The tech bros might show more humility in Delhi - but will they make AI any safer? Those who shout the loudest about artificial intelligence tend to be in the West, notably the US and Europe. So it's significant that a gathering of powerful leaders is being held in the Global South, a region of the world that runs the risk of being left behind in the AI race. Tech bosses, politicians, scientists, academics and campaigners are meeting at the AI Impact Summit in India this week for top-level discussions about what the world should be doing to try to marshal the AI revolution in the right direction. At last year's AI Action Summit, as it was then known, an ugly power struggle broke out between some Western countries over who should be in charge.

AI is no longer just a translator or image recognizer. Today, we engage with systems that remember our preferences, proactively manage our calendars, and even provide emotional support. They build ongoing bonds with users. They change their behavior based on our habits. They don't just wait for commands; they suggest next steps.

MAGA's'Manifest Destiny' Coalition Has Arrived Warring factions of right-wing influencers and MAGA pundits can finally agree on something: American imperialism. For the past few months, some of the most influential figures in MAGA politics have been locked in bitter infighting . But with a new year comes new priorities, and the warring factions are reuniting around a new cause: a new era of American "manifest destiny." Major players, from influencers to politicians, have been arguing over the Trump administration's plans on issues like H-1B visas, Jeffrey Epstein document dumps, AI regulation, Israel's war with Hamas, and even white nationalist Nick Fuentes. But in recent weeks, these feuds have faded into background noise as the US raided Venezuela, arresting president Nicolás Maduro, and, more recently, as President Donald Trump publicly toys with invading Greenland and destroying NATO as we know it.

But they certainly wish people were still taking their warnings really seriously. It's a weird time to be an AI doomer. This small but influential community of researchers, scientists, and policy experts believes, in the simplest terms, that AI could get so good it could be bad--very, very bad--for humanity. Though many of these people would be more likely to describe themselves as advocates for AI safety than as literal doomsayers, they warn that AI poses an existential risk to humanity. They argue that absent more regulation, the industry could hurtle toward systems it can't control. They commonly expect such systems to follow the creation of artificial general intelligence (AGI), a slippery concept generally understood as technology that can do whatever humans can do, and better. Though this is far from a universally shared perspective in the AI field, the doomer crowd has had some notable success over the past several years: helping shape AI policy coming from the Biden administration, organizing prominent calls for international "red lines " to prevent AI risks, and getting a bigger (and more influential) megaphone as some of its adherents win science's most prestigious awards. But a number of developments over the past six months have put them on the back foot.

To counter fragmented, high-risk adoption of commercial AI tools, we built and ran an institutional AI platform in a six-month, 300-user pilot, showing that a university of applied sciences can offer advanced AI with fair access, transparent risks, controlled costs, and alignment with European law. Commercial AI subscriptions create unequal access and compliance risks through opaque processing and non-EU hosting, yet banning them is neither realistic nor useful. Institutions need a way to provide powerful AI in a sovereign, accountable form. Our solution is a governed gateway platform with three layers: a ChatGPT-style frontend linked to institutional identity that makes model choice explicit; a gateway core enforcing policy, controlling access and budgets, and routing traffic to EU infrastructure by default; and a provider layer wrapping commercial and open-source models in institutional model cards that consolidate vendor documentation into one governance interface. The pilot ran reliably with no privacy incidents and strong adoption, enabling EU-default routing, managed spending, and transparent model choices. Only the gateway pattern combines model diversity and rapid innovation with institutional control. The central insight: AI is not a support function but strategy, demanding dedicated leadership. Sustainable operation requires governance beyond traditional boundaries. We recommend establishing a formal AI Officer role combining technical literacy, governance authority, and educational responsibility. Without it, AI decisions stay ad-hoc and institutional exposure grows. With it, higher-education institutions can realistically operate their own multi-provider AI platform, provided they govern AI as seriously as they teach it.

This paper examines how international AI governance frameworks address gender issues and gender-based harms. The analysis covers binding regulations, such as the EU AI Act; soft law instruments, like the UNESCO Recommendations on AI Ethics; and global initiatives, such as the Global Partnership on AI (GPAI). These instruments reveal emerging trends, including the integration of gender concerns into broader human rights frameworks, a shift toward explicit gender-related provisions, and a growing emphasis on inclusivity and diversity. Yet, some critical gaps persist, including inconsistent treatment of gender across governance documents, limited engagement with intersectionality, and a lack of robust enforcement mechanisms. However, this paper argues that effective AI governance must be intersectional, enforceable, and inclusive. This is key to moving beyond tokenism toward meaningful equity and preventing reinforcement of existing inequalities. The study contributes to ethical AI debates by highlighting the importance of gender-sensitive governance in building a just technological future.

