Human in the Loop

The race to regulate artificial intelligence has begun, but the starting line isn't level. As governments scramble to establish ethical frameworks for AI systems that could reshape society, a troubling pattern emerges: the loudest voices in this global conversation belong to the same nations that have dominated technology for decades. From Brussels to Washington, the Global North is writing the rules for artificial intelligence, potentially creating a new form of digital colonialism that could lock developing nations into technological dependence for generations to come.

The Architecture of Digital Dominance

The current landscape of AI governance reads like a familiar story of technological imperialism. European Union officials craft comprehensive AI acts in marble halls, while American tech executives testify before Congress about the need for responsible development. Meanwhile, Silicon Valley laboratories and European research institutes publish papers on AI ethics that become global touchstones, their recommendations echoing through international forums and academic conferences.

This concentration of regulatory power isn't accidental—it reflects deeper structural inequalities in the global technology ecosystem. The nations and regions driving AI governance discussions are the same ones that house the world's largest technology companies, possess the most advanced research infrastructure, and wield the greatest economic influence over global digital markets. When the European Union implements regulations for AI systems, or when the United States establishes new guidelines for accountability, these aren't merely domestic policies—they become de facto international standards that ripple across borders and reshape markets worldwide.

Consider the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation, which despite being a regional law has fundamentally altered global data practices. Companies worldwide have restructured their operations to comply with GDPR requirements, not because they're legally required to do so everywhere, but because the economic cost of maintaining separate systems proved prohibitive. The EU's AI Act, now ratified and entering force, follows a similar trajectory, establishing European ethical principles as global operational standards simply through market force.

The mechanisms of this influence operate through multiple channels. Trade agreements increasingly include digital governance provisions that extend the regulatory reach of powerful nations far beyond their borders. International standards bodies, dominated by representatives from technologically advanced countries, establish technical specifications that become requirements for global market access. Multinational corporations, headquartered primarily in the Global North, implement compliance frameworks that reflect their home countries' regulatory preferences across their worldwide operations.

This regulatory imperialism extends beyond formal policy mechanisms. The academic institutions that produce influential research on AI ethics are concentrated in wealthy nations, their scholars often educated in Western philosophical traditions and working within frameworks that prioritise individual rights and market-based solutions. The conferences where AI governance principles are debated take place in expensive cities, with participation barriers that effectively exclude voices from the Global South. The language of these discussions—conducted primarily in English and steeped in concepts drawn from Western legal and philosophical traditions—creates subtle but powerful exclusions.

The result is a governance ecosystem where the concerns, values, and priorities of the Global North become embedded in supposedly universal frameworks for AI development and deployment. Privacy rights, individual autonomy, and market competition—all important principles—dominate discussions, while issues more pressing in developing nations, such as basic access to technology, infrastructure development, and collective social benefits, receive less attention. This concentration is starkly illustrated by research showing that 58% of AI ethics and governance initiatives originated in Europe and North America, despite these regions representing a fraction of the world's population.

The Colonial Parallel

The parallels between historical colonialism and emerging patterns of AI governance extend far beyond superficial similarities. Colonial powers didn't merely extract resources—they restructured entire societies around systems that served imperial interests while creating dependencies that persisted long after formal independence. Today's AI governance frameworks risk creating similar structural dependencies, where developing nations become locked into technological systems designed primarily to serve the interests of more powerful countries.

Historical colonial administrations imposed legal systems, educational frameworks, and economic structures that channelled wealth and resources toward imperial centres while limiting the colonised territories' ability to develop independent capabilities. These systems often appeared neutral or even beneficial on the surface, presented as bringing civilisation, order, and progress to supposedly backward regions. Yet their fundamental purpose was to create sustainable extraction relationships that would persist even after direct political control ended.

Modern AI governance frameworks exhibit troubling similarities to these historical patterns. International initiatives to establish AI ethics standards are frequently presented as universal goods—who could oppose responsible, ethical artificial intelligence? Yet these frameworks often embed assumptions about technology's role in society, the balance between efficiency and equity, and the appropriate mechanisms for addressing technological harms that reflect the priorities and values of their creators rather than universal human needs.

