Antonio Guterres used the United Nations stage to demand more oversight of AI, warning that “life-and-death decisions must never be surrendered to machines” and that “killer robots must have no place in our future.” The UN Secretary-General said the world needs to “advance the conditions for the responsible pacing of AI and the additional safeguards needed to address risks.” That’s the official language of restraint. The reality is a scramble by states and corporations to decide who gets to set the rules for a technology already being folded into war, policing, cyber defence and profit.
US President Donald Trump took the opposite line, rejecting regulation and trying to rebrand the whole thing as “Super Intelligence.” He said the word “artificial” undersold the technology, that “Super Intelligence” “sounds much better” and “it’s much more accurate.” He also said, “The United States totally rejects any attempt to construct a globalist scheme to control... artificial intelligence,” and added, “Every major new technology brings challenges, and superintelligence is no exception.” The line is familiar: deregulate first, let the market and the state apparatus sort out the wreckage later, and call it innovation.
Brussels, Washington and the race to govern AI
Ahead of the UN assembly, leaders of more than 20 mostly European countries urged binding safety measures for advanced AI, warning that the technology’s development could outpace the ability to control it. China and the United States did not endorse the idea. So the world’s biggest AI powers declined to sign up to the very limits they’re happy to demand from everyone else. The pattern is plain enough. Those with the most capacity to profit from AI want the least restraint, while smaller states gather under the UN banner and ask for rules that the giants can ignore.
Prime Minister Andy Burnham said Britain would launch an effort to establish global AI standards during its 2027 G20 presidency, while announcing an AI defence partnership with Washington to detect cyberattacks on critical infrastructure. He said, “We will work towards agreeing a single set of global principles and standards to ensure the transparency and access we need to increase our preparedness and to ensure that AI development is safe.” He earlier revealed London plans to use Britain’s role as host of the Group of 20 next year to push for a “single set of global principles and standards” around AI. The language is tidy. The function is harder to miss: states coordinating with one another to manage the risks of the systems they’re building, while folding AI deeper into defence planning.
The great powers want the rules, not the limits
French President Emmanuel Macron proposed building AI technology independent from the great powers. He said, “I don’t want anyone to become the vassal of one of the great powers,” apparently in reference to China and the US. He added, “Our investment capabilities must be pooled to build a cutting-edge open-source AI model, which we will share. We should not depend on somebody else.” That’s the European version of the same game: strategic autonomy, pooled investment, shared models, and the same old competition between blocs dressed up as digital sovereignty. The rhetoric changes. The hierarchy doesn’t.
The US-based AI giants themselves are increasingly asking for global coordination on AI safety, with OpenAI’s Sam Altman set to address the UN Security Council on Wednesday. France, which holds the Security Council presidency this month, initiated the meeting and believes AI’s threat to international peace and security has not been sufficiently discussed at the UN. So the corporations want coordination when it helps stabilise their industry, the states want coordination when it helps extend their reach, and the UN gets used as the conference room where both sides argue over who gets to supervise the machine.
What’s missing from all this polished talk is any serious challenge to the system that keeps producing the danger in the first place. The same governments that warn about “killer robots” are also building defence partnerships around AI. The same powers that denounce “globalist schemes” are happy to coordinate standards when it suits them. And the same institutions that claim to protect the public are, once again, negotiating over control from above while ordinary people are expected to live with the consequences.