This chapter argues that the reliability of agentic and generative AI is chiefly an architectural property. We define agentic systems as goal-directed, tool-using decision makers operating in closed loops, and show how reliability emerges from principled componentisation (goal manager, planner, tool-router, executor, memory, verifiers, safety monitor, telemetry), disciplined interfaces (schema-constrained, validated, least-privilege tool calls), and explicit control and assurance loops. Building on classical foundations, we propose a practical taxonomy-tool-using agents, memory-augmented agents, planning and self-improvement agents, multi-agent systems, and embodied or web agents - and analyse how each pattern reshapes the reliability envelope and failure modes. We distil design guidance on typed schemas, idempotency, permissioning, transactional semantics, memory provenance and hygiene, runtime governance (budgets, termination conditions), and simulate-before-actuate safeguards.

Agents are rapidly advancing in automating digital work, but enterprises face a harder challenge: moving beyond prototypes to deployed systems that deliver measurable business value. This path is complicated by fragmented frameworks, slow development, and the absence of standardized evaluation practices. Generalist agents have emerged as a promising direction, excelling on academic benchmarks and offering flexibility across task types, applications, and modalities. Yet, evidence of their use in production enterprise settings remains limited. This paper reports IBM's experience developing and piloting the Computer Using Generalist Agent (CUGA), which has been open-sourced for the community (https://github.com/cuga-project/cuga-agent). CUGA adopts a hierarchical planner--executor architecture with strong analytical foundations, achieving state-of-the-art performance on AppWorld and WebArena. Beyond benchmarks, it was evaluated in a pilot within the Business-Process-Outsourcing talent acquisition domain, addressing enterprise requirements for scalability, auditability, safety, and governance. To support assessment, we introduce BPO-TA, a 26-task benchmark spanning 13 analytics endpoints. In preliminary evaluations, CUGA approached the accuracy of specialized agents while indicating potential for reducing development time and cost. Our contribution is twofold: presenting early evidence of generalist agents operating at enterprise scale, and distilling technical and organizational lessons from this initial pilot. We outline requirements and next steps for advancing research-grade architectures like CUGA into robust, enterprise-ready systems.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems are now an integral part of multiple industries. In clinical research, AI supports automated adverse event detection in clinical trials, patient eligibility screening for protocol enrollment, and data quality validation. Beyond healthcare, AI is transforming finance through real-time fraud detection, automated loan risk assessment, and algorithmic decision-making. Similarly, in manufacturing, AI enables predictive maintenance to reduce equipment downtime, enhances quality control through computer-vision inspection, and optimizes production workflows using real-time operational data. While these technologies enhance operational efficiency, they introduce new challenges regarding safety, accountability, and regulatory compliance. To address these concerns, we introduce the SMART+ Framework - a structured model built on the pillars of Safety, Monitoring, Accountability, Reliability, and Transparency, and further enhanced with Privacy & Security, Data Governance, Fairness & Bias, and Guardrails. SMART+ offers a practical, comprehensive approach to evaluating and governing AI systems across industries. This framework aligns with evolving mechanisms and regulatory guidance to integrate operational safeguards, oversight procedures, and strengthened privacy and governance controls. SMART+ demonstrates risk mitigation, trust-building, and compliance readiness. By enabling responsible AI adoption and ensuring auditability, SMART+ provides a robust foundation for effective AI governance in clinical research.

Large language models (LLMs) integrated into agent-driven workflows hold immense promise for healthcare, yet a significant gap exists between their potential and practical implementation within clinical settings. To address this, we present a practitioner-oriented field manual for deploying generative agents that use electronic health record (EHR) data. This guide is informed by our experience deploying the "irAE-Agent", an automated system to detect immune-related adverse events from clinical notes at Mass General Brigham, and by structured interviews with 21 clinicians, engineers, and informatics leaders involved in the project. Our analysis reveals a critical misalignment in clinical AI development: less than 20% of our effort was dedicated to prompt engineering and model development, while over 80% was consumed by the sociotechnical work of implementation. We distill this effort into five "heavy lifts": data integration, model validation, ensuring economic value, managing system drift, and governance. By providing actionable solutions for each of these challenges, this field manual shifts the focus from algorithmic development to the essential infrastructure and implementation work required to bridge the "valley of death" and successfully translate generative AI from pilot projects into routine clinical care.