The technological dependencies being created through AI governance extend beyond simple market relationships. When developing nations adopt AI systems designed according to standards established by powerful countries, they're not just purchasing products—they're accepting entire technological paradigms that shape how their societies understand and interact with artificial intelligence. These paradigms influence everything from the types of problems AI is expected to solve to the metrics used to evaluate its success.

Educational and research dependencies compound these effects. The universities and research institutions that train the next generation of AI researchers are concentrated in wealthy nations, creating brain drain effects that limit developing countries' ability to build indigenous expertise. International funding for AI research often comes with strings attached, requiring collaboration with institutions in donor countries and adherence to research agendas that may not align with local priorities.

The infrastructure requirements for advanced AI development create additional dependency relationships. The massive computational resources needed to train state-of-the-art AI models are concentrated in a handful of companies and countries, creating bottlenecks that force developing nations to rely on external providers for access to cutting-edge capabilities. Cloud computing platforms, dominated by American and Chinese companies, become essential infrastructure for AI development, but they come with built-in limitations and dependencies that constrain local innovation.

Perhaps most significantly, the data governance frameworks being established through international AI standards often reflect assumptions about privacy, consent, and data ownership that may not align with different cultural contexts or development priorities. When these frameworks become international standards, they can limit developing nations' ability to leverage their own data resources for development purposes while ensuring continued access for multinational corporations based in powerful countries.

The Velocity Problem

The breakneck pace of AI development has created what researchers describe as a “future shock” scenario, where the speed of technological change outstrips institutions' ability to respond effectively. This velocity problem isn't just a technical challenge—it's fundamentally reshaping the global balance of power by advantaging those who can move quickly over those who need time for deliberation and consensus-building.

Generative AI systems like ChatGPT and GPT-4 have compressed development timelines that once spanned decades into periods measured in months. The rapid emergence of these capabilities has triggered urgent calls for governance frameworks, but the urgency itself creates biases toward solutions that can be implemented quickly by actors with existing regulatory infrastructure and technical expertise. This speed premium naturally advantages wealthy nations with established bureaucracies, extensive research networks, and existing relationships with major technology companies.

The United Nations Security Council's formal debate on AI risks and rewards represents both the gravity of the situation and the institutional challenges it creates. When global governance bodies convene emergency sessions to address technological developments, the resulting discussions inevitably favour perspectives from countries with the technical expertise to understand and articulate the issues at stake. Nations without significant AI research capabilities or regulatory experience find themselves responding to agendas set by others rather than shaping discussions around their own priorities and concerns.

This temporal asymmetry creates multiple forms of exclusion. Developing nations may lack the technical infrastructure to quickly assess new AI capabilities and their implications, forcing them to rely on analyses produced by research institutions in wealthy countries. The complexity of modern AI systems requires specialised expertise that takes years to develop, creating knowledge gaps that can't be bridged quickly even with significant investment.

International governance processes, designed for deliberation and consensus-building, struggle to keep pace with technological developments that can reshape entire industries in months. By the time international bodies convene working groups, conduct studies, and negotiate agreements, the technological landscape may have shifted dramatically. This temporal mismatch advantages actors who can implement governance frameworks unilaterally while others are still studying the issues.

The private sector's role in driving AI development compounds these timing challenges. Unlike previous waves of technological change that emerged primarily from government research programmes or proceeded at the pace of industrial development cycles, contemporary AI advancement is driven by private companies operating at venture capital speed. These companies can deploy new capabilities globally before most governments have even begun to understand their implications, creating fait accompli situations that constrain subsequent governance options.

Educational and capacity-building initiatives, essential for enabling broad participation in AI governance, operate on timescales measured in years or decades, creating insurmountable temporal barriers for meaningful inclusion. In governance, speed itself has become power.

Erosion of Digital Sovereignty

The concept of digital sovereignty—a nation's ability to control its digital infrastructure, data, and technological development—faces unprecedented challenges in the age of artificial intelligence. Unlike previous technologies that could be adopted gradually and adapted to local contexts, AI systems often require integration with global networks, cloud computing platforms, and data flows that transcend national boundaries and regulatory frameworks.

Traditional notions of sovereignty assumed that nations could control what happened within their borders and regulate the flow of goods, people, and information across their boundaries. Digital technologies have complicated these assumptions, but AI systems represent a qualitative shift that threatens to make national sovereignty over technological systems practically impossible for all but the most powerful countries.

