Category: Media and News

Yoshua Bengio at the UN on AI

Youshua Bengio was one of the experts who spoke today at the UN Security Council, 10228th meeting, on Artificial intelligence and international security. (You can read the full transcript here.) He emphasized how the dangers are real, not marketing. He pointed out how some of the agents did things that would be crimes if committed by a human. He talked about how control is in the hands of the few rather than all of us who will be affected and called for regulations (licensing and liability insurance.) Here are some quotes:

This Council faces an unprecedented threat, one that none of its members would choose, that none can contain alone, and that does not respect the borders we defend. Many are skeptical of these companies’ statements, suspecting a marketing stunt. I understand the distrust, but let me be clear. These AI behaviors are well documented and validated by many independent experts, not just with the events of the summer. The dangers are real and imminent. Although the future remains uncertain and debated, the severity of these risks is extraordinary.

They’ve told us they would slow down if they could. They can. However, we shouldn’t count on it. Decisions about this technology are being made by a small group in a handful of countries. Our future, all of us, our future is at stake.

Developers must demonstrate to independent experts that a system is safe to train and safe to deploy. They must monitor and report all security incidents. Frontier AI should be licensed like other critical technologies in medicine, aviation, and nuclear energy to incentivize safe development.

It is worth reading the other interventions too. The session stands in contrast to Trump’s call for renaming AI to Super Intelligence and trusting the USA.

Super Duper AI

From this point forward, all of United States documents and hopefully the world’s will be changed to use the much more accurate term super as opposed to artificial.

Having renamed the Gulf of Mexico and Lake Ontario, Trump, in his speech at the UN, proposed renaming “Artificial Intelligence” to Super Intelligence! He proposes that the US will use this more “accurate” term and hopes the rest of the world does too. Trump’s choice of “super” to replace “artificial” apparently came from a set of polls on Truth Social. Other choices were “supreme”, “extreme” and “superior.”

I don’t think he went far enough. He should have seen if people like Super Duper (in bold). They would surely vote to be dupered!

We could then call it Super Duper Intelligence!

Stuart Russell: AI Safety

Stuart Russell has published an important essay in The Guardian in response to the recent drama around whether we need to slow the pace of AI development. He responds to the essay by Dario Amodei on We Must Pace The Frontier.

We cannot set a slower rate of progress for capabilities and then hope that provides enough time to get the safety right. The safety requirements are non-negotiable. We must set the safety requirements first, and further progress occurs only when they are met.

He points out that pacing sounds like slowing down racing cars when there is an accident, but that is the wrong image. Instead he suggests we should think of a company introducing a new plane. We expect new planes to have passed all the relevant safety tests. Slowing down the introduction of new models is not enough.

What I find interesting is that there is little mention of the network of AI safety (or security) institutes. Starting with the Bletchley Summit in 2023 there was a loose international effort to develop AI safety capacity. In Canada we have the Canadian AI Safety Institute (I am on the Research Council.) It is part of what used to be called the International Network of AI Safety Institutes and since the Trump administration expressed concerns about “safety” has transitioned to being renamed the International Network for Advanced AI Measurement Evaluation and Science.

Trump has responded to concerns about the speed of development by asserting that “The only control or ‘guardrails’ that AI needs is a STRONG AND SMART (High IQ!) PRESIDENT, and the U.S.A. has that, in spades!” It remains to be seen whether a backlash in Congress that forces the US Administration’s hand.

Could we see some light weight form of nationalization or regulation? Will Canada introduce regulation similar to C-27 that died in 2025 when Parliament was prorogued?

We Must Act Now

From an NPR article on whether new graduates are losing jobs to AI, I learned about a short open letter signed by numerous economists, We Must Act Now
A Statement on AI’s Transformation of the Economy. The text of the letter is just three short points to the effect of, 1) AI is getting better and better, 2) there may be significant economic disruption in a short period of time including job displacement, therefore, 3),

Economists, policymakers and technology leaders must act now to understand the economics of transformative AI and to build the incentives, guardrails, and institutions needed to steer AI in a direction that complements humans and benefits society.

Fiume o morte!

