphasised the importance of ensuring coherence and alignment among these processes, noting that WSIS remains closely linked to the implementation of the SDGs. The GDC was referenced as a related and complementary process that should reinforce and build upon existing WSIS frameworks rather than duplicate them. Calls were made for coordinated implementation, clear guidance, and avoidance of fragmentation across UN digital processes in order to ensure consistency and convergence in advancing sustainable development objectives (Albania, Spain, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Ireland, France, Under-Secretary-General).

UN General Assembly High-level meeting on WSIS+20 review

WSIS+20 Process

This page keeps track of the process leading to the UNGA meeting in December 2025. It also provides background information about WSIS and related activities and processes since 1998.

OpenAI’s GPT-5 shows a breakthrough in wet lab biology

New research has been published by OpenAI, examining whether advanced AI models can accelerate biological research within the wet lab, rather than just supporting theoretical science.

Working with biosecurity firm Red Queen Bio, researchers tested GPT-5 within a tightly controlled molecular cloning system designed to measure practical laboratory improvements.

Across multiple experimental rounds, GPT-5 independently proposed protocol modifications, analysed results and refined its approach using experimental feedback.

The model introduced a previously unexplored enzymatic mechanism that combines RecA and gp32 proteins, along with adjustments to reaction timing and temperature, resulting in a 79-fold increase in cloning efficiency compared to the baseline protocol.

OpenAI emphasises that all experiments were carried out under strict biosecurity safeguards and still relied on human scientists to execute laboratory work.

Even so, the findings suggest AI systems could work alongside researchers to reduce costs, accelerate experimentation and improve scientific productivity while informing future safety and governance frameworks.

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

OpenAI upgrades ChatGPT with faster AI images

The US tech company OpenAI has rolled out a significant update to ChatGPT with the launch of GPT Images 1.5, strengthening its generative image capabilities.

A new model that produces photorealistic images using text prompts at speeds up to four times faster than earlier versions, reflecting OpenAI’s push to make visual generation more practical for everyday use.

Users can upload existing photos and modify them through natural language instructions, allowing objects to be added, removed, combined or blended with minimal effort.

OpenAI highlights applications such as clothing and hairstyle try-ons, alongside stylistic filters designed to support creative experimentation while preserving realistic visual quality.

The update also introduces a redesigned ChatGPT interface, including a dedicated Images section available via the sidebar on both mobile apps and the web.

GPT Images 1.5 is now accessible to regular users, while Business and Enterprise subscribers are expected to receive enhanced access and additional features in the coming weeks.

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

OpenAI’s rise signals a shift in frontier tech investment

OpenAI overtook SpaceX as the world’s most valuable private company in October after a secondary share sale valued the AI firm at $500 billion. The deal put Sam Altman’s company about $100 billion ahead of Elon Musk’s space venture.

That lead may prove short-lived, as SpaceX is now planning its own secondary share sale that could value the company at around $800 billion. An internal letter seen by multiple outlets suggests Musk would reclaim the top spot within months.

The clash is the latest chapter in a rivalry that dates back to OpenAI’s founding in 2015, before Musk left the organisation in 2018 and later launched the startup xAI. Since then, lawsuits and public criticism have marked a sharp breakdown in relations.

Musk also confirmed on X that SpaceX is exploring a major initial public offering, while OpenAI’s recent restructuring allows it to pursue an IPO in the future. The valuation battle reflects soaring investor appetite for frontier technologies, as AI, space, robotics and defence startups attract unprecedented private funding.

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

BBVA deepens AI partnership with OpenAI

OpenAI and BBVA have agreed on a multi-year strategic collaboration designed to embed artificial intelligence across the global banking group.

An initiative that will expand the use of ChatGPT Enterprise to all 120,000 BBVA employees, marking one of the largest enterprise deployments of generative AI in the financial sector.

The programme focuses on transforming customer interactions, internal workflows and decision making.

BBVA plans to co-develop AI-driven solutions with OpenAI to support bankers, streamline risk analysis and redesign processes such as software development and productivity support, instead of relying on fragmented digital tools.

The rollout follows earlier deployments that demonstrated strong engagement and measurable efficiency gains, with employees saving hours each week on routine tasks.

ChatGPT Enterprise will be implemented with enterprise grade security and privacy safeguards, ensuring compliance within a highly regulated environment.

Beyond internal operations, BBVA is accelerating its shift toward AI native banking by expanding customer facing services powered by OpenAI models.

The collaboration reflects a broader move among major financial institutions to integrate AI at the core of products, operations and personalised banking experiences.

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