The infrastructure requirements for advanced AI development create new forms of technological dependency that operate at a deeper level than previous digital technologies. Training large language models requires computational resources that cost hundreds of millions of dollars and consume enormous amounts of energy. The specialised hardware needed for these computations is produced by a handful of companies, primarily based in the United States and Taiwan, creating supply chain dependencies that become instruments of geopolitical leverage.

Cloud computing platforms, dominated by American companies like Amazon, Microsoft, and Google, have become essential infrastructure for AI development and deployment. These platforms don't just provide computational resources—they embed particular approaches to data management, security, and system architecture that reflect their creators' assumptions and priorities. Nations that rely on these platforms for AI capabilities effectively outsource critical technological decisions to foreign corporations operating under foreign legal frameworks.

Data governance represents another critical dimension of digital sovereignty that AI systems complicate. Modern AI systems require vast amounts of training data, often collected from global sources and processed using techniques that may not align with local privacy laws or cultural norms. When nations adopt AI systems trained on datasets controlled by foreign entities, they accept not just technological dependencies but also embedded biases and assumptions about appropriate data use.

The standardisation processes that establish technical specifications for AI systems create additional sovereignty challenges. International standards bodies, dominated by representatives from technologically advanced countries and major corporations, establish technical requirements that become de facto mandates for global market access. Nations that want their domestic AI industries to compete internationally must conform to these standards, even when they conflict with local priorities or values.

Regulatory frameworks established by powerful nations extend their reach through economic mechanisms that operate beyond formal legal authority. When the European Union establishes AI regulations or the United States implements export controls on AI technologies, these policies affect global markets in ways that force compliance even from non-citizens and companies operating outside these jurisdictions.

The brain drain effects of AI development compound sovereignty challenges by drawing technical talent away from developing nations toward centres of AI research and development in wealthy countries. The concentration of AI expertise in a handful of universities and companies creates knowledge dependencies that limit developing nations' ability to build indigenous capabilities and make independent technological choices.

Perhaps most significantly, the governance frameworks being established for AI systems often assume particular models of technological development and deployment that may not align with different countries' development priorities or social structures. When these frameworks become international standards, they can constrain nations' ability to pursue alternative approaches to AI development that might better serve their particular circumstances and needs.

The Standards Trap

International standardisation processes, ostensibly neutral technical exercises, have become powerful mechanisms for extending the influence of dominant nations and corporations far beyond their formal jurisdictions. In the realm of artificial intelligence, these standards-setting processes risk creating what could be called a “standards trap”—a situation where participation in the global economy requires conformity to technical specifications that embed the values and priorities of powerful actors while constraining alternative approaches to AI development.

The International Organization for Standardization, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, and other standards bodies operate through consensus-building processes that appear democratic and inclusive. Yet participation in these processes requires technical expertise, financial resources, and institutional capacity that effectively limit meaningful involvement to well-resourced actors from wealthy nations and major corporations. The result is standards that reflect the priorities and assumptions of their creators while claiming universal applicability.

Consider the development of standards for AI system testing and evaluation. These standards necessarily embed assumptions about what constitutes appropriate performance and how risks should be assessed. When these standards are developed primarily by researchers and engineers from wealthy nations working for major corporations, they tend to reflect priorities like efficiency and scalability rather than concerns that might be more pressing in different contexts, such as accessibility or local relevance.

The technical complexity of AI systems makes standards-setting processes particularly opaque and difficult for non-experts to influence meaningfully. Unlike standards for physical products that can be evaluated through direct observation and testing, AI standards often involve abstract mathematical concepts, complex statistical measures, and technical architectures that require specialised knowledge to understand and evaluate. This complexity creates barriers to participation that effectively exclude many potential stakeholders from meaningful involvement in processes that will shape their technological futures.

Compliance with international standards becomes a requirement for market access, creating powerful incentives for conformity even when standards don't align with local priorities or values. Companies and governments that want to participate in global AI markets must demonstrate compliance with established standards, regardless of whether those standards serve their particular needs or circumstances. This compliance requirement can force adoption of particular approaches to AI development that may be suboptimal for local contexts.

