Global AI Governance Stalls Because No One Can Agree on What AI Even Means

The global conversation about artificial intelligence is stuck in a frustrating paradox. Nearly every country agrees that AI needs some form of international coordination—whether through export controls, governance frameworks, or summit commitments. Yet despite these calls, actual progress on binding, enforceable agreements remains nonexistent.

A big part of the problem isn’t just politics or competing national interests. It’s that governments don’t even share a common definition of what AI is. Some see AI as the flashy large language models like ChatGPT. Others think of it as superintelligent systems that could surpass human capabilities. Still others lump in everyday machine learning algorithms. This definitional chaos makes it nearly impossible to agree on what exactly needs governing.

Beyond definitions, there’s a deeper disagreement about AI’s future impact. Some experts predict AI’s economic and societal effects will be significant but gradual, unfolding over decades and limited to certain sectors. Others warn of a rapid, civilization-scale transformation in just a few years, with superintelligence looming on the horizon.

These conflicting views shape how governments approach AI policy. Those fearing imminent superintelligence push for tight control and close ties with whoever commands that power. Others, viewing AI as a slower-moving technology, focus on integrating AI widely for economic competitiveness, much like rural electrification efforts in the past.

This epistemic divide helps explain why international AI governance talks are so fractured and voluntary commitments so weak. Without a shared understanding of what AI is and what it means for the future, coordinated global action remains out of reach. Meanwhile, the tech industry and authoritarian regimes continue to advance AI unchecked, raising urgent questions about accountability, security, and democratic control.

If the world’s governments can’t agree on what AI actually is, how can they possibly govern it? This failure leaves us vulnerable to the very risks they claim to want to manage.