Question 4: Can wisdom triumph over artificial intelligence?
The SFG report, The Essential Convergence: Global Compact for Extreme AI Risks, was launched at the auditorium of the International Federation of the Red Cross in Geneva on 6 July. While the report advances a few practical proposals, its central message is simple: the greatest safeguard against the gravest dangers posed by AI is not technology itself, but human wisdom. (Read the full report: The-Essential-Convergence.pdf)
Jagan Chapagain
Secretary-General of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Our Movement was born after the Battle of Solferino of 1859, when states disagreed on almost everything – except one principle: the wounded must be protected. That offers a lesson for today. Countries need not agree on the future of AI, on economic competition, or on geopolitical rivalry. But they can agree on a humanitarian imperative: that no technology should be allowed to create irreversible harm to people, or to humanity as a whole.
Our aim must not be to slow innovation. It is to ensure that innovation strengthens humanity rather than threatening it. AI can help us forecast disasters, expand access to health services, and empower local responders. It can make us faster, more precise, and more deeply connected to communities. But without ethical design, transparent governance, and global coordination, the same systems could amplify misinformation, weaponize vulnerabilities, or create cascading failures in critical infrastructure. The stakes are simply too high. Humanitarian values and the principles of neutrality, impartiality, independence, and above all humanity must be at the centre when the world decides how to manage technologies that could reshape human safety.
AI may be unique in history – something with such power, and such potential for destruction, is entirely new. The future of AI is not predetermined. It will be shaped by the choices we make today – choices about responsibility, about solidarity, and about the kind of world we want to build. This report can be a decisive step towards ensuring that AI serves humanity, not the other way around.
Anda Filip
Secretary-General of the Inter-Parliamentary Union
I would like to answer this question affirmatively from the perspective of parliamentarians. We can see the role of the Parliament and the parliamentarians from the prism of their commitment to humanity and to the people that they serve. Over the decades, we have seen that in situations where it was a question of extreme risks, questions relating to fundamental issues, questions relating to the well-being of the people, it was the Parliament that took action. We saw that on cluster munitions, it was one MP from Belgium that created the first legislation to ban the production, transfer, sale of cluster munitions. We saw that when it came to nuclear safety. We saw that when it came to climate emergency, the Parliament of the UK was the first in the world to declare that our planet was facing a climate emergency. More recently, even when the governments were a bit reluctant to move ahead, we saw that it was MPs and women parliamentarians pushing the agenda of gender equality and gender parity.
In the European Parliament, they are really pushing for a ban on lethal autonomous weapons without meaningful human control. Another example from the United Kingdom- over a 100 MPs as a part of a cross-party movement have declared super-intelligent AI as a national and global security risk.
At the end of the day, it is a question about the MP stepping up to play their constitutional role and not be beholden to a political party leader or the established position of the government. We have seen this happening in different situations. Of course, parliaments should not be working at cross-purposes vis-a-vis their own government, but they have that freedom in order to be innovative. They don’t have instructions, they don’t have mandates, they can institute initiatives and they can push initiatives.
Sometimes, parliaments are a victim of this as well. They are more shy than they used to be in stepping up and playing their role. There are the 4 core functions of Parliament - legislation, representation, budget and oversight of the government. We also have parliamentary diplomacy as the fifth function.
Thomas Greminger
Director, Geneva Centre for Security Policy and former Secretary-General of OSCE
There is some momentum.
The key will be to get enough influential stakeholders pulling in the same direction. China and the US – which are two AI superpowers – are apparently exploring guardrails, particularly preventing malign actors from accessing the most powerful or advanced AI models. Other states, and certainly civil society, should also realize the self-interest in greater regulation.
Sceptics might argue that the current fractured geopolitical situation is not the most conducive environment for brokering new international agreements. But in the past two years, states – even with fundamentally different world views – have agreed to a UN Convention against Cybercrime and a Global Ocean Conservation Treaty. So it’s possible.
Furthermore, the bar for cooperation can be rather low. Shared threat perceptions may be sufficient to enable international cooperation, even among strategic rivals. Convergence in threat perceptions can lead to a convergence of responses. This paper – entitled The Essential Convergence – calls for a coordinated framework through which states align around shared definitions of extreme risks, minimum safeguards, and collective response mechanisms. This is a rather light form of regulation that can create interoperable global mechanisms capable of managing extreme risks collectively. That sounds like common sense to me. And highly urgent.
Melissa Parke
Executive Director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons
The proposal for international accords to prevent two ultimate risks posed by AI to human civilisation explicitly says that it will mirror earlier international agreements banning specific categories of weapons, whose consequences are deemed intolerable. And the question at the heart of these two red lines not whether AI provides benefits, it clearly does, but whether any risk that threatens the survival of civilization should be tolerated at all, and of course, it should not.