The standards development process itself often proceeds faster than many potential participants can respond effectively. Technical working groups dominated by industry representatives and researchers from major institutions can develop and finalise standards before stakeholders from developing nations have had opportunities to understand the implications and provide meaningful input. This speed advantage allows dominant actors to shape standards according to their preferences while maintaining the appearance of inclusive processes.

Standards that incorporate patented technologies or proprietary methods create ongoing dependencies and licensing requirements that limit developing nations' ability to implement alternative approaches. Even when standards appear neutral, they embed assumptions about intellectual property regimes, data ownership, and technological architectures that reflect the legal and economic frameworks of their creators.

The proliferation of competing standards initiatives, each claiming to represent best practices or international consensus, creates additional challenges for developing nations trying to navigate the standards landscape. Multiple overlapping and sometimes conflicting standards can force costly choices about which frameworks to adopt, with decisions often driven by market access considerations rather than local appropriateness.

Perhaps most problematically, the standards trap operates through mechanisms that make resistance or alternative approaches appear unreasonable or irresponsible. When standards are framed as representing ethical AI development or responsible innovation, opposition can be characterised as supporting unethical or irresponsible practices. This framing makes it difficult to advocate for alternative approaches that might better serve different contexts or priorities.

Voices from the Margins

The exclusion of Global South perspectives from AI governance discussions isn't merely an oversight—it represents a systematic pattern that reflects and reinforces existing power imbalances in the global technology ecosystem. The voices that shape international AI governance come predominantly from a narrow slice of the world's population, creating frameworks that may address the concerns of wealthy nations while ignoring issues that are more pressing in different contexts.

Academic conferences on AI ethics and governance take place primarily in expensive cities in wealthy nations, with participation costs that effectively exclude researchers and practitioners from developing countries. The registration fees alone for major AI conferences can exceed the monthly salaries of academics in many countries, before considering travel and accommodation costs. Even when organisers provide some financial support for participants from developing nations, the limited availability of such support and the competitive application processes create additional barriers to meaningful participation.

The language barriers in international AI governance discussions extend beyond simple translation issues to encompass fundamental differences in how technological problems are conceptualised and addressed. The dominant discourse around AI ethics draws heavily from Western philosophical traditions and legal frameworks that may not resonate with different cultural contexts or problem-solving approaches. When discussions assume particular models of individual rights, market relationships, or state authority, they can exclude perspectives that operate from different foundational assumptions.

Research funding patterns compound these exclusions by channelling resources toward institutions and researchers in wealthy nations while limiting opportunities for independent research in developing countries. International funding agencies often require collaboration with institutions in donor countries or adherence to research agendas that reflect donor priorities rather than local needs. This funding structure creates incentives for researchers in developing nations to frame their work in terms that appeal to international funders rather than addressing the most pressing local concerns.

The peer review processes that validate research and policy recommendations in AI governance operate through networks that are heavily concentrated in wealthy nations. The academics and practitioners who serve as reviewers for major journals and conferences are predominantly based in well-resourced institutions, creating systematic biases toward research that aligns with their perspectives and priorities. Alternative approaches to AI development or governance that emerge from different contexts may struggle to gain recognition through these validation mechanisms.

Even when developing nations are included in international AI governance initiatives, their participation often occurs on terms set by others, creating the appearance of global participation while maintaining substantive control over outcomes. The technical complexity of modern AI systems creates additional barriers to meaningful participation in governance discussions, as understanding the implications of different AI architectures, training methods, or deployment strategies requires specialised expertise that takes years to develop.

Professional networks in AI research and development operate through informal connections that often exclude practitioners from developing nations. Conferences, workshops, and collaborative relationships concentrate in wealthy nations and major corporations, creating knowledge-sharing networks that operate primarily among privileged actors. These networks shape not just technical development but also the broader discourse around appropriate approaches to AI governance.

The result is a governance ecosystem where the concerns and priorities of the Global South are systematically underrepresented, not through explicit exclusion but through structural barriers that make meaningful participation difficult or impossible. This exclusion has profound implications for the resulting governance frameworks, which may address problems that are salient to wealthy nations while ignoring issues that are more pressing elsewhere.

Alternative Futures

Despite the concerning trends toward digital colonialism in AI governance, alternative pathways exist that could lead to more equitable and inclusive approaches to managing artificial intelligence development. These alternatives require deliberate choices to prioritise different values and create different institutional structures, but they remain achievable if pursued with sufficient commitment and resources.

