Future of Fair Tech: Addressing Equity, Safety and Accountability in a Rapidly Evolving AI Landscape

Abstract

The panel examined how India—and the broader global community—can move from high‑level AI fairness principles to concrete, on‑the‑ground mechanisms that ensure equity, safety, and accountability. The discussion blended data on global AI access, insights on the “trust” gap at the user level, the democratizing (and destabilising) impact of AI on elections and media, and the coordination challenges that fragment AI governance across jurisdictions. Participants highlighted the need for international “red‑line” standards, stronger incident‑sharing infrastructures, and locally‑tailored accountability tools such as sandboxing and media‑industry compensation. The session closed with rapid‑fire reflections on signals of progress, under‑estimated risks, and practical redesigns of accountability mechanisms.

Detailed Summary

• Vidhi began with a gratitude note, emphasizing that the conversation was about more than compute – it was about the future of fair technology.
• She outlined two “characters” of the story:
  1. Shared principles and values (fairness, safety, accountability).
  2. Infrastructure that operationalises those principles.
• Three global tensions were identified:
  • Unequal AI capability distribution – who defines fairness?
  • Fragmented accountability frameworks – reactive, hard to apply across borders.
  • Trust at the point of AI‑human interaction – especially in welfare, finance, media, and enterprise tools.
• The panel’s aim was set: move beyond abstract principles to practical evidence of what works, what breaks, and where assumptions still dominate.

2. Fairness as a Multi‑Dimensional Challenge – Pauline Charazac

2.1 Data on Global Access

• Cited the 2026 International AI Safety Report (released a few days earlier).
• Key figures:
  • AI development is concentrated in a handful of countries; emerging economies (Asia, Africa, Latin America) have ≈10 % adoption among the working‑age population.
  • Safety risks are rising dramatically across the board.

2.2 Interplay of Fairness, Safety, and Trust

• Argued that fairness, safety, and accountability are inseparable; a “safe” AI system must also be fair and accessible.
• Trust must be placed in three pillars: the AI providers, the regulating governments, and the broader societal institutions.
• Framed the issue as existential, not merely technical: AI reshapes economies, societies, and individual cognition.

2.3 Call for Proactive Approaches

• Mentioned the need for pre‑emptive governance rather than reacting after harms occur.

3. Trust – Where Does It Break? – Lipika Kapoor

3.1 The “Judgment” Gap

• Described four learning stages observed in workshops with executives, government officials, and students:

  1. Search‑like use (AI as an advanced Google).
  2. Output creation (summaries, images, videos).
  3. Workflow orchestration (designing processes around AI).
  4. Critical judgment (deciding when AI can be trusted).

• The critical break occurs between stage 2 and stage 3: users must decide whether to trust AI‑generated outputs (e.g., financial model summaries) enough to act on them.

3.2 Individual vs. Tool‑Driven Trust

• Trust is two‑way: users need better judgment and tools must present explanations, transparency, and recourse.
• Example: a farmer denied a loan should receive a clear, locally understandable explanation and guidance on how to improve the application.

3.3 Systemic Levers

• Highlighted that policy, digital literacy, and product design all feed into the individual trust gap.

4. Data, Governance, and the Limits of Better Datasets – Pauline Charazac (Follow‑up)

• Acknowledged that higher‑quality, inclusive datasets are necessary for reducing bias, but insufficient alone.

• Stressed the need for rules that bind three actor groups:

  • Governments – legislate and enforce.
  • Industry – embed fairness into development pipelines.
  • Civil society – monitor, audit, and provide public oversight.

• Referred to AI “red‑lines” under development by The Future Society and CeSIA – minimum‑risk thresholds that must not be crossed.

• Cited a survey of >2,000 AI developers: >50 % believed there was at least a 10 % chance of a serious AI failure. The panelist likened this to a 10 % chance of a plane crash – a risk most passengers would reject.

5. Democracy & the Media Ecosystem – Damar Juniarto

5.1 AI’s Impact on Elections

• In Indonesia, AI political consultants (first appeared two years ago) have begun guiding campaign strategy, giving an edge to those who can afford the service.
• No robust scrutiny of whether such AI‑driven consulting aligns with democratic norms.

5.2 AI‑Mediated Information Flow

• Traditional media once acted as the fourth pillar of democracy. AI summarisation tools now bypass media, delivering compressed “zero‑click” content directly to users.
• Consequences:
  • Traffic decline for fact‑checking sites (loss of 90 % of daily visitors).
  • Advertising revenue shifts to platforms that own the summarisation models.
  • Filter bubbles intensify because summaries often present only ~1 % of the original political content (citing DeepSig’s limited coverage).

5.3 Risks of “Information Decay”

• The panelist warned that AI‑mediated summaries erode the richness of public discourse, making it easier for polarization to take hold.

5.4 Policy Proposals

• Compensation to media: AI developers should pay for the data they harvest from news organisations.
• Multilingual, multi‑option summarisation: Provide users with broader coverage (e.g., 35 % of source material) and allow choice between summariser models.

6. Fragmentation vs. Coordination – Nikki Iliadis

6.1 The Coordination Challenge

• Described the current governance landscape as fragmented: many principled documents exist, but rules are drafted in isolation across countries.
• AI’s global supply chain (design in country A, data from B, training in C, deployment in D) makes national‑only approaches ineffective.

