Back
About RSIS
Introduction
Building the Foundations
Welcome Message
Board of Governors
Staff Profiles
Executive Deputy Chairman’s Office
Dean’s Office
Management
Distinguished Fellows
Faculty and Research
Associate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research Analysts
Visiting Fellows
Adjunct Fellows
Administrative Staff
Honours and Awards for RSIS Staff and Students
RSIS Endowment Fund
Endowed Professorships
Career Opportunities
Getting to RSIS
Research
Research Centres
Centre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)
Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)
Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS)
Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)
International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
Research Programmes
National Security Studies Programme (NSSP)
Social Cohesion Research Programme (SCRP)
Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
Other Research
Future Issues and Technology Cluster
Research@RSIS
Science and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
Graduate Education
Graduate Programmes Office
Exchange Partners and Programmes
How to Apply
Financial Assistance
Meet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other events
RSIS Alumni
Outreach
Global Networks
About Global Networks
RSIS Alumni
International Programmes
About International Programmes
Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)
Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)
International Conference on Cohesive Societies (ICCS)
International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
Executive Education
About Executive Education
SRP Executive Programme
Terrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
PUBLIC EDUCATION
About Public Education
Publications
RSIS Publications
Annual Reviews
Books
Bulletins and Newsletters
RSIS Commentary Series
Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
Commemorative / Event Reports
Future Issues
IDSS Papers
Interreligious Relations
Monographs
NTS Insight
Policy Reports
Working Papers
External Publications
Authored Books
Journal Articles
Edited Books
Chapters in Edited Books
Policy Reports
Working Papers
Op-Eds
Glossary of Abbreviations
Policy-relevant Articles Given RSIS Award
RSIS Publications for the Year
External Publications for the Year
Media
News Releases
Speeches
Video/Audio Channel
Events
Contact Us
S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies Think Tank and Graduate School Ponder The Improbable Since 1966
Nanyang Technological University Nanyang Technological University
  • About RSIS
      IntroductionBuilding the FoundationsWelcome MessageBoard of GovernorsHonours and Awards for RSIS Staff and StudentsRSIS Endowment FundEndowed ProfessorshipsCareer OpportunitiesGetting to RSIS
      Staff ProfilesExecutive Deputy Chairman’s OfficeDean’s OfficeManagementDistinguished FellowsFaculty and ResearchAssociate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research AnalystsVisiting FellowsAdjunct FellowsAdministrative Staff
  • Research
      Research CentresCentre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS)Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
      Research ProgrammesNational Security Studies Programme (NSSP)Social Cohesion Research Programme (SCRP)Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
      Other ResearchFuture Issues and Technology ClusterResearch@RSISScience and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
  • Graduate Education
      Graduate Programmes OfficeExchange Partners and ProgrammesHow to ApplyFinancial AssistanceMeet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other eventsRSIS Alumni
  • Outreach
      Global NetworksAbout Global NetworksRSIS Alumni
      International ProgrammesAbout International ProgrammesAsia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)International Conference on Cohesive Societies (ICCS)International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
      Executive EducationAbout Executive EducationSRP Executive ProgrammeTerrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
      PUBLIC EDUCATIONAbout Public Education
  • Publications
      RSIS PublicationsAnnual ReviewsBooksBulletins and NewslettersRSIS Commentary SeriesCounter Terrorist Trends and AnalysesCommemorative / Event ReportsFuture IssuesIDSS PapersInterreligious RelationsMonographsNTS InsightPolicy ReportsWorking Papers
      External PublicationsAuthored BooksJournal ArticlesEdited BooksChapters in Edited BooksPolicy ReportsWorking PapersOp-Eds
      Glossary of AbbreviationsPolicy-relevant Articles Given RSIS AwardRSIS Publications for the YearExternal Publications for the Year
  • Media
      News ReleasesSpeechesVideo/Audio Channel
  • Events
  • Contact Us
    • Connect with Us

      rsis.ntu
      rsis_ntu
      rsisntu
      rsisvideocast
      school/rsis-ntu
      rsis.sg
      rsissg
      RSIS
      RSS
      Subscribe to RSIS Publications
      Subscribe to RSIS Events

      Getting to RSIS

      Nanyang Technological University
      Block S4, Level B3,
      50 Nanyang Avenue,
      Singapore 639798

      Click here for direction to RSIS
Connect
Search
  • RSIS
  • Publication
  • RSIS Publications
  • Artificial Intelligence Governance: Lessons from Decades of Nuclear Regulation
  • Annual Reviews
  • Books
  • Bulletins and Newsletters
  • RSIS Commentary Series
  • Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
  • Commemorative / Event Reports
  • Future Issues
  • IDSS Papers
  • Interreligious Relations
  • Monographs
  • NTS Insight
  • Policy Reports
  • Working Papers

