The Internet Had a North Star. The UN’s Global Dialogue Made Clear AI Doesn't. | TechPolicy.PressPerspective<br>The Internet Had a North Star. The UN’s Global Dialogue Made Clear AI Doesn't.<br>Konstantinos Komaitis / Jul 15, 2026This photograph shows Robert the Robot, an advanced conversational humanoid developed by Geneva-based technology company RB Labs, at the AI for Good Global Summit, a United Nations flagship event aimed at shaping the future of artificial intelligence, in Geneva on July 7, 2026. (Photo by Fabrice COFFRINI / AFP via Getty Images)

Republish

Share

In 1945, as the world emerged from the devastation of World War II, leaders faced a challenge far greater than redrawing borders or rebuilding shattered economies: they had to decide if humanity could build institutions capable of preventing its own destruction. The creation of the United Nations was born from a shared, if imperfect, conviction that international cooperation was not just desirable, but necessary for survival. It was an acknowledgment that certain existential threats surpassed the boundaries of the nation-state, requiring a collective framework to safeguard the global public good.<br>Eighty-one years later, the first UN Global Dialogue on AI Governance, held last week in Geneva, revealed a very different historical moment. Governments, technology giants, academic researchers, and civil society advocates gathered to debate how to govern one of the most transformative technologies of our times. There was polite consensus on the surface. Speakers repeatedly invoked the need for safety, accountability, agency, inclusivity, and human rights. Yet beneath the carefully negotiated diplomatic language lay a fundamental crisis: the world increasingly agrees that artificial intelligence needs governance, but we completely disagree on what that governance is ultimately meant to achieve. This distinction is not academic; it is the defining political challenge of the AI era.<br>The Internet offers the clearest historical contrast to the current AI policy paralysis. Its success did not stem from universal political harmony. Democracies and autocracies have bitterly disagreed over privacy, censorship, and surveillance. Those deep ideological rifts persist today. Yet, those fights occurred within a broader, shared ambition that transcended geopolitical rivalries. The architects of the Internet believed in a foundational principle, which was that networks must be able to connect regardless of geography, ownership, or political boundaries. Interoperability became the organizing principle around which technical standards, global institutions, and governance mechanisms evolved. The Internet had a North Star.<br>Artificial intelligence has no equivalent North Star. Without a shared destination, governance becomes an empty vessel. We are left asking whether AI is primarily an engine of economic growth, a tool for scientific discovery, a weapon for strategic dominance, or a commercial platform. Should it be accelerated, constrained, or democratized? Because the international community cannot answer this prerequisite question, AI governance is reduced to a chaotic exercise in balancing competing national interests rather than steering a common future.<br>According to Elonnai Hickok, Managing Director at the Global Network Initiative (GNI):<br>The absence of shared objectives has long undermined international AI governance, resulting in fragmented initiatives with limited coordination and impact. While processes such as the AI Summit series and the UN Global Dialogue on AI Governance have convened diverse stakeholders, they have produced few sustained mechanisms for collective action. MAP-AI—led by GNI and the Centre for Communication Governance—addresses this gap by developing a shared, bottom-up vision for AI governance, grounded in the priorities and experiences of stakeholders across regions. By connecting national, regional, and international efforts, the project aims to foster a more coherent, inclusive, and effective global AI governance ecosystem.<br>This absence of purpose was glaringly obvious in Geneva, characterized first by an illusion of leadership. The United States and China, the principal architects of the AI revolution, were technically in the room. Their representatives walked the convention hall corridors and engaged in conversations. Yet their reluctance to deeply engage in collective, multilateral commitments was striking. Leadership requires more than technological dominance; it requires a willingness to invest political capital in building common institutions. Instead, the major AI powers continue to view governance almost exclusively through the prism of strategic competition.<br>Questions of safety, standards, infrastructure, and innovation increasingly intersect with concerns about economic competitiveness, technological supremacy, and national security. Under these conditions, governments naturally seek to preserve strategic flexibility rather than...