The following are the outputs of the captioning taken during an IGF intervention. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
***
>> MIN thu AUNG: Good morning. Thank you so much for attending our panel on incorporating human rights in AI risk management. My name is Min thu Aung. I am the digital and innovation manager at the Global Network Initiative, GNI. Panel set in the context of this. Government around the world especially in the EU, of course, require tech companies to manage human rights risk in the way that they design and indeed use AI.
All companies have tools and principles sometimes they can fall short outlining human rights standard. This panel aims to bring together diverse range of voices, industry from civil society, and also from multilateral bodies to explore how he can better integrate human rights AI practice. Perhaps we will perhaps quick introduction to GNI first. Multistakeholder initiative. We bring together full constituencies, academics, civil society, companies, and investors for accountability, for shared learning, collective efficacy and government and company policies and practices, intersection of technology and human rights particularly relevant when companies face government request or demands that have impact on freedom of expression or privacy rights.
We have set of principles that GNI principles and implementation guidelines which aim to guide companies on how to respond in when receiving government request or demands, that may have impact on freedom of expression and privacy rights as well as law on conducting ongoing due diligence and so on.
So GNI principles and implementation guidelines do indeed apply to AI insofar as governments produce mandates AI services various shapes or forms and need for companies to conduct human rights AI service. We have indeed been quite an active variety of fora related to AI, also activities for all membership, we are members of the OECD iNET work of experts been involved in BNEX AI due dilligence project.
Within the GNI company assessments we, exploring intersection between AI and human rights due diligence. Also obviously put out many statements of concerns potential rights violations in relation to AI government mandates in Canada and India among others.
Also hosted learning discussions among our members on AI as well as government mandates last of which was held during annual with learning forum held in DC last year.
Last but not least, AI working group went global network initiative selection of members with deep AI experience are, amongst other things, developing a policy brief on government interventions in AI, and rights respecting responses to these mandates.
Enough about GNI. Moving on to our panel. Two company panelists from different parts of the internet stack, so theme diversity. Integrate human rights considerations into development and deployment of AI‑related products and services.
Secondly, we will hear from B tech themselves on multilateral efforts to promote incorporation of human rights in AI governance.
Finally hear the views from civil society panelists on what more can be done by company and by policymakers lawmakers and regulators incorporating human rights in AI. Then have a Q&A, and then provide summary, and then we will wrap up.
All right, so we look like we're on time. Perhaps I'll start with my first request for intervention. Introduce themselves in a minute.
Google obviously integrated player in the AI ecosystem, for example, developing consumer‑facing AI services like Gemini and predecessors. Also note that Google is a founding member of GNI and dedicated human rights program and responsible AI principles since 2018.
Of course Google's approach to human rights due dilligence informed by the UN guiding principles as well as GNI framework.
Just couple of questions, which you may address in any order that you feel comfortable. I guess firstly, how Google conduct risk assessments across its footprint and how do you incorporate that human rights incorporated into these risk assessments, and indeed, looking more externally, how do laws and regulations like AI, AI basic consult create, influence, how human rights are incorporated in risk assessments, and what advice do you have for other companies to normal assessment human rights which AI risk assessments operations.
>> ALEXANDRIA WALDEN: Thank you for that question. Thanks to GNI for putting this session together. Really important topic. I will try to, I think can get to all of those.
I mean, first thing to say, it may seem obvious to think important to point out actually where companies should start with how you integrate human rights into how your AI work is fundamentally to make sure that the company has human rights governance at its baseline, so as Google, we are committed, as you said, to the GNI principles, committed to the UN guiding principles, business, and human rights.
We have a corporate policy that says, these are our values and that we have ways to operationalize these committee members throughout the company. Obviously doesn't mean we're doing to perfectly. It does mean these values that are set from the highest level of company that they are risks reviewed by the board, and that we have a human rights program that works to implement and insure these commitments across our various products and services.
And so having that in place is what allows us to then get to a point where, okay, we also have AI principles on top of that. AI principles build on top of our commitments to UNGP, GNI principles so AI principles are really about single type of technology that we have integrated across policies.
