The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into telecommunications infrastructure introduces novel risks, such as algorithmic bias and unpredictable system behavior, that fall outside the scope of traditional cybersecurity and data protection frameworks. This paper introduces a precise definition and a detailed typology of telecommunications AI incidents, establishing them as a distinct category of risk that extends beyond conventional cybersecurity and data protection breaches. It argues for their recognition as a distinct regulatory concern. Using India as a case study for jurisdictions that lack a horizontal AI law, the paper analyzes the country's key digital regulations. The analysis reveals that India's existing legal instruments, including the Telecommunications Act, 2023, the CERT-In Rules, and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, focus on cybersecurity and data breaches, creating a significant regulatory gap for AI-specific operational incidents, such as performance degradation and algorithmic bias. The paper also examines structural barriers to disclosure and the limitations of existing AI incident repositories. Based on these findings, the paper proposes targeted policy recommendations centered on integrating AI incident reporting into India's existing telecom governance. Key proposals include mandating reporting for high-risk AI failures, designating an existing government body as a nodal agency to manage incident data, and developing standardized reporting frameworks. These recommendations aim to enhance regulatory clarity and strengthen long-term resilience, offering a pragmatic and replicable blueprint for other nations seeking to govern AI risks within their existing sectoral frameworks.

In this paper, we cover approaches to systematically govern, assess and quantify bias across the complete life cycle of machine learning models, from initial development and validation to ongoing production monitoring and guardrail implementation. Building upon our foundational work on the Bias Evaluation and Assessment Test Suite (BEATS) for Large Language Models, the authors share prevalent bias and fairness related gaps in Large Language Models (LLMs) and discuss data and AI governance framework to address Bias, Ethics, Fairness, and Factuality within LLMs. The data and AI governance approach discussed in this paper is suitable for practical, real-world applications, enabling rigorous benchmarking of LLMs prior to production deployment, facilitating continuous real-time evaluation, and proactively governing LLM generated responses. By implementing the data and AI governance across the life cycle of AI development, organizations can significantly enhance the safety and responsibility of their GenAI systems, effectively mitigating risks of discrimination and protecting against potential reputational or brand-related harm. Ultimately, through this article, we aim to contribute to advancement of the creation and deployment of socially responsible and ethically aligned generative artificial intelligence powered applications.

Open-weight general-purpose AI (GPAI) models offer significant benefits but also introduce substantial cybersecurity risks, as demonstrated by the offensive capabilities of models like DeepSeek-R1 in evaluations such as MITRE's OCCULT. These publicly available models empower a wider range of actors to automate and scale cyberattacks, challenging traditional defence paradigms and regulatory approaches. This paper analyzes the specific threats -- including accelerated malware development and enhanced social engineering -- magnified by open-weight AI release. We critically assess current regulations, notably the EU AI Act and the GPAI Code of Practice, identifying significant gaps stemming from the loss of control inherent in open distribution, which renders many standard security mitigations ineffective. We propose a path forward focusing on evaluating and controlling specific high-risk capabilities rather than entire models, advocating for pragmatic policy interpretations for open-weight systems, promoting defensive AI innovation, and fostering international collaboration on standards and cyber threat intelligence (CTI) sharing to ensure security without unduly stifling open technological progress.

This paper explores the integration of human rights considerations into AI regulatory frameworks across different IEEE regions - specifically the United States (Region 1-6), Europe (Region 8), China (part of Region 10), and Singapore (part of Region 10). While all acknowledge the transformative potential of AI and the necessity of ethical guidelines, their regulatory approaches significantly differ. Europe exhibits a rigorous framework with stringent protections for individual rights, while the U.S. promotes innovation with less restrictive regulations. China emphasizes state control and societal order in its AI strategies. In contrast, Singapore's advisory framework encourages self-regulation and aligns closely with international norms. This comparative analysis underlines the need for ongoing global dialogue to harmonize AI regulations that safeguard human rights while promoting technological advancement, reflecting the diverse perspectives and priorities of each region.

--Artificial intelligence (AI) trends vary significantly across global regions, shaping the trajectory of innovation, regulation, and societal impact. This variation influences how dif - ferent regions approach AI development, balancing technological progress with ethical and regulatory considerations. This study conducts a comparative analysis of AI trends in the United States (US), the European Union (EU), and Asia, focusing on three key dimensions: generative AI, ethical oversight, and industrial applications. The US prioritizes market -driven innovation with minimal regulatory constraints, the EU enforces a precautionary risk -based framework emphasizing ethical safeguards, and Asia employs state -guided AI strategies that balance rapid deployment with regulatory oversight. Although these approaches reflect different economic models and policy priorities, their divergence poses challenges to international collaboration, regulatory harmonization, and the development of global AI standards. To address these challenges, this paper synthesizes regional strengths to propose an adaptive AI governance framework that integrates risk -tiered oversight, innovation accelerators, and strategic alignment mechanisms. By bridging governance gaps, this study offers actionable insights for fostering responsible AI development while ensuring a balance between technological progress, ethical imperatives, and regulatory coherence. Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a transformative force in the 21st century, reshaping industries, governance structures, and societal interactions at an unprecedented pace. From generative AI creating human - like text and images to autonomous systems revolutionizing healthcare, finance, and manufacturing, AI's influence is profound and far - reaching.

