Subscribe
Artificial intelligence has emerged as a key topic of discussion at the United Nations General Assembly, where world leaders are debating the opportunities and risks associated with the technology’s rapid development. The debate was prompted by the recent—and highly controversial—address given by US President Donald Trump to the General Assembly. Incidents highlighting potential losses of control, alongside growing alarms raised by the cybersecurity and AI sectors, have fueled the debate over the need for greater public oversight. Against this backdrop, a significant divergence has emerged between the position of the United States and that of numerous other nations—particularly in Europe—that favors the introduction of regulatory measures.
THE UNITED NATIONS’ POSITION
UN Secretary-General António Guterres has placed the issue of AI safety among the priorities of the international agenda. In his address to the General Assembly, he emphasized the need to prevent life-or-death decisions concerning human beings from being entrusted to machines, linking this principle to the issue of autonomous weapons systems and so-called “killer robots.” Guterres had previously highlighted the risks associated with artificial intelligence in his first address to the General Assembly a decade ago. His current stance focuses on the need to foster conditions conducive to the responsible development of the technology and to establish additional safeguards to mitigate its risks. In this context, the UN Security Council is set to discuss concrete forms of AI oversight, with the participation of leading figures from the sector.
THE US REJECTION OF REGULATION
The US administration led by Donald Trump takes a distinctly different stance. The President has reiterated his opposition to any form of artificial intelligence regulation, even challenging the terminology commonly used to describe the technology. According to Trump, the term “artificial intelligence” diminishes its scope and should be replaced by “Super Intelligence,” a definition he considers more appropriate. Furthermore, the President has likened warnings about AI safety to past controversies surrounding climate change, arguing that certain catastrophic predictions made by AI safety advocates echo those once made regarding global warming. Consequently, the US position rejects the idea of binding international governance, viewing it as part of a globalist agenda to control technology. Instead, Trump has emphasized that every major innovation inevitably brings challenges, while also acknowledging the potential for scenarios in which robots could pose a threat.
THE EUROPEAN APPROACH AND THE SEARCH FOR COMMON STANDARDS
In contrast to Washington, more than twenty countries—predominantly European—have advocated for binding regulations regarding the safety of the most advanced forms of AI. The primary concern is that the pace of technological development might outstrip the ability of institutions to adequately understand and manage its consequences. China and the United States, identified as leading powers in the AI sector, have not supported this proposal. The United Kingdom has announced plans to launch an initiative aimed at establishing global standards during its G20 presidency, scheduled for 2027. At the same time, London has announced a defense partnership with Washington that includes efforts to detect cyberattacks targeting critical infrastructure.
TECHNOLOGICAL AUTONOMY AND INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION
France has adopted a stance strongly oriented towards European technological autonomy. Emmanuel Macron has proposed developing AI systems independent of major powers, highlighting the need to avoid technological dependence on the United States or China. In this context, Paris advocates for sharing the investments required to create an advanced open-source artificial intelligence model. However, the debate also involves the US private sector; leading American AI companies have increasingly shown interest in international coordination regarding safety and security.
AI REGULATION AND GLOBAL STABILITY
The discourse on artificial intelligence reflects a broader divergence in approaches to international technology governance. On the one hand, the European approach tends to prioritize the precautionary principle, the establishment of shared rules, and the introduction of safeguards to guide AI development—based on the conviction that a technology destined to play an increasingly significant role in society and international security cannot be left without adequate oversight. On the other hand, the US position—as articulated by Donald Trump—places greater emphasis on the freedom of technological development and the need to avoid international constraints that could potentially stifle innovation. This contrast is particularly significant given the current international landscape, marked by conflicts, geopolitical tensions, cyber threats, and growing questions regarding global stability. In this context, the ability to govern new technologies becomes an integral part of the broader quest for tools to preserve international peace and security. The European stance, focused on multilateral cooperation and the creation of common standards, is thus part of an effort to address AI-related risks through shared mechanisms; meanwhile, the differing US approach highlights the difficulty of reaching a global consensus precisely when international fragmentation complicates the collective management of emerging threats.