UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres issued a stark warning on artificial intelligence as world leaders gathered at the United Nations, declaring that "life-and-death decisions must never be surrendered to machines" and that "killer robots must have no place in our future." He called for stronger oversight and safeguards to address the risks posed by rapidly advancing AI technology.
The appeal comes as a deep transatlantic divide emerges over how — or whether — to regulate AI development. US President Donald Trump flatly rejected any international regulation of the technology, dismissing the term "artificial intelligence" as inadequate. "Super Intelligence sounds much better," Trump said. "It's much more accurate." He added that "The United States totally rejects any attempt to construct a globalist scheme to control... artificial intelligence."
European Push for Binding Standards
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. The appeal notably lacked endorsement from AI superpowers China and the United States.
Prime Minister Andy Burnham announced Britain would launch an effort to establish global AI standards during its 2027 G20 presidency. "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 said. Britain also revealed an AI defence partnership with Washington to detect cyberattacks on critical infrastructure — a pragmatic security collaboration that contrasts sharply with Trump's broader rejection of regulatory coordination.
French President Emmanuel Macron went further, proposing that Europe build AI technology independent from the great powers. "I don't want anyone to become the vassal of one of the great powers," he said, apparently referencing China and the US. "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."
Industry Seeks Global Coordination
The transatlantic split comes as the US-based AI giants themselves increasingly ask for global coordination on AI safety. OpenAI's Sam Altman was set to address the UN Security Council on Wednesday in a session initiated by France, which holds the Security Council presidency this month. France believes AI's threat to international peace and security hasn't been sufficiently discussed at the UN.
Trump dismissed warnings about AI risks by comparing them to climate change predictions. "The very same people who said we'll all be dead in 12 years because of global warming... are now saying that AI is going to kill us all, that robots are going to attack us, and that everything is going to be a total disaster," he said. He acknowledged that "every major new technology brings challenges, and superintelligence is no exception," but offered no framework for addressing those challenges beyond market forces.
Why This Matters:
The UN debate exposes a fundamental question facing democratic societies: can transformative technologies be governed through international cooperation, or will they develop under the control of a handful of corporations and states? Europe's push for binding AI safety standards reflects a social democratic conviction that technology must serve public interest, not just shareholder value. Without global rules on transparency, accountability, and human oversight, AI systems could entrench existing inequalities, automate discrimination in hiring and policing, and — as Guterres warned — make life-and-death decisions without democratic accountability. The fact that even OpenAI's leadership now calls for coordination suggests the risks are real. But Trump's rejection of "globalist" oversight leaves Europe facing a choice: build regulatory capacity alone, accept American tech dominance, or watch China fill the vacuum. The 2027 G20 presidency offers Britain a narrow window to bridge the gap — if it can persuade Washington that safety standards aren't the same as stifling innovation.