Our AI principles reinforce commitment to international law and human rights and so that is a reminder to everyone who is doing technical work or qualitative trust and safety work or legal rights, human rights something we need to be thinking about operational level because we have sort of governance structure and principles integrative in our technical teams developing AI, aware they should be thinking about what rights‑related impacts or risks might arise in their work and so we have to set up processes to address that. And so really sort of gets that I think biggest piece is making sure that you have processing and teams in place to operationalize all of those principles. Those teams are the ones that write the policies to ensure we are thinking about how human rights might manifest in AI in content or related to AI in privacy or related to AI and bias discrimination, all of these things require process and really guidelines. You just sort of keep getting at the more granular and granular level what is required, but ultimately, human rights has to be baseline and integrated into those processes and framework.
We do things like red teaming, or we have safe framework, secure AI framework and that sort of coalition work that we do with other companies. All of that embeds the way we think about human rights. Gets more pragmatic operational level for testing and red teaming, et cetera, to make sure we are identifying where risks may arise and giving us opportunity to remedy those.
>> MIN thu AUNG: Thank you so much for that. Appreciate it. We move to perhaps different part of technology stack. Connectivity layer. Business units including DNA you are a part of, responsible for providing, connect 200 million across the 8 countries. Member of GNI since 2017, and has been a strong advocate of AI ethics and use AI network management, customer service resolutions of similar questions.
How does the group incorporate conduct risk assessments across footprint and how do you ensure that human rights is incorporate, raised these in these risk assessments and how does your exposure to the EU act within Europe, but indeed comparative lack of such law and regulations and business units influence human rights are incorporated AI risk assessment and what advice to do have for companies?
>> Thank you and hello everyone. It's great to be here and talk about human rights and AI. Extremely topical, topic here. And if you look at what Telenor does, similarly what Alex pointed out, that it all comes down to having that top management commitment to responsible AI as well as human rights and that is at the core of what Telenor does.
For example, how we have started building our AI strategy, the foundation of it is really responsible AI, and that is embedded to everything that we do when we developed, deploy AI applications, et cetera. So I think top management commitment to that is very important in order for us to actually achieve those goals and promote responsible AI throughout the organization and actually bring that to the structures and procedures as also Alex pointed out.
What we have done at DNA, for example, is that we have driven AI risk assessment from Telenor responsible AI principles. So actually, those principles guide our risk assessment work. However, of course, AI governance is much more broader topic than that. So of course, we need a lot of more different elements to that. We saw risk assessments. So for example, awareness and training building what we need to have proper tools.
Need to work together with vendors and stakeholders and we need to have those policies, guidelines as well as principles in place, very top, very big topic comprehensive topic where we need to take into account different elements.
Then if we look at the risk assessments that we do in DNA, we go through very practical level, our AI applications, and think about the risks very holistically. We have a very comprehensive view on this and it has been very rewarding I must say. I lead that working group myself.
And we look at human rights perspectives. We look at impacts on security privacy, look at data governance when we do very holistic view on AI and we see that very beneficial also because AI is not, AI is such a large topic.
So this is the way we have built our own program and if you look at our responsible AI principles, first one actually is promoting, incorporating human rights to our procedures. So that is in its core at the risk assessment procedures that we also do.
Coming into then to the question of use AI and how to apply legislation when AI act as we know is in EU Telenor, as mentioned, we operate also in Asia. However, our values, our policies, our principles, they guide our work irrespective which country we are at. So that is also at the consideration of how we do things.
Although part of AI governance and good AI governance is, of course, to make sure that we are compliant with the regulations, but that is only a part of it. So the companies culture policy, guides, those are the guidelines, those are the ones that guide us on work that we do.
Perhaps also to the last question, what would be my suggestions to go forward, I would come back to the commitment part. So I think that is the important key element, so that is we are actually committed to human rights approach as well as responsible AI, but also, the collaboration. We utilize expertise throughout our organization and that has helped a lot and supports our work. Means that we learn from each other a lot. So these, I think, would be mu journey. So this is not a sprint. So it's a journey that we are all in this together and we learn as we go. Thank you.
>> MIN thu AUNG: See a lot of commonalities in the answers. Move to the different actor.
Nathalie, thank you so much for joining remotely. Good to see you. We can hear and see testifying. We would love to explore the role of the UN more generally and of VTech more specifically in this context. VTech produced various outputs on intersection of human rights and AI. Most notably, the text on human rights risks connected to Gen AI produced in November Gen was involved in.
