Paris played host to representatives from more than 100 countries to discuss the future of artificial intelligence (AI) last week. The result was a vague agreement signed by 60 of them that does almost nothing to help make the technology safer.
The clue was in the name. The international meeting series, founded in the UK as an “AI Safety Summit” in 2023, became known as an “AI Action Summit” when it came to Paris. French President Emmanuel Macron used it as a springboard to announce a 109 billion euro (US$114.4 billion) investment in AI and make a pitch to the world for French tech.
You had to squint to find anything safety related in all the platitudes. The final 799-word statement focused more on the economic opportunities of AI than on advancing measures that had been established at previous summits in the UK and South Korea.
While the Bletchley Park and Seoul gatherings secured specific commitments from large AI firms to test their systems with a newly established, international network of safety institutes, the Paris statement calls for hazy goals like making AI “trustworthy.”
What is mind-boggling is this still managed to be too onerous for the US, whose vice president, JD Vance, complained about how “excessive regulation of the AI sector could kill a transformative industry just as it’s taking off.”
First, the agreement was hardly excessive. Second, the AI industry in the US is not just “taking off.” Its companies are the standard-bearers, with Nvidia holding an effective monopoly on chips for training and inference and Microsoft and Alphabet controlling much of the cloud infrastructure and most popular AI models.
However, the US refused to sign the agreement anyway, likely due to increasing paranoia about China. Last month, a little Chinese firm called DeepSeek shot to the top of the app charts with an AI model that was as good as the latest version of ChatGPT’s — cheaper to build and free for anyone to use and copy, which you can be sure Silicon Valley engineers are doing right now.
Even stranger, the UK also declined to sign the statement for what seemed to be the opposite reason.
“We felt the declaration didn’t provide enough practical clarity on global governance,” a British government spokesperson said.
That sounds more sensible. As a reminder: AI is developing at an unprecedented pace, and its systems are on course to make high-stakes decisions about healthcare, law enforcement and finance without clear guardrails. Ambiguous pledges are “a step backwards for international and technical collaboration,” says Max Tegmark, a physics professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and co-founder of the Future of Life Institute who has been one of the leading voices advocating for AI safety measures.
The summit should have at least addressed the security concerns raised by last month’s International AI Safety Report, signed by more than 150 experts, he said.
It also should have turned the “voluntary commitments” from the Bletchley Park and Seoul summits into requirements for AI companies to run safety tests before deploying new systems to the public — and to share the results.
It also would have been good to see a deadline for creating binding international laws, as well as clearer thresholds for when AI systems reach certain capability levels (in reasoning or speed, for instance) to trigger further audits.
We should not have to wait for a calamity to occur before governments wake up to the risks of such transformative technology. Let us not repeat the delayed response to traffic safety, for instance, where it took thousands of deaths before seatbelts became mandatory in the 1960s.
A recent anecdote by the Washington Post’s Geoffrey Fowler highlights how things could go awry. The writer left a new “agentic” version of ChatGPT alone on his computer with access to his credit card. After asking it to find the cheapest eggs, the bot went on Instacart and bought a dozen at a high price, racking up fees and a tip for US$31.
“It went rogue,” Fowler wrote.
That might not be as bad as AI wreaking havoc on our electricity grids or financial markets, but the example shows that such errors in these systems carry a cost and can come out of nowhere, even as businesses and governments race to plug them in.
Vance’s call to prioritize “pro-growth” policies over safety would sound ludicrous if the topic were healthcare, aviation or social media. AI should be no different. Governments must be bolder about their role as proactive regulators and talk up the value of standards, rights and protections. It might not win them many points with businesses inside and outside the tech industry, but it is far better than standing by until disaster strikes. The next summit in Kigali, Rwanda, needs to establish more concrete oversight before AI’s mistakes scale up from unauthorized grocery purchases to something worse.
Parmy Olson is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering technology. A former reporter for the Wall Street Journal and Forbes, she is author of Supremacy: AI, ChatGPT and the Race That Will Change the World. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
There are moments in history when America has turned its back on its principles and withdrawn from past commitments in service of higher goals. For example, US-Soviet Cold War competition compelled America to make a range of deals with unsavory and undemocratic figures across Latin America and Africa in service of geostrategic aims. The United States overlooked mass atrocities against the Bengali population in modern-day Bangladesh in the early 1970s in service of its tilt toward Pakistan, a relationship the Nixon administration deemed critical to its larger aims in developing relations with China. Then, of course, America switched diplomatic recognition
The international women’s soccer match between Taiwan and New Zealand at the Kaohsiung Nanzih Football Stadium, scheduled for Tuesday last week, was canceled at the last minute amid safety concerns over poor field conditions raised by the visiting team. The Football Ferns, as New Zealand’s women’s soccer team are known, had arrived in Taiwan one week earlier to prepare and soon raised their concerns. Efforts were made to improve the field, but the replacement patches of grass could not grow fast enough. The Football Ferns canceled the closed-door training match and then days later, the main event against Team Taiwan. The safety
The Chinese government on March 29 sent shock waves through the Tibetan Buddhist community by announcing the untimely death of one of its most revered spiritual figures, Hungkar Dorje Rinpoche. His sudden passing in Vietnam raised widespread suspicion and concern among his followers, who demanded an investigation. International human rights organization Human Rights Watch joined their call and urged a thorough investigation into his death, highlighting the potential involvement of the Chinese government. At just 56 years old, Rinpoche was influential not only as a spiritual leader, but also for his steadfast efforts to preserve and promote Tibetan identity and cultural
Strategic thinker Carl von Clausewitz has said that “war is politics by other means,” while investment guru Warren Buffett has said that “tariffs are an act of war.” Both aphorisms apply to China, which has long been engaged in a multifront political, economic and informational war against the US and the rest of the West. Kinetically also, China has launched the early stages of actual global conflict with its threats and aggressive moves against Taiwan, the Philippines and Japan, and its support for North Korea’s reckless actions against South Korea that could reignite the Korean War. Former US presidents Barack Obama
RSS