Regional AI governance initiatives offer one promising alternative to Global North dominance. The African Union's emerging AI strategy, developed through extensive consultation with member states and regional institutions, demonstrates how different regions can establish their own frameworks that reflect local priorities and values. Rather than simply adopting standards developed elsewhere, regional approaches can address specific challenges and opportunities that may not be visible from other contexts.

South-South cooperation in AI development presents another pathway for reducing dependence on Global North institutions and frameworks. Countries in similar development situations often face comparable challenges in deploying AI systems effectively, from limited computational infrastructure to the need for technologies that work with local languages and cultural contexts. Collaborative research and development initiatives among developing nations can create alternatives to dependence on technologies and standards developed primarily for wealthy markets.

Open source AI development offers possibilities for more democratic and inclusive approaches to creating AI capabilities. Unlike proprietary systems controlled by major corporations, open source AI projects can be modified, adapted, and improved by anyone with the necessary technical skills. This openness creates opportunities for developing nations to build indigenous capabilities and create AI systems that better serve their particular needs and contexts.

Rather than simply providing access to AI systems developed elsewhere, capacity building initiatives could focus on building the educational institutions, research infrastructure, and technical expertise needed for independent AI development. These programmes could prioritise creating local expertise rather than extracting talent, supporting indigenous research capabilities rather than creating dependencies on external institutions.

Alternative governance models that prioritise different values and objectives could reshape international AI standards development. Instead of frameworks that emphasise efficiency, scalability, and market competitiveness, governance approaches could prioritise accessibility, local relevance, community control, and social benefit. These alternative frameworks would require different institutional structures and decision-making processes, but they could produce very different outcomes for global AI development.

Multilateral institutions could play important roles in supporting more equitable AI governance if they reformed their own processes to ensure meaningful participation from developing nations. This might involve changing funding structures, decision-making processes, and institutional cultures to create genuine opportunities for different perspectives to shape outcomes. Such reforms would require powerful nations to accept reduced influence over international processes, but they could lead to more legitimate and effective governance frameworks.

Technology assessment processes that involve broader stakeholder participation could help ensure that AI governance frameworks address a wider range of concerns and priorities. Rather than relying primarily on technical experts and industry representatives, these processes could systematically include perspectives from affected communities, civil society organisations, and practitioners working in different contexts.

The development of indigenous AI research capabilities in developing nations could create alternative centres of expertise and innovation that reduce dependence on Global North institutions. This would require sustained investment in education, research infrastructure, and institutional development, but it could fundamentally alter the global landscape of AI expertise and influence.

Perhaps most importantly, alternative futures require recognising that there are legitimate differences in how different societies might want to develop and deploy AI systems. Rather than assuming that one-size-fits-all approaches are appropriate, governance frameworks could explicitly accommodate different models of AI development that reflect different values, priorities, and social structures.

The Path Forward

Creating more equitable approaches to AI governance requires confronting the structural inequalities that currently shape international technology policy while building alternative institutions and capabilities that can support different models of AI development. This transformation won't happen automatically—it requires deliberate choices by multiple actors to prioritise inclusion and equity over efficiency and speed.

International organisations have crucial roles to play in supporting more inclusive AI governance, but they must reform their own processes to ensure meaningful participation from developing nations. This means changing funding structures that currently privilege wealthy countries, modifying decision-making processes that advantage actors with existing technical expertise, and creating new mechanisms for incorporating diverse perspectives into standards development. The United Nations and other multilateral institutions could establish AI governance processes that explicitly prioritise equitable participation over rapid consensus-building.

The urgency surrounding AI governance, driven by the rapid emergence of generative AI systems, has created what experts describe as an international policy crisis. This sense of urgency may accelerate the creation of standards, potentially favouring nations that can move the fastest and have the most resources, further entrenching their influence. Yet this same urgency also creates opportunities for different approaches if actors are willing to prioritise long-term equity over short-term advantage.

Wealthy nations and major technology companies bear particular responsibilities for supporting more equitable AI development, given their outsized influence over current trajectories. This could involve sharing AI technologies and expertise more broadly, supporting capacity building initiatives in developing countries, and accepting constraints on their ability to shape international standards unilaterally. Technology transfer programmes that prioritise building local capabilities rather than creating market dependencies could help address current imbalances.