Love to hear how do you see the role of multilateral organizations like UN, OECD and others in ensuring widespread adoption of human rights in AI, the risk assessments? What role do you see for WSIS and GDC and promoting adoption? And last but not least, how do you see the global geopolitical divide human rights impacts this drives and what suggestions do you have for companies navigating these drives and changes?
>> NATHALIE STADELMANN: I hope everybody can hear me. Thank you for the invitation, bringing together this panel, invitation creating from Geneva.
Few words about VTech project by the Commissioner of Office for Human Rights six years ago, and really very much with the goal to translate the guiding principles for the technology sector.
So we have produced a lot of guidance in very much multistakeholder fashion. So we are working with begin UACD and some of the conditions coming to practice and obviously recognizes Alexandria from Google in that space, and just that we are really using the guiding principles as the global standard for business conduct governance of AI.
Couldn't miss the opportunity of Human Rights Council going in Geneva, produced VTech report mandated by the Human Rights Council. Showed interest on this topic about the shared responsibility of companies that are developing and deploy AI to respect human rights as well state duty to protect those rights through requiring those companies to respect human rights as well as to access remedy.
So maybe I was thinking to run you through quickly the latest findings that we have in this report. So obviously, we know key message is innovation can bring a lot of processes. Human rights especially in terms of complex human rights challenges that they bring and, some of them, because of their unforeseen nature.
So the report very much acknowledged speed and scale of which AI technology are able to be and that has outpaced current regulatory framework and raised concern about transparency, discrimination, and misuse among others. So the report goes into shared responsibilities and we focus a lot on the role of companies. And in that sense, here the guiding principles becomes very useful framework to orient AI innovation in the responsible manner.
So as mentioned, state has a duty to protect individuals from third‑party and abuse includes harms that stem from AI products and services and corporation expected to prevent and mitigate human rights stemming from AI technology. Remedy part shared responsibility in that space from both state an companies.
Now, in terms of pillar 2 guiding principle, human rights due diligence, really the cornerstone of responsible corporate conduct in the AI space and we have been as well working with OECD and recognized as well guidance in independence in that respect. Operational human rights due dilligence for companies guiding principle use four‑step process. So step one is really very much identifying the potential actually human rights impact across the whole AI life cycle, really important from the design to the development.
And the step 2 is mitigating risk through corporate policies and we have heard Alexandria talking about the human rights governance and as well through other site targeted actions.
Step 3 have to track the effectiveness action they have taken and openly communicate the reasons so that is the transparency aspect human rights due dilligence.
And step 4 addressing a range of human rights harm, not measuring effectiveness. Companies should prioritize taking action to mitigate harm by the severity of impacts judged on scale and scope and remedial, not just by conference or proximity. In that regard, regular independent human rights involving experts regional experts are key. Human rights are deployed around the globe. Ascension throughout the whole process of human rights due diligence another key aspect is stakeholder engagement strengthen human rights safeguard. Record through key elements mean should not be an afterthought. Companies should engage stockholders, cocreator of responsible AI, and that such dialogue should really happen early throughout the AI feedback, closely explain how stakeholder input shaped companies outcome, that engagement should really be ongoing. Shouldn't be just one of the voices from the global majority should be elevated to really reflects truly and inclusive perspective.
Resource element of stakeholder engage. Stakeholder should be resourced appropriately so they can participate, then report brings back. Forefront as well, whole business model piece. But I'm not going to go into details here and what we note in the report in terms of transparency, about corporate practice, is that although remain weak, there is a growing number of corporate statements on human rights, public disclosure as well about how companies actually apply human rights principles and conduct human rights due dilligence processing including human rights assessment that overall remain limited.
And obviously, this is especially concerning in high risk domain such as surveillance, migration border control stakes are high and possibility exists proposing technology lead to several harms when it comes to the state piece.
States should step up in providing guidance and in regulate AI with regard to the own use of the technology and here, I would like to draw attention and I will post it in the chat, to another report presented by the working group on business and human rights, go into states procuring AI and not tech companies as well procuring AI technology. Seeing new wave of technology, wave of regulation which are to some extent embedding human rights safeguard and those have been known before AI Act, EU Act, create AI Act as well.
