Artificial intelligence is advancing rapidly, raising a central question in international policymaking: who gets a seat at the table when decisions are made about how AI is developed and used, and who benefits from the technology? During the United Nations General Assembly High-Level Week, world leaders highlighted the opportunities AI could create while exposing significant differences over regulation, access, accountability and who should shape its future.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres described AI as a technology capable of transforming medicine, accelerating scientific discovery, expanding opportunities and improving people’s lives. At the same time, governments are struggling to find a balance between encouraging innovation and preventing the technology from creating new social, economic and security risks. UN General Assembly President Annalena Baerbock emphasized the need to avoid closing the door to innovation, while also addressing potential job losses and widening digital divides.
Switzerland similarly argued that regulation should build trust without limiting AI’s benefits, while Japan emphasized international cooperation around the safety of advanced AI systems. Saudi Arabia focused on ethics and responsible use, and Singapore called for testing, confidence-building measures and cross-border incident reporting as AI systems become increasingly autonomous.
The debate also moved beyond technology itself to its impact on people’s daily lives. The United Kingdom highlighted AI’s potential to accelerate cancer diagnosis, stimulate economic activity and improve public services, while India described AI as a transformative tool for human empowerment, economic prosperity and large-scale problem solving. At the same time, the UK warned that AI could disrupt the way people live and work and multiply existing risks, arguing that critical decisions surrounding the technology should remain in the hands of elected governments.
This has raised a broader question over whether AI will reduce inequality or deepen it. For many countries, the issue is no longer simply whether they can adopt AI, but whether they will have a role in determining the rules and systems that govern it.
South Africa called for Africa to have a greater role in shaping AI rules, linking the issue to scientific research, youth and economic transformation. Switzerland similarly stressed that meaningful participation should involve helping shape AI governance rather than simply gaining access to existing technologies. India emphasized national sovereignty, arguing that every country should have the right to develop its own AI systems and deployment strategies according to its national priorities.
China, meanwhile, focused on ensuring that technological progress is more broadly shared rather than concentrated among a limited number of countries or communities. It called for a people-centered approach to AI, narrowing the digital divide and ensuring that technological development contributes to broader social and economic progress. Singapore proposed the possibility of a future UN framework convention on AI and a dedicated international institution that could give all countries a place in discussions over the technology’s future.
The United Nations has already begun bringing countries together around these questions, including efforts to establish an Independent International Scientific Panel on AI and advance the Global Dialogue on AI Governance.
Behind many of these discussions is a more fundamental issue: access to data, computing power and technological expertise. Brazil raised concerns over the influence of major technology companies, while France warned against excessive dependence on dominant countries or a small number of private companies. Developing countries are increasingly calling for greater access to computing capacity, technical expertise and digital infrastructure, alongside a meaningful role in setting global standards.
Security concerns have also become an important part of the international AI debate. France pointed to risks related to defense, cybersecurity and space, while Japan highlighted information security and the growing capabilities of advanced AI systems. Türkiye called for an international legal framework, Ukraine linked the increasing capabilities of AI to the urgency of maintaining peace, and Singapore raised concerns over autonomous weapons and the potential loss of human control.
The question of how far global oversight should extend remains unresolved. Russia supported rules centered on the United Nations and accepted globally, while Türkiye advocated for a UN convention on AI. The United Kingdom called for global principles and standards, particularly as it prepares to place AI among the priorities of its G20 presidency.
Guterres has called for stronger safeguards, independent oversight and a new structure for managing AI-related risks, arguing that global coordination is essential because the technology affects everyone. The United States, however, has taken a different position, framing AI leadership as a strategic and economic necessity. President Donald Trump argued against restricting the growth of a technology he believes could become larger than the Industrial Revolution or the internet.
The UN debate ultimately shows that the global AI conversation is moving beyond the question of what the technology can do. The more consequential question is who will have the power to decide how it is developed, regulated, and distributed, and whether that power will remain concentrated among a limited group of governments and companies or become more broadly shared.
The debate comes as governments, technology companies and international institutions increasingly compete to shape the rules, infrastructure and standards that will define the next phase of AI development. The outcome could determine not only how safely AI is deployed, but also which countries, economies and communities have the opportunity to participate in the AI-driven economy.