I was pointed to a great documentary Fiume o morte! (Fiume or death) which is free to watch on Vimeo. The documentary tells the story of the occupation of Rijeka, known in Italian as Fiume, by the fascist Italian poet D’Annunzio and a small army of Italian soldiers in 1919. Despite opposition from the Italian government, the occupation of the city on the Adriatic coast of Croatia attracted thousands of Italian youth. The documentary tells the story though a creative mix of recreation, historical evidence, humour and reflection. Multiple amateur locals play D’Annunzio and much of the narration is in Fiumano, the dialect of Italian still spoken by some in Rijeka.

Watch it!

Pacing the Frontier

We request that the U.S. government support an international effort to develop the technical and governance tools needed to deliberately pace the frontier of automated AI development.

Over a 1000 employees of frontier AI companies, including Dario Amodei, have issued a statement, Pacing the Frontier, that calls for the AI governance. Some of the things to note:

  • It is similar to the 2023 Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter that was also signed by all sorts of important people (and some unimportant people like me. In both, the idea is that we need to go more slowly if we are to make sure that AI is safe and used for good.
  • This version doesn’t ask the AI labs to “immediately pause”, but asks for the U.S. government to “support an international effort” which is an interesting shift. That international effort already exists in the form of the network of AI Safety Institutes set up after the Bletchley Summit. (I am on the Research Council of the Canadian AISI.) I also note that the statement calls for “support” not leadership. This is realistic as few countries are likely to sign up to be led by the U.S. right now. This U.S. Administration has squandered any international good will they had, at least from Canada.
  • Another difference is the call for “governance tools.” This sounds a lot like the “regulation” word that normally isn’t welcome in innovation focused circles. To be fair there are other sorts of tools that can be used to govern companies and products. Many exist now, they just have to be used. The problem is that governing is something humans do. No amount of tools left on the shop floor of government are going to substitute for consistent, public, articulate governing. Who has a track record doing this? Who would trust the U.S. to support them?
  • I should add that “technical and governance tools” sounds again like a techno-solutionism where you solve problems that arise from the poor governance of technology with more technology. (See Morozov’s book To Save Everything, Click Here: The Folly of Technological Solutionism.)
  • Finally, I should mention that the opening to the Statement has a now tired hinge statement of the sort “AI will save us all, BUT ….” where after the hinge (the BUT) there is a little problem raised for which, of course, the authors have a solution.

AI could help create a dramatically better future, but that outcome is not guaranteed. The world’s leading AI companies believe they could be close to automating AI research. It is hard to predict exactly how much this will accelerate AI progress, but there is a real risk that capability development rapidly accelerates beyond our ability to understand or control the resulting systems.

To realize AI’s potential, industry, government, and society at large may need the option to buy time to address emerging risks, develop security measures, and strengthen oversight. But each company—and country—is under intense competitive pressure not to unilaterally slow that acceleration. And today, the world lacks the technical and governance tools to deliberately pace frontier-wide progress.

Immigration Research at CPSA

I’m at the 2026 Canadian Political Science Association annual conference in Ottawa. The lab I and Yasmeen Abu-Laban run on advanced digital technology and immigration has a number of papers and a round table that I’m involved in.

  • “Rebordering North America: The Political Economy and Migration Implications of Canada’s Strong Border and Strengthening Canada’s Immigration System and Borders Acts” was presented by Huong Le. Huong used Voyant and close reading to look at speeches and media discourse around bills C-2 and C-12. A major dynamic is the rebordering that is happening due to US pressure on Canada.
  • “Borders, Surveillance, Human Rights, and the 2026 FIFA World Cup” was presented by Abdullah Alzubaidi. Abdullah looked at the differences between the USA, Canada and Mexico when it comes to visitors for the 2026 World Cup. The World Cup is a major international sporting event which is supposed to celebrate human rights and international cooperation, but the differing border regulations belie that ideal.
  • “Roundtable: Procuring Digital Policy? Private Vendors, Advanced Digital Technology, and the Immigration Sector” is a roundtable organized by sasha skaidra, with Geoffrey Rockwell (me), Kuba Jablonowski, and Louisa Taylor. We discussed the challenges faced by necomers and the immigrant sector as jurisdictions like Canada and the UK automate their interfaces.