In addition to regulation we are seeing now flourishing, we as well should as well think about using for the states some policy incentive that the state can deploy. That could include embedding human rights AI‑focused industry or policies and welcoming public procurement and development rights performance and as well influencing technical standard‑setting human rights by the IT remedy report, access to remedy report.
Challenges comes to the harm created by AI products and services. I'm not going to go to the product. Talk about AI governance. I believe my colleague Ben might be in the room, leading the VTech engagement on the of role investor.
Really have to push investors, public and private, to really use their influence to uphold, push tech firms to uphold human rights standard. There is investor awareness that we see growing, group of investors which are pushing when it comes to question related to other UN initiative.
With this WSIS+20, starts two weeks' time in Geneva, Global Digital Compact explicitly. Critical tool to address human rights process. Calling for human rights impact assessment in AI policy and practice and they as well promote cross‑sector collaboration to operationalize human risks due dilligence across jurisdiction.
I'll stop here. Be mindful of the time. Post some resources in the chat. Thank you very much.
>> MIN thu AUNG: Thank you so much for the intervention. We appreciate it. Please do free to have a look the links Nathalie posted in the chat. Very useful resource.
For those that are physically in the room, if you go to the schedule page, you'll be able to access Zoom where you'll be able to see the links.
Moving on to interventions from civil society on this topic. Maybe over to Caitlin. So we now heard from company panelist, and then UN. So at the table joining as a member of NGO constituency, but you have long championed gender equality and fairness in the design of AI algorithms, and, of course, you have pioneered frameworks with AI and equality methodology and human rights tool position as well, your experience.
Where do you see opportunities for improvement in operating human rights report considerations in AI due diligence mechanisms or incentives do you see and would be useful in existing or future laws and regulations to help these opportunities? What role do you see global CSO like yourself in influencing companies and lawmakers?
>> CAITLIN KRAFT‑BUCHMAN: Thank you so much. Thank you very, very much for including us in this conversation.
We began this journey actually in 2017 with OHCHR and Women's Rights Division. When we convened, we just thought we were just convening several professors from ETH and HR, one or two people from OHCHR. 21 lawyers showed up in the room shall so fascinated by this idea that gender and AI together, what do they have to do with one another?
That alliance, in a way, led us to working with FAFL doing master thesis what human rights impacts and creating methodology now been taught at Cambridge, Technical University Munich, work with African Center for Technology Studies in Kenya, panel at African University of Chile Center for Artifical Intelligence, sits on the Sorbonne website. Looks at UN‑based approach with the AI life cycle. Certain technologists want to do the same thing.
Human rights is an abstract idea particularly and abstract to people from North America tend to think of civil and political rights, primary human rights and the economic social rights not really part of larger conversation. Really? Are you sure? Right to health really a thing?
So we have this design course which is really focused on design course for developers, for data science majors, found policymakers like as well conversation, critical analysis.
Also found that vocabulary, common vocabulary, needs to sort of be implemented because policymakers are even afraid of talking to technologists and technologists don't really understand what the policymakers want.
We are also trying to create a space where people can have conversations because I think good people want to make this all work for the technology that's also surrounding us. Starts with designed‑base approach intentionality. Understanding objective is why are you making a product? What is the impact you would like to have? Who should the team be sitting around the table?
When we talk about diversity, in this case, we're not only talking about diversity of gender. Talking geographic diversity and multi‑disciplinary disciplinary. Social scientists, human rights experts, anthropologists, medical application, doctors, nurses or people taking the blood. Really everybody in all the stakeholders in the life cycle have a product. We're seeing that there's a lot of siloed‑off interventions.
Going through there to data discovery, understanding when you have data. We know for health applications, for example, we never really discovered data on women's body, no less women of the Global North or people of the Global South.
What does that mean when you're deploying at scale? Health‑aimed education only has the data for very small demographic. What is the effects of that, are creating awareness and creating conversation. So that is really what we're focused on.
In terms of being intentional. I think intentionality is really key in terms of our work.
We would like everyone, of course, to expand beyond compliance. Notion of principles tend to think of ethical principles. Wonderful and we love them, but very ala carte, whereas human rights framework and international human rights law has been agreed by everybody and point of departure. It really is a very good place to start as opposed to one company or one academic institution's idea of what really should be foregrounded or not.