This paper examines the intricate interplay among AI safety, security, and governance by integrating technical systems engineering with principles of moral imagination and ethical philosophy. Drawing on foundational insights from Weapons of Math Destruction and Thinking in Systems alongside contemporary debates in AI ethics, we develop a comprehensive multi-dimensional framework designed to regulate AI technologies deployed in high-stakes domains such as defense, finance, healthcare, and education. Our approach combines rigorous technical analysis, quantitative risk assessment, and normative evaluation to expose systemic vulnerabilities inherent in opaque, black-box models. Detailed case studies, including analyses of Microsoft Tay (2016) and the UK A-Level Grading Algorithm (2020), demonstrate how security lapses, bias amplification, and lack of accountability can precipitate cascading failures that undermine public trust. We conclude by outlining targeted strategies for enhancing AI resilience through adaptive regulatory mechanisms, robust security protocols, and interdisciplinary oversight, thereby advancing the state of the art in ethical and technical AI governance.

As artificial intelligence (AI) technologies increasingly enter important sectors like healthcare, transportation, and finance, the development of effective governance frameworks is crucial for dealing with ethical, security, and societal risks. This paper conducts a comparative analysis of AI risk management strategies across the European Union (EU), United States (U.S.), United Kingdom (UK), and China. A multi-method qualitative approach, including comparative policy analysis, thematic analysis, and case studies, investigates how these regions classify AI risks, implement compliance measures, structure oversight, prioritize transparency, and respond to emerging innovations. Examples from high-risk contexts like healthcare diagnostics, autonomous vehicles, fintech, and facial recognition demonstrate the advantages and limitations of different regulatory models. The findings show that the EU implements a structured, risk-based framework that prioritizes transparency and conformity assessments, while the U.S. uses decentralized, sector-specific regulations that promote innovation but may lead to fragmented enforcement. The flexible, sector-specific strategy of the UK facilitates agile responses but may lead to inconsistent coverage across domains. China's centralized directives allow rapid large-scale implementation while constraining public transparency and external oversight. These insights show the necessity for AI regulation that is globally informed yet context-sensitive, aiming to balance effective risk management with technological progress. The paper concludes with policy recommendations and suggestions for future research aimed at enhancing effective, adaptive, and inclusive AI governance globally.

The integration of generative AI (GenAI) and large language models (LLMs) in healthcare presents both unprecedented opportunities and challenges, necessitating innovative regulatory approaches. GenAI and LLMs offer broad applications, from automating clinical workflows to personalizing diagnostics. However, the non-deterministic outputs, broad functionalities and complex integration of GenAI and LLMs challenge existing medical device regulatory frameworks, including the total product life cycle (TPLC) approach. Here we discuss the constraints of the TPLC approach to GenAI and LLM-based medical device regulation, and advocate for global collaboration in regulatory science research. This serves as the foundation for developing innovative approaches including adaptive policies and regulatory sandboxes, to test and refine governance in real-world settings. International harmonization, as seen with the International Medical Device Regulators Forum, is essential to manage implications of LLM on global health, including risks of widening health inequities driven by inherent model biases. By engaging multidisciplinary expertise, prioritizing iterative, data-driven approaches, and focusing on the needs of diverse populations, global regulatory science research enables the responsible and equitable advancement of LLM innovations in healthcare.

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) systems in critical domains like healthcare, justice, and social services has sparked numerous regulatory initiatives aimed at ensuring their safe deployment. Current regulatory frameworks, exemplified by recent US and EU efforts, primarily focus on procedural guidelines while presuming that scientific benchmarking can effectively validate AI safety, similar to how crash tests verify vehicle safety or clinical trials validate drug efficacy. However, this approach fundamentally misunderstands the unique technical challenges posed by modern AI systems. Through systematic analysis of successful technology regulation case studies, we demonstrate that effective scientific regulation requires a causal theory linking observable test outcomes to future performance - for instance, how a vehicle's crash resistance at one speed predicts its safety at lower speeds. We show that deep learning models, which learn complex statistical patterns from training data without explicit causal mechanisms, preclude such guarantees. This limitation renders traditional regulatory approaches inadequate for ensuring AI safety. Moving forward, we call for regulators to reckon with this limitation, and propose a preliminary two-tiered regulatory framework that acknowledges these constraints: mandating human oversight for high-risk applications while developing appropriate risk communication strategies for lower-risk uses. Our findings highlight the urgent need to reconsider fundamental assumptions in AI regulation and suggest a concrete path forward for policymakers and researchers.

The rapid integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare is revolutionizing medical diagnostics, personalized medicine, and operational efficiency. However, alongside these advancements, significant challenges arise concerning patient data privacy, ethical considerations, and regulatory compliance. This paper examines the dual impact of AI on healthcare, highlighting its transformative potential and the critical need for safeguarding sensitive health information. It explores the role of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) as a regulatory framework for ensuring data privacy and security, emphasizing the importance of robust safeguards and ethical standards in AI-driven healthcare. Through case studies, including AI applications in diabetic retinopathy, oncology, and the controversies surrounding data sharing, this study underscores the ethical and legal complexities of AI implementation. A balanced approach that fosters innovation while maintaining patient trust and privacy is imperative. The findings emphasize the importance of continuous education, transparency, and adherence to regulatory frameworks to harness AI's full potential responsibly and ethically in healthcare.