Civil society movements have a long history of driving meaningful change. Today, ICAN is an example of what collective global action can achieve. ICAN was started in Melbourne, Australia in 2007 by a small group of people sitting around a kitchen table asking themselves what they could do to rid the world of the world’s worst weapons and they decided to start a campaign along the lines of the successful campaigns to ban landmines and cluster munitions. You prohibit these weapons and they become legally and morally unacceptable. Just ten years later, ICAN has become a global civil society movement headquartered in Geneva. Through the decades the narrative around nuclear weapons had been controlled primarily by those who advocate that nuclear weapons provide stability and security through deterrence. Through a series of humanitarian conferences, ICAN working together with supporter States and the ICRC, changed this narrative by focussing the conversation on what will happen when nuclear weapons are inevitably used whether by accident or design. So this is the first international Treaty to comprehensively ban international nuclear weapons, provide a process for verified elimination, to provide victim assistance and environmental remediation for communities harmed by nuclear weapons testing. Since the science establishes the consequences of a nuclear war, which could be global and existential, all people and all countries have a right to a voice and a science debate, not just so-called security experts. The global majority are challenging the nuclear armed and allied States to justify their position beyond a blind adherence to deterrence theory.
I really support the push to put the burden of proof on those countries, companies and militaries that would claim that the AI is safe. Also, on the demand side governance because they empower all States, they empower States to use the leverage they have by working together and that is exactly what the TPNW has done, as also with other treaties like the cluster munitions, chemical weapons, biological weapons, demonstrated that prohibition and stigmatization works. A ban driven by a coalition of States and civil society with humanitarian framing can shift what is politically possible even without the major powers on board at the start. We have an enforcement architecture of this proposal depends on States adopting domestic measures, so it is essential to have States that are willing to champion these initiatives and work with civil society to provide them.
Dr Chinmay Pandya
Pro Vice Chancellor of Dev Sanskriti Vishwavidyalaya University, India
Pope Leo XIV's call certainly reflects a concern shared by faith leaders across the world. Artificial intelligence is no longer a speculative technology of the future; it has become one of the defining forces shaping our present. From healthcare and financial systems to governance, education, and even warfare, AI is increasingly embedded within the critical infrastructures of human civilization. As its capabilities continue to expand, so too does our collective responsibility to ensure that this immense power remains aligned with human values, human dignity, compassion, social stability, and the well-being of our planet.
While our traditions may use different terminology, there is a shared moral conviction among faith communities: decisions involving life, death, human freedom, and moral responsibility should never be surrendered entirely to machines. We are living through a time in which technology is advancing far more rapidly than our social, ethical, and even religious institutions can adapt. This is not merely a period of technological transformation; it is a profound paradigm shift that presents both an unprecedented opportunity and a serious threat; a threat to humanity itself.
This concern is not voiced only by faith leaders. It has also been articulated by some of the world's foremost pioneers of artificial intelligence. Geoffrey Hinton, the Turing Award laureate widely regarded as the "Godfather of AI," resigned from Google so that he could speak openly about the potential dangers of rapidly advancing AI. He has described uncontrolled AI development as posing an existential risk to humanity. There are many reasons behind his warning, but let me highlight two of them.
The first is the unprecedented power of manipulation. AI has the capacity not only to process information but also to shape perceptions, influence behaviour, and ultimately redefine how societies think and make decisions. This concentration of influence raises profound ethical concerns.
Beyond these technical challenges, however, lies an even deeper spiritual question. A Sanskrit wisdom tradition teaches that life becomes a celebration when it is guided by purpose; without purpose, we merely drift, uncertain of our direction. My greatest concern is that, in an era of increasing automation, humanity risks losing this very sense of purpose. For the first time in history, human beings are in danger of being excluded from their own revolution, gradually becoming spectators rather than participants. As AI-driven systems assume more responsibilities, we risk creating a society of individuals who begin to question whether their lives still hold meaning. If I am no longer able to contribute meaningfully to humanity's journey, then what becomes the purpose of my existence?
This is why AI cannot be viewed merely as a technical issue. It is fundamentally a civilizational issue. It compels us to confront profound questions about human identity, purpose, consciousness, responsibility, and the future we seek to create together.
I have had the privilege of participating in both the Vatican's AI Ethics initiative led by His Holiness Pope Francis and the Hiroshima AI Call for Ethics. A common thread running through these global interfaith efforts is the recognition that while technology tells us what we can do, spirituality helps us discern what we should do. The future of artificial intelligence must be guided by both.
Therefore, when Pope Leo XIV calls upon the world to "disarm AI," he is giving voice to a concern that extends far beyond a single faith tradition. It is a concern shared by religious leaders across the globe, who believe that technological progress must always remain in service of humanity, rather than allowing humanity to become subordinate to technology.
Ambassador Dr. Lavina Ramkissoon
Technology Diplomat, African Union
The defining challenge of our century is whether human wisdom will continue to guide artificial intelligence and to what extend? Can true agency be found? From an humanity perspective, the answer must be yes. Africa's greatest inheritance is not found in machines, but in the timeless wisdom of its people—wisdom that teaches Ubuntu: "I am because we are." It reminds us that progress is measured not only by innovation, but by reflective lens of compassion, justice, and our responsibility to one another. This can be extended into the relationship we have with Artificial Intelligence as well.
Artificial intelligence has analysed data, predicted outcomes, and accelerated discovery. Humanity's conscience, moral courage, or the human capacity to choose what is right over what is merely possible. Technology is a powerful instrument where our wisdom determines its purpose.
AI has the ability to make decisions, invent new things, create ideas, ability to learn and the ability to change itself. Collective efforts is required. We seem to be misaligned in how we create AI to fit into a human world.
In the end, artificial intelligence may expand what humanity can do, but only wisdom can decide what humanity should do—and that is the true measure of progress as a collective footprint of humanity's ability to create a more intelligent tomorrow.