We think that would actually help everybody work towards really kind of systemic rebalance and maybe even using some of these products to look at the way these can positively help instead just be deployed.
We would say that one thing I want to say is opportunity, where we're also working very deeply and have for some people, is on procurement. We know that all public procurement in particular, because we know that's very large part, 13% of the EU GDP in developing nations, it can be up to 30 to 40% of the GDP. Really, products are being deployed at scale and we think that using really interesting AI deployment levers we would maybe be able to take products that connect people to services as opposed to only detect fraud.
Right now, sort of in a negative part of like how all of us want to save money for governments and service, how do we connect to better quality of life and service. That could be a lever really interesting deployment and indeed, we're working on technical guidelines, questions and procures asking vendors public session. Check with it, yes, that didn't work. Compass all of, you know. But so which fairness metrics, why did you use that? Did you experiment? Why do you think it was a good idea and have these conversations really sort of deeply before things are deployed?
Finally, say also working on human rights and AI benchmark, going to be soft first machine learning benchmark that dealing with international human rights, lay framework hoping once put opposite on Hugging Face and other human open source platforms, developers, machine learning experts, can use to understand what they created really does match with human rights criteria, international human rights law. Thanks.
>> MIN thu AUNG: Quite innovative. Very impressive. Thank you so much for that, Caitlin.
So we now move to intervention from Jhalak. Before that one intervention, away from the Q&A session online, pose your questions in the chat if you haven't done so already and take we'll online questions first in the spirit of ensuring everyone online feels a part of this room, then move to Jhalak, ECG funding member of the GNI within your work tech law policy in the Global South, done extensive research exploring different sort of modalities of AI law and regulations including recent workshop that you did on AI and rule of law with South Asia judiciary members back in November.
Also been active participant as expert in the global partnership for AI, GPI and risk‑benefits of AI impact Global South sometimes different. Absent law and regulations, may be in the varying capacity to enforce laws that may or may not exist different consumer patterns, and perhaps potential to impact very large populations that may have different levels of AI literacy, or indeed, digital and media literacy.
Role of course, role of Global South governments in protecting user rights will be covered in GNI's policy brief, government interventions and the AI that I alluded to earlier on by the earlier interview when creating local AI laws and regulations, or indeed adapting existing laws and regulations in the context of AI. What can or what should Global South policymakers, lawmakers, regulators, companies, emerging AI activities, where do you see opportunities to influence inclusion of human rights in companies risk management processing lawmakers policies in the Global South?
And last but not least, taking very particular Global South angle here, why is it so important for the Global South in general and India in particular?
>> JHALEK MRIGNAYANI KAKKER: There's a lot of work happening globally on human rights diligence, risk assessment crisis called Global North. I think there maybe there's not enough work currently happening in the Global South or being spotlighted in Global South.
Its important that work happens in the Global South as there are different socioeconomic realities, different societal context, but also, if a lot of these technologies are being developed in the north, we don't know. They could have very different implication in the south not being developed and designed, keeping in mind those contexts, I think, which really underlines need for human rights, due dilligence by companies.
Underlying need for human rights networks designed in the Global South allow us to operationally, proactively identify risks methodical way instead of post‑factor reacting to harms. And it will also help regulators understand what the harms are and design governance regulator risk mechanisms accordingly.
I think one of the things increasing focus among academics and civil society Global South is, while at the global level, been a lot of benchmark development, taxonomy development that has happened.
I think increasingly, many of us in our context looking at how we can build out more specific benchmarks and taxonomies that more accurately cover range of risk and harms that arise in our specific context. Really is maybe first step towards enabling an effective human rights due diligence, you know, exercises by companies.
Many of our AI companies are global companies, so very often, a lot of their staff is global staff that is not very familiar with local context. So I think very key part for academy and civil society varies by country context to come in and start playing this role of developing benchmarks taxonomies, but also points to need for sustained multistakeholder engagement between companies and civil society academia on one hand, so that there can be cross‑learning, cross‑pollination of ideas. Also, with government, they figure out how to identify harms and conduct human rights risk assessment.
