{"id":610513,"date":"2026-09-24T17:40:20","date_gmt":"2026-09-24T17:40:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/610513\/"},"modified":"2026-09-24T17:40:20","modified_gmt":"2026-09-24T17:40:20","slug":"where-should-nz-stand-on-global-ai-risk-3-principles-to-guide-a-stronger-strategy-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/610513\/","title":{"rendered":"Where should NZ stand on global AI risk? 3 principles to guide a stronger strategy"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n \"Rows
\n
\n Getty Images<\/a>
\n <\/p>\n

Alexander Gillespie<\/a>, University of Waikato<\/a><\/p>\n

If some current warnings are to be believed, artificial intelligence may be the human invention that outwits its creators. Understandably, there are now global calls to regulate the technology.<\/p>\n

At the current gathering of the United Nations General Assembly, 20 nations (including Australia and Canada) are calling for increased oversight<\/a> of advanced AI systems. New Zealand \u2013 along with the United States and China, which dominate the global AI industry \u2013 did not join the initiative.<\/p>\n

According to the MIT AI Risk Initiative<\/a>, incidents of concern are on the rise<\/a> rapidly. Overall, the global AI industry is raising profound questions about ethics, economy, equity and security.<\/p>\n

While there is disagreement between those warning of a potential doomsday scenario<\/a> and others who take a more benign view<\/a> of AI\u2019s likely trajectory, investment in the industry is forecast to exceed US$1 trillion this year<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Little wonder the preliminary report<\/a> of the UN Independent International Scientific Panel on AI found \u201cthe gap between rapidly improving capabilities and effective risk management methods may lead to catastrophic outcomes\u201d.<\/p>\n

At the same time, the claimed economic benefits of AI often take precedence. Fearing losing the advantage to China, US President Donald Trump has called safety fears a \u201choax<\/a>\u201d and rejected calls for global regulation.<\/p>\n

New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has argued<\/a> the opportunities still outweigh the risks. If there are concerns, he says, they are best dealt with in concert with \u201clike-minded friends\u201d.<\/p>\n

This optimism is reflected in the government\u2019s \u201c\u2018light touch approach<\/a>\u201d to regulation which avoids new laws. (It might also explain New Zealand ranking 32nd out of 45 high-income countries in the Global Index on Responsible AI<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

Conversely, the Labour opposition has promised to establish<\/a> an Office of AI within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to coordinate policy across government. It would work with Australia to align regional standards on safety and security.<\/p>\n

Neither approach really addresses the kind of existential risk now being discussed globally. To do that, New Zealand could set three goals, each anchored in established international precedent.<\/p>\n

Advocate for a precautionary approach<\/p>\n

Like most OECD countries, a precautionary principle<\/a> guides New Zealand policy making: when reputable sources suggest there is risk associated with a lack of action, taking preventive measures against potential harm is justified.<\/p>\n

Scientific uncertainty or the lack of immediately obvious negative impacts should warrant an amber light, not a green one. The burden of proof should be on those developing a new technology to demonstrate it is safe through mandatory pre-deployment testing and independent evaluation.<\/p>\n

If there is reasonable doubt, pausing development until a technology is shown to be safe should be the default position.<\/p>\n

Scientific diplomacy<\/p>\n

The UN\u2019s Independent International Scientific Panel on AI lacks the comprehensive governmental buy-in necessary to move international policy forward at pace and scale.<\/p>\n

A different model, akin to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC<\/a>), would allow for more coordinated scientific advice, and be larger and more inclusive.<\/p>\n

As with climate change, only authoritative, transparent data and shared understanding of the risks around unchecked AI development offer a real chance of building political agreement.<\/p>\n

Prioritise the greatest risks<\/p>\n

New frameworks can be built in all areas of concern, from ethics to equity. But the highest priority should be those associated with the greatest risk: war and conflict, biological hazards and global financial systems.<\/p>\n

Pathways to achieve this already exist \u2013 for example, the UN resolution adopted last year<\/a> addressing the \u201cpossible risks of the integration of artificial intelligence into command, control and communications systems of nuclear weapons\u201d. <\/p>\n

New Zealand foreign policy could also advocate for the positive use of AI to improve verification<\/a> of the existing Biological Weapons Convention, as part of the necessary new protocol required to ensure its efficacy.<\/p>\n

Similarly, there is an opportunity in November to seek a binding protocol on meaningful human control, accountability and compliance with the laws of war and conventional weapons when the UN meets to review<\/a> the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons in November.<\/p>\n

International laws and protocols for dealing with cyber-attacks involving AI \u2013 which could potentially trigger wars \u2013 also need urgent attention.<\/p>\n

Finally, at a time when war games and military exercises risk spiralling out of control<\/a>, New Zealand can encourage confidence-building measures to de-escalate conflicts between geopolitical adversaries.<\/p>\n

Here, too, there is emerging precedent: US and Chinese officials only recently proposed a new mechanism<\/a> for sharing information about serious AI threats. Such developments should be welcomed as a positive first step.\"The<\/p>\n

Alexander Gillespie<\/a>, Professor of Law, University of Waikato<\/a><\/p>\n

This article is republished from The Conversation<\/a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Getty Images Alexander Gillespie, University of Waikato If some current warnings are to be…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":610514,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[111,43,139,69],"class_list":["post-610513","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-new-zealand","tag-new-zealand","tag-news","tag-newzealand","tag-nz"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/610513","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=610513"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/610513\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/610514"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=610513"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=610513"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=610513"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}