CO23134 | Artificial Intelligence Governance: Lessons from Decades of Nuclear Regulation
Karryl Kim Sagun Trajano

21 September 2023

download pdf

SYNOPSIS

To some experts and policy makers, the existential threat posed by nuclear weapons has just been paralleled by artificial intelligence. Numerous calls for an international body that will govern the development of artificial intelligence technology have been made, citing the International Atomic Energy Agency as a model. While it is not a foolproof one-to-one comparison, those working on regulation of artificial intelligence can draw useful lessons from the nuclear experience, including how to balance governance and peaceful uses of the technology.

230922 CO23134 Artificial Intelligence Governance Lessons from Decades of Nuclear Regulation
Source: rawpixel.com on Freepik

COMMENTARY

For decades, the existential threat posed by nuclear weapons has not been paralleled, that is, until the advent of artificial intelligence (AI) in recent years. In fact, recent discussions on AI often compare it with nuclear weapons.

In May 2023, the Centre for AI Safety, a US-based research and field-building non-profit, released a statement declaring that the existential threat from AI must be prioritised together with nuclear war. It also cited both as societal-scale risks. Signatories included AI scientists such as Geoffrey Hinton and Yoshua Bengio (two of the three so-called AI godfathers), CEOs of prominent tech companies, professors from top universities, among many other notable figures.

There have also been calls for an international AI agency equivalent to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to govern AI development and application. While on a global tour in June 2023, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman rallied support for AI governance, making a reference to the IAEA as a model for placing guardrails on a “very dangerous technology”. Shortly after, UN Secretary-General António Guterres supported the creation of an AI watchdog, which would act like the IAEA.

While it is not an absolute one-to-one comparison, those working on AI regulation have much to learn from the nuclear experience.

A Reactive Regulation?

In the case of nuclear regulation, the call for it was made by physicist Alvin M. Weinberg before the US Senate’s Special Committee on Atomic Energy in December 1945 – four months after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is easy to be critical about this reactive approach to nuclear regulation. To be fair however, nuclear development then was kept under wraps as the objective was to produce a new weapon of war – one that was unprecedented in its potential for destruction.

Such ironclad secrecy is not needed in the case of AI. As this is a general-use technology, the likelihood of it harming humanity has been discussed, not just in closed-door meetings, but also in accessible public discourse.

Not everyone has access to civilian uses of nuclear technologies, in contrast to how anyone can utilise various AI tools. In the 1940s, the US government controlled nuclear technologies tightly and preserved them almost exclusively for military use. It changed policy in the 1950s when it realised that continued curtailment of commercial and private uses of nuclear technologies will render them laggards in the nuclear race.

The IAEA was officially established under the United Nations in July 1957, with a statute approved by 81 nations in October 1956. This was a significant milestone. If done right, the process of establishing AI regulation need not go through a similar time-consuming back and forth track that spanned decades.

Lessons from a Mature Technology and Regulating Agency

There are lessons which AI regulators can learn from the well-experienced IAEA and its regulation of nuclear technologies as the latter has well-established and tried and tested elements of good technological governance.

First, a unifying body for the peaceful uses of AI, such as the proposed “International Artificial Intelligence Agency (IAIA)”, ideally under the United Nations as well, could help to align the divergent US-EU regulatory plans on AI, China’s rules on AI use, ASEAN’s regional guidelines on AI, and the intended policies of other states. Internationally beneficial norms could be established to harness the potential of AI while mitigating the risks. Time is of the essence as the number of cases of AI misuse is rising at an alarming rate. This agency can take after the IAEA, which stands as the world’s “Atoms for Peace” organisation, with member states and global partners promoting safe, secure, and peaceful nuclear technologies.

Second, information sharing among stakeholders could benefit AI governance. In AI research, industry has surpassed academia in the production of AI systems. This ascendancy of industry is not necessarily a bad thing as the future of AI regulation may largely depend on an interplay of state laws and industry standards. The proposed IAIA could aid in melding these well. The nuclear experience makes an excellent case for information sharing among various stakeholders, as the IAEA’s stance is that frequent information exchange is vital for emergency preparedness and response. It provides not just member but also public access to information on power reactors, nuclear data, and research reactors.

Third, capacity building activities could also reduce the AI divide between more technologically advanced countries and those lagging behind. This would help to curtail the risk of AI feeding global inequality, amongst other things. Within the IAEA, there are efforts to build capacity for nuclear safety. These stand on four pillars: (1) education and training, (2) human resource development, (3) knowledge management, and (4) knowledge networks. These pillars could well be transposed to (or at least be a springboard for) AI.