I thinks sometimes hard to articulate what risk should be assessed for. I think we've been talking about how human rights framework provide great underpinning starting point for identification of risks. But what I do want to point to is there is, for instance, a lot of heterogeneity within the Global South in terms of what rights are embedded in the Constitutions, extent of embedding human rights. And while it's important to pay attention to human rights framework, I think we also have to be strategic about perhaps language we are using and how we are encouraging governments in certain contexts to adopt certain ethical principle of frameworks. And we have to think about how we approach some of these conversations and we frame these conversations so that we can reach the intended outcome and impact that we want.
So I think we really have to think about what, how other sort of question that has repeatedly come up in Indian context, within which I work, is how broadly to define risks.
If there is too much breadth and too much variety of risk being identified, can hinder development of more specific assessment tools and method, bias, you know, if it's too specific, you lose out on the ability to allow a more broad capture of harms that may be arising as these due dilligence or risk assessments are conducted.
How do you prioritize certain human rights over others, given them affirming character and, you know, I think the way particular service interacts even within the Indian context, within urban part of India, semi‑urban part of India, rural part of India will differ significantly.
So I think even within particular country context, there will have to be various scenarios built out in terms of context that the same technology being deployed. I think there are many, many things to think about as these risk assessments are being designed, and I think it's important to keep that in mind.
Goes back to a point I raised earlier that you need culturally and linguistically sensitive staff and which I mean even within the linguistics, different parts of the country speaking different languages, so you may need staff involved in this that has multiplicity of perspectives or to engage with the different challenges that emerge in those contexts.
Just close up by pointing to two points, risk assessment, human rights due dilligence, one of the criticisms is the lack of enforceability, but perhaps that is also where the value is because perhaps companies are more incentivized to conduct it when they know that there isn't a negative consequence.
I think one of the challenges that we've seen is at what threshold you do you ask for risk mitigation to be undertaken? How do you articulate that, say, challenge at this moment in time? Specify that threshold where multistakeholder become apparent.
What is the level of transparency we expect from companies? Level of transparency governments should require in regulation they're designing because under there is a level of disclosure. It's hard to really identify what challenges are emerging and what needs to be articulated more clearly to make this a more meaningful exercise so that we can really ensure that AI is developing in a way that supports human rights rather than starts to impede it.
>> MIN thu AUNG: Thank you very much. A lot of things to consider to make sure AI development is context‑specific and also considers different rights impacts within not only the Global South in general, but even going in a more granule level. Urban and rural impacts perhaps even. Thank you so much.
We move to the Q&A part of our panel. I don't actually see any questions in the chat yet apart from questions about the links that Nathalie kindly reshared. Thank you for that.
Perhaps moving to the room. Are there any questions from the room to our panelists? Did you have question? Introduce yourself first, then a question please. Thank you.
>> PIONG: Thank you. My name is Piong from organization based in South Korea.
Left here, create National Human Rights Commission, released human rights impact assessment tool for AI. Involved in the development. Conducted human rights impact assessment on the Human Rights Commission's pilot system earlier this year. The process wasn't just about going through a checklist. Involves change of perspective. Find it very useful tool not been widely used mainly because there is no legal application to conduct such an assessment.
Of course, some companies may conduct internal risk assessment, but independent assessment that includes participation from affected participants really create basic AI law last year, which includes provision related to human rights impact assessment. It only states that effort should be made to conduct them. It does not mandate them. Create civil society group calling for mandatory human rights impact assessment for high risk system. I would like to hear the panelists' view on legality, legality mandating such assessment. Thank you.
>> MIN thu AUNG: Great question. Thank you so much for that. So perhaps we will propose having one company intervention at least from the question that was posed, then mandating human rights due dilligence for AI, context of high risk AI perhaps, and perhaps one civil society intervention at least if possible. If you want to jump in, feel free. Who would like to go first?
>> CAITLIN KRAFT‑BUCHMAN: I'm happy to jump in. If you have human rights governance inside of a company, you should be doing ongoing human rights due dilligence across all of the activity in your company. That should also apply to your AI work, one.
And then two, with respect to sort of regulations to require human rights due diligence and specifically for high risk application areas, we see that with UAI Act and many companies including mine have supported risk‑based approach, which is to mandate fundamental rights or human rights impact assessments for high‑risk applications. I think that is something that you will see a lot of support for from industry.