6.2 Sovereignty & Alliance‑Based Solutions

• Acknowledged the desire for AI sovereignty, yet most nations lack the capacity for fully independent AI stacks.
• Highlighted emerging soft alliances (e.g., BRICS) and formal multilateral fora (UN, OECD) as potential coordination venues.

6.3 Two Concrete International Opportunities

1. AI Red‑Lines

   • Define non‑negotiable prohibitions (e.g., AI‑enabled cyber‑attacks on critical infrastructure, manipulative systems targeting children).
   • Build verification and enforcement mechanisms (audit trails, cross‑border oversight bodies).

2. Incident‑Prevention Infrastructure

   • Create information‑sharing channels for real‑time reporting of AI harms.
   • Agree on common taxonomies and feedback loops linking incident data to policy revisions.

6.4 Avoiding One‑Size‑Fits‑All

• Emphasised that risk differentiation is critical: some challenges are local/national (e.g., AI in education), others are cross‑border (e.g., deep‑fake disinformation).
• Proposed leveraging existing institutions while considering the creation of new, specialised bodies if gaps persist.

6.5 Optimism Amid Political Headwinds

• Noted that multilateralism in 2026 is strained, yet political will exists (citing recent G20, EU‑India partnership, and remarks from the Canadian minister).

7. The Information Layer – Synthesis from Lipika & Damar

• Lipika argued that the information layer (the data fed into AI and the way it is presented to users) determines trust.

• Damar added that when AI filters information without transparent standards, it colonises knowledge, echoing historic “information decolonisation” movements from the 1955 Bandung Conference.

• Both stressed the need for media‑industry partnership and regulatory safeguards to ensure AI does not become the sole gatekeeper of public discourse.

8. Evidence Linking Transparency & Safety – Pauline Charazac

• Cited two historical analogues:

  1. Aviation – intensive regulation leads to public trust and safety; passengers rely on compliance.
  2. Banking – post‑2008 Basel accords have prevented major crises, showcasing how regulation can coexist with thriving innovation.

• Concluded that well‑designed regulation empirically improves safety and public confidence.

9. Rapid‑Fire Round (All Panelists)

Question	Representative Answers (paraphrased)
Signal that AI is becoming fairer/safe?	Nikki: Adoption of *AI “red‑lines.” Lipika: Growing AI adoption in rural/low‑income communities (demonstrates equity). Damar: Higher adoption rates across both emerging and developed economies.
Most underestimated risk?	Nikki: Information decay – loss of depth and nuance in public knowledge. Lipika (declined): No answer. Damar: Defense‑related risks (bioterrorism, autonomous weapons) are under‑discussed in mainstream media.
Redesign one accountability mechanism?	Lipika: Introduce sandboxing for politically‑sensitive AI—pre‑deployment checks for cultural and social fit. Nikki: Ensure all countries sit at the negotiation table (no nation left “on the menu”). Damar: Focus resources on day‑to‑day AI use‑cases that directly improve productivity and fairness, with accountability tied to those concrete outcomes.

10. Closing Remarks & Announcements

• Vidhi thanked the panel and the audience, noting weather challenges and late arrivals.
• FutureShift Labs announced a YouTube live archive for those who missed earlier conversations.
• Geopolitical notes:
  • EU‑India partnership (signed on India’s Republic Day, Jan 26) was highlighted as a “strong sign of emerging‑economy‑middle‑power dynamics.”
  • Reference to the G7 under French presidency committing to an international consensus on AI safety and to foreground AI red‑lines.

Key Takeaways

• Access inequality remains stark: only ~10 % of the working population in many emerging economies regularly uses AI, undermining global fairness.
• Trust hinges on a “judgment gap” that emerges when users move from simple queries to relying on AI‑generated decisions; education and transparent tooling are essential.
• Better data alone will not guarantee fairness; robust, enforceable governance frameworks involving governments, industry, and civil society are required.
• AI‑mediated summarisation is eroding media’s democratic role, causing traffic loss, revenue shifts, and “information decay” that amplifies polarization.
• Fragmented national regulations cannot keep up with AI’s global supply chain; coordinated AI red‑lines and incident‑sharing infrastructures are the most promising multilateral solutions.
• One‑size‑fits‑all policies are inappropriate; risk‑specific and context‑specific rules (e.g., education vs. cross‑border cyber‑threats) must coexist.
• Historical precedent shows regulation can coexist with innovation (aviation, banking), underscoring that well‑designed rules boost safety and public confidence.
• Rapid‑fire signals of progress: adoption of red‑line standards, rising AI use in low‑income/rural settings, and higher cross‑border cooperation.
• Under‑estimated risks include information decay and defense‑related AI threats, both demanding urgent policy attention.
• Concrete accountability ideas: pre‑deployment sandboxing for politically‑sensitive AI, equitable revenue sharing with media, and ensuring every nation has a seat at the global AI governance table.

---

See Also:

• ai-for-democracy-reimagining-governance-in-the-age-of-intelligence
• responsible-ai-at-scale-governance-integrity-and-cyber-readiness-for-a-changing-world