Challenges to AI Governance

Unfortunately, the threat of AI, relative to nuclear weapons, is stealthier. Any ordinary looking office space can be a hub for the criminal use of AI. It would be quite inconspicuous for a rogue state to trigger an anonymous AI-powered attack, whereas one with a nuclear-weapons capability could not even threaten to use a nuclear weapon at another state without causing an international crisis. Nuclear meltdown accidents are likewise more tangible. Furthermore, nuclear power plants are massive constructions, and smaller reactors, while in existence, are generally still experimental.

Conclusion

Although IAEA regulation is far from perfect, it is important for those working on AI governance to watch and learn from the factors influencing nuclear governance. In spite of the IAEA, some states have the tendency to be extremely cautious and thus overly govern or politicise the technology.

The risks of nuclear technologies and AI have been highlighted by experts, but there are significant differences in their governance. These lie partly with the maturity of nuclear as a technology. Nuclear technologies had a long, painful, and tortuous path to regulation; all while accommodating the inalienable right of states to research, produce, and use them for peaceful purposes.

The regulators of AI cannot hinge entirely on those involved in nuclear governance. They will have their share of achievements and mistakes. They have much to learn from the nuclear experience, including how to balance governance and peaceful uses of the technology. Over the years, nuclear technologies have grappled with, and, in some significant ways, managed to advance within a tightly regulated regime and close international scrutiny. The prospect for the positive development and good governance of AI technology is not an illusion.

About the Author

Karryl Kim Sagun-Trajano is a Research Fellow at Future Issues and Technology (FIT), S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore.

Categories: RSIS Commentary Series / General / Country and Region Studies / Technology and Future Issues / East Asia and Asia Pacific / South Asia / Southeast Asia and ASEAN / Global
comments powered by Disqus
Research Fellow Karryl Kim Sagun-Trajano on "How ASEAN can Contribute to International AI Governance Frameworks"

SYNOPSIS

To some experts and policy makers, the existential threat posed by nuclear weapons has just been paralleled by artificial intelligence. Numerous calls for an international body that will govern the development of artificial intelligence technology have been made, citing the International Atomic Energy Agency as a model. While it is not a foolproof one-to-one comparison, those working on regulation of artificial intelligence can draw useful lessons from the nuclear experience, including how to balance governance and peaceful uses of the technology.

230922 CO23134 Artificial Intelligence Governance Lessons from Decades of Nuclear Regulation
Source: rawpixel.com on Freepik

COMMENTARY

For decades, the existential threat posed by nuclear weapons has not been paralleled, that is, until the advent of artificial intelligence (AI) in recent years. In fact, recent discussions on AI often compare it with nuclear weapons.

In May 2023, the Centre for AI Safety, a US-based research and field-building non-profit, released a statement declaring that the existential threat from AI must be prioritised together with nuclear war. It also cited both as societal-scale risks. Signatories included AI scientists such as Geoffrey Hinton and Yoshua Bengio (two of the three so-called AI godfathers), CEOs of prominent tech companies, professors from top universities, among many other notable figures.

There have also been calls for an international AI agency equivalent to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to govern AI development and application. While on a global tour in June 2023, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman rallied support for AI governance, making a reference to the IAEA as a model for placing guardrails on a “very dangerous technology”. Shortly after, UN Secretary-General António Guterres supported the creation of an AI watchdog, which would act like the IAEA.

While it is not an absolute one-to-one comparison, those working on AI regulation have much to learn from the nuclear experience.

A Reactive Regulation?

In the case of nuclear regulation, the call for it was made by physicist Alvin M. Weinberg before the US Senate’s Special Committee on Atomic Energy in December 1945 – four months after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is easy to be critical about this reactive approach to nuclear regulation. To be fair however, nuclear development then was kept under wraps as the objective was to produce a new weapon of war – one that was unprecedented in its potential for destruction.

Such ironclad secrecy is not needed in the case of AI. As this is a general-use technology, the likelihood of it harming humanity has been discussed, not just in closed-door meetings, but also in accessible public discourse.

Not everyone has access to civilian uses of nuclear technologies, in contrast to how anyone can utilise various AI tools. In the 1940s, the US government controlled nuclear technologies tightly and preserved them almost exclusively for military use. It changed policy in the 1950s when it realised that continued curtailment of commercial and private uses of nuclear technologies will render them laggards in the nuclear race.