Educational institutions in wealthy nations could contribute by establishing partnership programmes that support AI research and education in developing countries without creating brain drain effects. This might involve creating satellite campuses, supporting distance learning programmes, or establishing research collaborations that build local capabilities rather than extracting talent. Academic journals and conferences could also reform their processes to ensure broader participation and representation.

Developing nations themselves have important roles to play in creating alternative approaches to AI governance. Regional cooperation initiatives can create alternatives to dependence on Global North frameworks, while investments in indigenous research capabilities can build the expertise needed for independent technology assessment and development. The concentration of AI governance efforts in Europe and North America—representing 58% of all initiatives despite these regions' limited global population—demonstrates the need for more geographically distributed leadership.

Civil society organisations could help ensure that AI governance processes address broader social concerns rather than just technical and economic considerations. This requires building technical expertise within civil society while creating mechanisms for meaningful participation in governance processes. International civil society networks could help amplify voices from developing nations and ensure that different perspectives are represented in global discussions.

The private sector could contribute by adopting business models and development practices that prioritise accessibility and local relevance over market dominance. This might involve open source development approaches, collaborative research initiatives, or technology licensing structures that enable adaptation for different contexts. Companies could also support capacity building initiatives and participate in governance processes that include broader stakeholder participation.

The debate over human agency represents a central point of contention in AI governance discussions. As AI systems become more pervasive, the question becomes whether these systems will be designed to empower individuals and communities or centralise control in the hands of their creators and regulators. This fundamental choice about the role of human agency in AI systems reflects deeper questions about power, autonomy, and technological sovereignty that lie at the heart of more equitable governance approaches.

Perhaps most importantly, creating more equitable AI governance requires recognising that current trajectories are not inevitable. The concentration of AI development in wealthy nations and major corporations reflects particular choices about research priorities, funding structures, and institutional arrangements that could be changed with sufficient commitment. Alternative approaches that prioritise different values and objectives remain possible if pursued with adequate resources and political will.

The window for creating more equitable approaches to AI governance may be narrowing as current systems become more entrenched and dependencies deepen. Yet the rapid pace of AI development also creates opportunities for different approaches if actors are willing to prioritise long-term equity over short-term advantage. The choices made in the next few years about AI governance frameworks will likely shape global technology development for decades to come, making current decisions particularly consequential for the future of digital sovereignty and technological equity.

Conclusion

The emerging landscape of AI governance stands at a critical juncture where the promise of beneficial artificial intelligence for all humanity risks being undermined by the same power dynamics that have shaped previous waves of technological development. The concentration of AI governance initiatives in wealthy nations, the exclusion of Global South perspectives from standards-setting processes, and the creation of new technological dependencies all point toward a future where artificial intelligence becomes another mechanism for reinforcing global inequalities rather than addressing them.

The parallels with historical colonialism are not merely rhetorical—they reflect structural patterns that risk creating lasting dependencies and constraints on technological sovereignty. When international AI standards embed the values and priorities of dominant actors while claiming universal applicability, when participation in global AI markets requires conformity to frameworks developed by others, and when the infrastructure requirements for AI development create new forms of technological dependence, the result may be a form of digital colonialism that proves more pervasive and persistent than its historical predecessors.

The economic dimensions of this digital divide are stark. North America alone accounted for nearly 40% of the global AI market in 2022, while the concentration of governance initiatives in Europe and North America represents a disproportionate influence over frameworks that will affect billions of people worldwide. Economic and regulatory power reinforce each other in feedback loops that entrench inequality while constraining alternative approaches.

Yet these outcomes are not inevitable. The rapid pace of AI development that creates governance challenges also creates opportunities for different approaches if pursued with sufficient commitment and resources. Regional cooperation initiatives, capacity building programmes, open source development models, and reformed international institutions all offer pathways toward more equitable AI governance. The question is whether the international community will choose to pursue these alternatives or allow current trends toward digital colonialism to continue unchecked.

The stakes of this choice extend far beyond technology policy. Artificial intelligence systems are likely to play increasingly important roles in education, healthcare, economic development, and social organisation across the globe. The governance frameworks established for these systems will shape not just technological development but also social and economic opportunities for billions of people. Creating governance approaches that serve the interests of all humanity rather than just the most powerful actors may be one of the most important challenges of our time.