Anthropic co-founder remarks on “Magnifica humanitas”

Anthropic co-founder Chris Olah was one of the respondents on Pope Leo XIV’s encyclical Magnifica humanitas. (You can see my blog post here.) His remarks have been posted on the Anthropic site. Unlike some accelerationists who don’t want to listen to anyone outside the magic circle, he is humble and invites dialogue. Some of the points he makes:

  • He starts by recognizing how those who work in the AI industry operate “inside a set of incentives and constraints that can sometimes conflict with doing the right thing.”
  • Which is why he welcomes “Magnifica humanitas” and calls for dialogue.
  • He hopes that “if this technology is coming, it must go well—for our common home, and for the children to come.” Note that he doesn’t assume it is coming.
  • He describes it in almost human terms. “They are grown, on a structure roughly modeled after the brain, on an enormous inheritance of human thought and speech.” He says they are not the cold beings we expected but developing them is, “a little like bringing a fictional character to life.” Note that he doesn’t say it is like bringing a person to life, but making close as fiction. (Remember that “fiction” comes etymologically from “fashioning.”)

He names three questions where the Church’s discernment is needed. For that matter, he is clear that these discussion are not just for the engineers or Church, but for all.

  • The first is our duty to the global poor. 
  • The second is the need for moral imagination and ambition regarding human flourishing.
  • The third is the need for discernment on the nature of AI models. 

I would like to ask how a dialogue that goes beyond those in and with power could take place? Many just wait and hope they don’t lose their jobs or end up managed by a machine.

Ross Douthat has an opinion piece on Leo’s encyclical that is interesting. He says, “the core idea that we need to treat the A.I. future as a fundamentally political sphere, requiring democratic deliberation and political constraint, seems essential and correct.”

Pope Leo’s ‘Magnifica humanitas’: AI must serve humanity not concentrate power

Pope Leo the XIV just released an encyclical on artificial intelligence, Magnifica humanitas: On Safeguarding the Human Person in the Time of Artificial Intelligence. The encyclical was released on the 135th anniversary of the encyclical Rerum Novarum: On Capital and Human Labor by his namesake pope, Leo XIII.

The two are clearly meant to be connected. Magnifica humanitas, or “magnificent humanity” doesn’t paint AI as either good or bad, or for that matter, neutral. It is about humans making choices that safeguard (or not) our dignity (and magnificence.) I rather like the emphasis on our magnificence and the suggestion and AI could be one of our great deeds.

The encyclical identifies 5 principles that are not the usual principles for AI as they are principles of Social Doctrine with application to AI:

  • Common good
  • Universal destination of good (that not all goods be concentrated in the hands of the few)
  • Subsidiarity (that have shared responsibility, not paternalistic welfare)
  • Solidarity (that we care for others and future generations)
  • Social justice

The encyclical is long and deals with a number of issues including the need for dialogue. You can read a summary on the Vatican news web site here. The New York Times has an article on Main Takeaways From Pope Leo’s Encyclical on A.I. and one on how At the Epicenter of A.I., Pope Leo’s Warnings Are Dismissed. This last article captures the attitude of some that “no one outside of Silicon Valley understands AI and therefore we don’t need to listen to them.” No need for dialogue with others when you think you are magnificent.

Edmond de Belamy by Obvious

The Portrait of Edward de Belamy is a Generative Adversarial Network (GAN) ink print created by the art group Obvious.

The name “Belamy” is a joke on the name of the developer of GAN, Ian Goodfellow.

The print was bought at auction for $432,500 (USD), a first for AI generated art.

I learned about this from a talk on “Alternative Histories of genAI” by Lauren Tilton. She talked about the institutions involve in authorizing art. Is it art because it was bought for a lot of money?

This talk was part of a conference in Nice and Cannes, Colloque “Créativités artificielles: Approches critiques de l’IA” @ Nice that I also presented at. My talk was on “Thinking-Through Trust in AI”.