The IAEA was officially established under the United Nations in July 1957, with a statute approved by 81 nations in October 1956. This was a significant milestone. If done right, the process of establishing AI regulation need not go through a similar time-consuming back and forth track that spanned decades.

Lessons from a Mature Technology and Regulating Agency

There are lessons which AI regulators can learn from the well-experienced IAEA and its regulation of nuclear technologies as the latter has well-established and tried and tested elements of good technological governance.

First, a unifying body for the peaceful uses of AI, such as the proposed “International Artificial Intelligence Agency (IAIA)”, ideally under the United Nations as well, could help to align the divergent US-EU regulatory plans on AI, China’s rules on AI use, ASEAN’s regional guidelines on AI, and the intended policies of other states. Internationally beneficial norms could be established to harness the potential of AI while mitigating the risks. Time is of the essence as the number of cases of AI misuse is rising at an alarming rate. This agency can take after the IAEA, which stands as the world’s “Atoms for Peace” organisation, with member states and global partners promoting safe, secure, and peaceful nuclear technologies.

Second, information sharing among stakeholders could benefit AI governance. In AI research, industry has surpassed academia in the production of AI systems. This ascendancy of industry is not necessarily a bad thing as the future of AI regulation may largely depend on an interplay of state laws and industry standards. The proposed IAIA could aid in melding these well. The nuclear experience makes an excellent case for information sharing among various stakeholders, as the IAEA’s stance is that frequent information exchange is vital for emergency preparedness and response. It provides not just member but also public access to information on power reactors, nuclear data, and research reactors.

Third, capacity building activities could also reduce the AI divide between more technologically advanced countries and those lagging behind. This would help to curtail the risk of AI feeding global inequality, amongst other things. Within the IAEA, there are efforts to build capacity for nuclear safety. These stand on four pillars: (1) education and training, (2) human resource development, (3) knowledge management, and (4) knowledge networks. These pillars could well be transposed to (or at least be a springboard for) AI.

Challenges to AI Governance

Unfortunately, the threat of AI, relative to nuclear weapons, is stealthier. Any ordinary looking office space can be a hub for the criminal use of AI. It would be quite inconspicuous for a rogue state to trigger an anonymous AI-powered attack, whereas one with a nuclear-weapons capability could not even threaten to use a nuclear weapon at another state without causing an international crisis. Nuclear meltdown accidents are likewise more tangible. Furthermore, nuclear power plants are massive constructions, and smaller reactors, while in existence, are generally still experimental.

Conclusion

Although IAEA regulation is far from perfect, it is important for those working on AI governance to watch and learn from the factors influencing nuclear governance. In spite of the IAEA, some states have the tendency to be extremely cautious and thus overly govern or politicise the technology.

The risks of nuclear technologies and AI have been highlighted by experts, but there are significant differences in their governance. These lie partly with the maturity of nuclear as a technology. Nuclear technologies had a long, painful, and tortuous path to regulation; all while accommodating the inalienable right of states to research, produce, and use them for peaceful purposes.

The regulators of AI cannot hinge entirely on those involved in nuclear governance. They will have their share of achievements and mistakes. They have much to learn from the nuclear experience, including how to balance governance and peaceful uses of the technology. Over the years, nuclear technologies have grappled with, and, in some significant ways, managed to advance within a tightly regulated regime and close international scrutiny. The prospect for the positive development and good governance of AI technology is not an illusion.

About the Author

Karryl Kim Sagun-Trajano is a Research Fellow at Future Issues and Technology (FIT), S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore.

Categories: RSIS Commentary Series / General / Country and Region Studies / Technology and Future Issues

Popular Links

About RSISResearch ProgrammesGraduate EducationPublicationsEventsAdmissionsCareersVideo/Audio ChannelRSIS Intranet

Connect with Us

rsis.ntu
rsis_ntu
rsisntu
rsisvideocast
school/rsis-ntu
rsis.sg
rsissg
RSIS
RSS
Subscribe to RSIS Publications
Subscribe to RSIS Events

Getting to RSIS

Nanyang Technological University
Block S4, Level B3,
50 Nanyang Avenue,
Singapore 639798

Click here for direction to RSIS

Get in Touch

    Copyright © S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies. All rights reserved.
    Privacy Statement / Terms of Use
    Help us improve

      Rate your experience with this website
      123456
      Not satisfiedVery satisfied
      What did you like?
      0/255 characters
      What can be improved?
      0/255 characters
      Your email
      Please enter a valid email.
      Thank you for your feedback.
      This site uses cookies to offer you a better browsing experience. By continuing, you are agreeing to the use of cookies on your device as described in our privacy policy. Learn more
      OK
      Latest Book
      more info