The path forward requires acknowledging that current approaches to AI governance, despite their apparent neutrality and universal applicability, reflect particular interests and priorities that may not serve the broader global community. Building more equitable alternatives will require sustained effort, significant resources, and the willingness of powerful actors to accept constraints on their influence. Yet the alternative—a future where artificial intelligence reinforces rather than reduces global inequalities—makes such efforts essential for creating a more just and sustainable technological future.

The window for action remains open, but it may not remain so indefinitely. As AI systems become more deeply embedded in global infrastructure and governance frameworks become more entrenched, the opportunities for creating alternative approaches may diminish. The choices made today about AI governance will echo through decades of technological development, making current decisions about inclusion, equity, and technological sovereignty among the most consequential of our time.

References and Further Information

Primary Sources:

Future Shock: Generative AI and the International AI Policy Crisis – Harvard Data Science Review, MIT Press. Available at: hdsr.mitpress.mit.edu

The Future of Human Agency Study – Imagining the Internet, Elon University. Available at: www.elon.edu

Advancing a More Global Agenda for Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence – Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Available at: carnegieendowment.org

International Community Must Urgently Confront New Reality of Generative Artificial Intelligence – UN Press Release. Available at: press.un.org

An Open Door: AI Innovation in the Global South amid Geostrategic Competition – Center for Strategic and International Studies. Available at: www.csis.org

General Assembly Resolution A/79/88 – United Nations Documentation Centre. Available at: docs.un.org

Policy and Governance Resources:

European Union Artificial Intelligence Act – Official documentation and analysis available through the European Commission's digital strategy portal

OECD AI Policy Observatory – Comprehensive database of AI policies and governance initiatives worldwide

Partnership on AI – Industry-led initiative on AI best practices and governance frameworks

UNESCO AI Ethics Recommendation – United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization global framework for AI ethics

International Telecommunication Union AI for Good Global Summit – Annual conference proceedings and policy recommendations

Research Institutions and Think Tanks:

AI Now Institute – Research on the social implications of artificial intelligence and governance challenges

Future of Humanity Institute – Academic research on long-term AI governance and existential risk considerations

Brookings Institution AI Governance Project – Policy analysis and recommendations for AI regulation and international cooperation

Center for Strategic and International Studies Technology Policy Program – Analysis of AI governance and international competition

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Technology and International Affairs Program – Research on global technology governance

Academic Journals and Publications:

AI & Society – Springer journal on social implications of artificial intelligence and governance frameworks

Ethics and Information Technology – Academic research on technology ethics, governance, and policy development

Technology in Society – Elsevier journal on technology's social impacts and governance challenges

Information, Communication & Society – Taylor & Francis journal on digital society and governance

Science and Public Policy – Oxford Academic journal on science policy and technology governance

International Organisations and Initiatives:

World Economic Forum Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution – Global platform for AI governance and policy development

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development AI Policy Observatory – International database of AI policies and governance frameworks

Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence – International initiative for responsible AI development and governance

Internet Governance Forum – United Nations platform for multi-stakeholder dialogue on internet and AI governance

International Standards Organization Technical Committee on Artificial Intelligence – Global standards development for AI systems

Regional and Developing World Perspectives:

African Union Commission Science, Technology and Innovation Strategy – Continental framework for AI development and governance

Association of Southeast Asian Nations Digital Masterplan – Regional approach to AI governance and development

Latin American and Caribbean Internet Governance Forum – Regional perspectives on AI governance and digital rights

South-South Galaxy – Platform for cooperation on technology and innovation among developing nations

Digital Impact Alliance – Global initiative supporting digital development in emerging markets

---

Tim Green UK-based Systems Theorist & Independent Technology Writer

Tim explores the intersections of artificial intelligence, decentralised cognition, and posthuman ethics. His work, published at smarterarticles.co.uk, challenges dominant narratives of technological progress while proposing interdisciplinary frameworks for collective intelligence and digital stewardship.

His writing has been featured on Ground News and shared by independent researchers across both academic and technological communities.

ORCID: 0000-0002-0156-9795 Email: tim@smarterarticles.co.uk

Discuss...