Why Consensus Eluded AI Summit’s Call

It was expected that divergent views would emerge at the third edition of the global AI meet. i.e., the AI Action Summit, in Paris on February 10 and 11 – but not on key safety aspects of it in interests all nations. For two days, global leaders, policymakers, and industry experts brainstormed on need for AI governance, technological collaboration, and strategic partnerships. While France hosted the meet and French President Emmanuel Macron presided over it, Prime Minister Narendra Modi co-chaired the summit. Nearly 100 took part in discussions on policy approaches, new AI regulations, technological advancements, public-interest projects, impact on labour markets etc.

PM Modi energetically pushed for quality data sets that are “free from biases” and the need to embrace open-source models. He call came amid China’s low-cost open source DeepSeek model which is shaking up the AI industry, rattling Western counterparts like OpenAI and Google which are not open sourced. Modi also allayed fears that AI would lead to erosion of jobs on a large scale. He echoed the voice of the experts on the need for “skilling and re-skilling” people. The Economic Survey had also raised a similar pitch, and stressed the need to create robust institutions to minimise AI’s adverse fallouts.

As critical gaps exist in technology and economy size among nations, it is particularly important to root for diversity in AI development to avoid biases, improve systems’ capabilities, and for broader user representation. After all, AI provides human-like interactions and offer decision support for specific tasks, and making it humane is all the more important.

PM Modi and President Macron also pushed for using green energy to power the AI which would require enormous energy to process stupendous amounts of data sets.

Accordingly, the communique by the summit called for “ensuring AI is open, inclusive, transparent [and] ethical”. It also stressed making AI sustainable for “people and the planet” and “taking into account international frameworks”. However, a unanimous consensus eluded the final call, as the United States and the United Kingdom did not sign off on it over its “inclusive”, “open” and “sustainability” aspects.

While the UK government cited national concerns about national security, US Vice President J D Vance said too much regulation of AI would “kill a transformative industry just as it’s taking off”. In contrast, over 60 countries okayed the declaration for some light regulations on making the AI “trustworthy for all.”

It defies reasons why two developed and powerful economies like the US and the UK should resist a global call for a “safe, ethical and trustworthy AI innovation” while even China is okay for it. However, European Union championed the cause of open source technology to drive innovation and collaboration among governments.

By backtracking on a global pledge for a “safe, ethical and trustworthy AI innovation,” the US and the UK only seem to be risking their credibility as world leaders, particularly in the eyes ofthe Global South. In a loaded statement ahead of the declaration, Vance had warned, “Should a deal seem too good to be true, just remember the old adage that we learned in Silicon Valley, if you aren’t paying for the product: you are the product.” He warned against partnering with authoritarian governments like China which can “infiltrate, dig in and seize your information.” However, the meet is just about this threat, building international collaborations against deceit or control by any organisation or government. This assumes greater significance as super-human level AI is predicted to be developed in near future, which may have potentially catastrophic effects if “safety” and “openness” aspects are not addressed. Some regulations do need to be built in.