163: Chapter 163 Controversy

The Representative of Eagle Country was the first to raise his hand.

A middle-aged man with meticulously combed hair and gold-rimmed glasses stood up, a formulaic smile playing at the corners of his mouth.

“Thank you, Mr. Chairman.”

He spoke with a steady tone that carried an unquestionable weight.

“Our side appreciates the concerns raised by the Representative of Rabbit Country regarding the potential risks of Artificial Intelligence; this is indeed an important issue that requires collective global reflection.”

A typical Eagle-style opening: affirm first, then pivot.

“However,”

As expected, his tone shifted.

“Our side believes that certain parts of the Rabbit Country proposal—especially the suggestions regarding setting intelligence level thresholds and restricting specific algorithmic paths—are questionable in their scientific basis and feasibility.

The development of Artificial Intelligence technology is still in the early stages of exploration, and its future is full of infinite possibilities.

Drawing forbidden zones and setting ceilings prematurely is tantamount to shackling scientific exploration, and it may stifle innovative breakthroughs that we have yet to imagine, which could solve major challenges facing humanity.”

He pushed up his glasses, his gaze sweeping across the direction of the Rabbit Country delegation.

“More importantly, how do we define safety? Who defines risk? Which agency will enforce supervision?

Could non-technical factors be mixed in, turning this into a tool for certain countries to restrict the technological development of others?

Our side believes that at the current stage, it is more important to encourage open cooperation and knowledge sharing rather than building new technological barriers.

The original intention of the Rabbit Country proposal may be worth discussing, but the specific measures are somewhat too... pessimistic and conservative.”

His speech seemed rational and objective, but in reality, it characterized Rabbit Country's proposal as 'unscientific,' 'infeasible,' and 'potentially hiding selfish motives,' triggering low-voiced murmurs of agreement from some representatives in the audience.

Next was the representative from John Bull Country.

A gentleman dressed in an exquisite suit stood up, speaking with a rhythmic cadence; his words were subtle but contained hidden barbs.

“Mr. Chairman, our country has always attached great importance to technological ethics and safety.

Certain concerns raised by the Representative of Rabbit Country, such as the explainability and controllability of algorithms, are indeed our common concerns.”

He first expressed partial agreement, then began the 'but'.

“But, we believe that the countermeasure should not be simple and crude restrictions and prohibitions; regulation requires flexibility, adaptability, and... elegance.

Just like nurturing a precious plant, what we need is careful pruning and guidance, not directly covering it with a glass jar.

More importantly, any international framework must be built on... well... broad consensus and sufficient evidence, avoiding overreaction that hinders legitimate and responsible innovation.

Perhaps what we need more is to establish some best practice guidelines and voluntary principles, rather than binding terms.”

His speech implied that Rabbit Country's proposal was 'crude,' 'an overreaction,' and 'insufficiently elegant.'

Immediately following, the representative of Gallic Rooster Country spoke. Their focus was more distinctive.

“Our country agrees that the ethical dimension of AI must be emphasized.

But besides safety, what we should focus on even more is cultural diversity!

The development of AI cannot be dominated by a single technical logic or set of values; we must protect the plurality of language, culture, and artistic expression to avoid cultural hegemony in the digital age!

Rabbit Country's proposal says too little about cultural diversity; we suggest adding clauses regarding the protection of digital sovereignty and cultural heritage...”

The representative of Foot-Binding Chicken Country appeared very cautious, their speech mainly focusing on technical details:

“Our side recognizes the necessity of international discussion. Especially regarding data security, privacy protection, and the transparency of AI system decision-making, standards are urgently needed.

But as for the setting of so-called intelligence upper limits, the technical level is extremely complex. Our side suggests that professional technical organizations such as the ITU or IEEE should first conduct in-depth research and provide technical reports for reference, rather than setting restrictions directly at the political level...”

After a series of representatives from developed countries spoke, although their phrasing differed, the core meaning was largely the same.

Rabbit Country's concerns have some merit, but your solution won't work; this matter can't be rushed, it needs more study, and it must not hinder us from continuing our leading R&D.

The atmosphere in the venue became somewhat subtle, and many eyes turned toward the Rabbit Country delegation to see how they would respond to these seemingly rational but resistance-filled replies.

The Chief Representative of Rabbit Country remained calm, merely whispering a few words to the deputy beside him.

Then, it was the turn of the Polar Bear Country representative to speak.

A burly representative with a serious expression picked up the microphone, his voice deep and powerful.

“Our side believes that the concerns raised by Rabbit Country are reasonable and responsible.

Even self-driving cars need traffic rules and braking systems, let alone AI that may surpass human intelligence?

The true purpose of certain countries opposing the establishment of rules is suspicious—is it to maintain their unrestrained technological advantage, or even to pave the way for a possible future AI military hegemony?

Our side supports serious international negotiations on AI safety and opposes any behavior that uses the name of free innovation to practice technological monopoly.”

Polar Bear's speech was as direct as ever, instantly piercing the veil and making the atmosphere in the venue even more tense.

Afterward, some representatives from developing countries also began to speak, their concerns being more practical.

“Our side supports the basic principles of the Rabbit Country proposal! We must avoid AI technology exacerbating global inequality!

Developed countries have a responsibility to transfer safe and controllable AI technology to us and help us cultivate talent, rather than just treating us as data sources and markets!”

“Right! Rules must be established to prevent powerful AI from being used to interfere in other countries' internal affairs or conduct digital colonization!”

The meeting continued for several hours amidst the arguments.

Finally, seeing that the opinions of all parties were vastly divided and difficult to reach a consensus, the Chairman had no choice but to propose:

“Given the high level of concern and diversity of opinions on this topic, our side suggests that this assembly will not conduct an immediate vote.

Instead, led by Rabbit Country, an open-ended working group will be established, inviting all interested countries to participate. Based on the draft proposed by Rabbit Country, more in-depth and technical discussions will be held, striving to form a more mature report that better reflects the concerns of all parties before the next assembly for its consideration.”

This was a typical United Nations way of handling controversial issues.

Shelve the immediate decision, establish a working group, and talk slowly.

The Rabbit Country representative seemed to have anticipated this result and calmly expressed agreement.

The Eagle Country and other representatives also reluctantly accepted this arrangement; at least it prevented the proposal from being passed quickly.

Thus, a proposal that could have led to a fierce voting confrontation ultimately turned into a meeting summary handed over to a working group for further study.

It seemed like no substantive progress was made, but Rabbit Country successfully placed the issue of AI safety and restriction formally and firmly at the very center of the global negotiating table, forcing all countries to publicly state their positions and participate in the discussion.

This in itself was an important move.

As for the subsequent games, compromises, and secret struggles within the working group, that would be another smoke-filled battlefield.

After the meeting ended, representatives from various countries walked out of the venue with different expressions, and reporters swarmed them, trying to capture more details of the clash.