This is a remarkable piece that in my personal opinion, hits a bunch of nails right on their heads.
From years of working alongside governments, multilateral bodies, and civil society, I have seen how often ambition is lost in the machinery of politics. That is why this moment, fragile as it is, merits special attention—and maybe even a bit of hope. In this case, nations recognized that no single country could govern artificial intelligence alone, and that recognition created the space to begin building lasting institutions for AI governance.
The reality we must confront is that for years, our debates about AI have been dominated by hype and fear, recycled narratives that misdirect our imagination and our policies. The UN’s resolution represents the first attempt to break that cycle by creating institutions that can anchor AI in science, evidence, and cooperation. If they succeed, they can create a new narrative of AI: one that serves public purpose rather than amplifying unjust profit or panic.
Too often, we tell the same scary stories: an evil mogul in his tower building AI systems no one else can control, a machine that outgrows its makers, a gleaming future where technology erases our flaws. Each carries a fragment of truth, but together they obscure the realities already shaping human lives. Narratives like these shape policy and investment, while the most consequential applications are too often ignored.
The author is the President of the McGovern Foundation1 - which I didn't know existed, until today. Love to see that there are more tech-optimists, bigtech-pessimists in this world.
Footnotes
McGovern was the founder of IDG (Computer/PC/Mac World, "for Dummies") ↩
no single country could govern artificial intelligence alone, and that recognition created the space to begin building lasting institutions for AI governance
Isn't this a little like trying to govern international trade? There are non-national organizations that nations choose to be members of, although one organisation can't really stop nations that aren't members from trading independently however they want.
Ultimately I think positive incentives work better than negative ones; e.g. a national government or university could easily sponsor research that is aligned with its goals, even if the researchers and infrastructure are globally distributed, while it is futile to try banning activity that happens outside your jurisdiction.
Isn't this a little like trying to govern international trade?
I'd say so, yes, and it remains to be seen what ultimately comes of the whole governance thing - I'm as allergic to that word and worse, it's application, as the next Bitcoiner. But, like the author, I would be optimistic depending on who goes on the committee and what they ultimately focus on.
Whenever I'm outside of nation states (and EU) then the main observation I have is how dependent the people (not even the businesses) have become of (a) big tech, and (b) overseas regulated environments where another power (most often either the US or the EU) dictates details of people's lives way out of their jurisdiction, simply because they have so much power. So you're bound to Facebook for your news, your local money is dominated by rules from correspondent banks in either the US, UK or EU, and yes, your phone has that OpenAI app for "knowledge".
I think that it is good that these jurisdictions could have an opportunity to unite, but we'll have to see if that materializes, of course. There's a high chance that any UN effort turns into an US/EU party and that is ultimately bad for local populations, because the corporations that will then capture the opportunities will per definition focus on what's good for them first, and then their respective jurisdictions, and maybe, just maybe, will they think about the interests of the hundreds of millions of people that are overseas to them, that have similar if not greater needs.
If there's just going to be negative incentives then of course it won't work out, I agree.
Footnotes
governancething - I'm as allergic to that word and worse, it's application, as the next Bitcoiner. But, like the author, I would be optimistic depending on who goes on the committee and what they ultimately focus on.