I'm happy for the question. I think we need to focus more on impact than risk or harm, really say how from the very get‑go, what is the impact on human‑integrated. Just heard it all the way through the objective and design, all the way through, as we know, area which is the sort of fundamental rights impact suggestions from counselor of Europe, going to be council of Europe, more formal, Nathalie speaks to that, more formal, no standardized human rights impact assessment anywhere from any body, so international body. That area really brings what we've done, worked with during it and we brought the stakeholder part of it really way up front. And I think that is going to really make a huge difference if you do have sort of multistakeholder consultation, idea of cocreation really at the get go.
I want to say two things. Also go right to know ultimately in terms of legislation and that right to know will be transparency, what the training data is with large, once we get all the IP issues settled. Second thing, explainability all levels of society, we can kind of understand what is happening with the algorithm and also potential redress.
>> MIN thu AUNG: Anyone else like to intervene? Nathalie, with you like to intervene as well? Perhaps talking about your impact assessment tools?
>> NATHALIE STADELMANN: Maybe just to draw, because I didn't really go into the recommendation of the report, but indeed to the colleague representing civil society and in South Korea, invite him to look at the recommendation we have when it comes to states. When there are regulatory requirements requiring basically company to conduct human rights due dilligence, then it should be encouragement that they publish human rights due dilligence and impact assessment they have implemented.
And those regulations should as well, as much as possible, request companies developing and deploying AI that they verify data input and resulting output to ensure that there is proper representation in terms of gender, race, culture, diversity, and basically safeguards against any negative impact linked to possible discriminatory AI outputs and consequence.
Human rights assessment produced together with the great support of TFI as well GNI, part of sources listed in the session panel, guidance specifically on generative AI. There is detailed guidance on human rights impact assessment of GEN AI.
Invite colleagues to look at specific guidance that we produce now by more than year ago. Just comment as well to the colleague on the panel who mentioned India. I wanted to just draw attention that there will be AI summit in India in February, very interesting precisely in terms of bringing global majority perspective into the discussion.
Documents published to focus will be on transparency around rights respecting AI development during the summit. And I think it's very welcome that after countries like U.K. and South Korea and France hosted those past AI summits, that this summit in next February in India, I believe, will be really good opportunity to possibly be, because there was a question asked to me about the geopolitical context as well, I think we have seen as well Brazil developing AI regulations, and so as counter‑balanced in bracket to the developers in the Global North.
>> MIN thu AUNG: Thank you very much. I appreciate it. We have 2‑and‑a‑half minutes left of the two questions. If we could have the questions together if possible. Okay, great thanks, Ben. Go ahead.
>> BEN PITLER From DSR. I think while human rights‑based approach is really necessary prerequisite, many really big pages, AI will have more societal individual level. Seeing already, for example, shift in education needs to be carried out result of generative AI and people's ability to research and learn like the AI will lead to job displacement, shift in different jobs.
Panel thinks bigger societal impacts or writings can capture human right approach or go beyond individual human rights approach to make sure we actually acknowledge all the risks come from AI.
>> MIN thu AUNG: Wonderful question. Thank you. Open it up to anyone. Thank you, Richard. Anyone like to intervene there?
>> RICHARD: I can tell about our approach. Very good question, I think. Sorry. Very good question. How we at least see it is we need to have a very comprehensive approach at Telenor, and it requires, of course, taking into account human rights, but it is correct, as you say, that it is not definitely not enough. We need to look at AI more broad lane, look at the impact. Broadly and company level. Educate, train, and build awareness to our employees. So all of these are essential part, in my opinion, on AI governance.
>> JHALEK MRIGNAYANI KAKKER: Agree. Two points. Social media platforms pointed to need of societal impact assessment. Secondly, human rights are being reinterpreted in groups and community settings by privacy group, privacy rights over data, reinterpretation and broadening of perspective human rights in the technology context.
>> MIN thu AUNG: 30 seconds remaining. Like to, unless anybody has any last minute, must have inventions. No.
I would like to close the panel here. Thank you to panelists sharing their views who take part, participating online for the questions we received. So yeah, as for the IGF requirements, we'll be posting a summary of this on the related session. So please feel free to read that. I thank everyone again. Appreciate it.
[applause]
