by Editor BGF | Sep 6, 2026 | Global Alliance for Digital Governance
AI policy need not choose between regulating every new technology and waiting until consequential systems escape effective human control.
September 1, 2026 | Chapel Hill, North Carolina
At the G20 Innovation Ministerial in North Carolina, the United States advanced the Carolina Principles for Emerging Technologies, asking governments to apply sector-specific approaches to AI rule-making, to avoid establishing new AI-specific regulatory bodies, and to reserve new rules for genuinely novel circumstances that existing law cannot address.
Several countries expressed early support, though the principles had not yet become a G20 consensus position on September 1. Agreement followed the next day.
Two philosophies, both now operating
This is no longer a theoretical contrast. Three weeks before Chapel Hill, on August 2, 2026, the European Union’s obligations for high-risk AI systems became enforceable — covering hiring, credit decisions, education access, and law enforcement. The world now runs two regulatory philosophies at once, on either side of the Atlantic.
Broadly, the European approach classifies AI systems according to levels of risk and the contexts in which they are used. The American approach begins with existing sectoral law and asks whether AI introduces a genuinely novel harm that the law does not yet address.
Each answers a real concern. Regulation built on undefined fears can constrain creativity and economic progress; governance that begins only after harm occurs may arrive too late when systems act at machine speed and across jurisdictions.
What neither approach asks
The Carolina Principles contain an important insight: regulate functions and consequences, not technological labels. An AI assisting with an ordinary administrative task is not a new category of sovereign power, and existing law on fraud, discrimination, consumer protection, and product safety may already govern it.
But sectoral classification — whether European or American — sorts systems by where they are used. It does not ask what they are empowered to do.
A hiring tool and an autonomous agent with authority over payments, infrastructure, or other agents may sit in entirely different sectors while raising the same constitutional question: who authorized this power, and who answers for it.
The AIWS third path
AIWS proposes not a midpoint between the two positions but a different axis: classification by authority and consequence.
Do not regulate every technology heavily merely because it is new. But every consequential AI capability must operate within Trust Infrastructure, Human-in-Command, and constitutional accountability.
Consequential AI power — the capacity to make, execute, or materially influence decisions affecting human rights, public institutions, critical infrastructure, national security, or the lives and opportunities of individuals — should meet requirements proportional to that power: verifiable identity, bounded authority, meaningful human command, continuous and testable verification, and Proof of Answerability.
Beacon Papers No. 10 develops the first and last of these as elements of Constitutional Identity: a system able to prove which process acted, but unable to establish who must answer for that action, has not been constitutionally identified.
Proportionality is right. It must not become an excuse for allowing powerful systems to operate without accountability.
The prior question
The Carolina Principles ask when new regulation is truly necessary. AIWS asks a question that comes before it:
What forms of AI power may be deployed only after society can verify who commands them, what limits govern them, and who must answer when they act?
The Carolina Principles can prevent regulation from becoming indiscriminate. AIWS Trust Infrastructure must prevent technological power from becoming unaccountable.
Michael Kratsios, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, speaks alongside U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick at the G20 Innovation Ministerial in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, where the United States advanced the Carolina Principles for Emerging Technologies, September 1, 2026. Photo: U.S. Department of Commerce
by Editor BGF | Sep 6, 2026 | News
But infrastructure of such consequence cannot be built without trust, constitutional limits, and human answerability.
September, 2026, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
At the G20 Innovation Ministerial on September 2, NVIDIA founder and CEO Jensen Huang presented a consequential understanding of artificial intelligence: AI should no longer be regarded merely as a technology industry or a collection of digital products. It is becoming essential infrastructure — comparable in national importance to water, roads, electricity, and the internet.
Huang spoke in a fireside chat hosted by U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, who also hosted sessions with OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, Anthropic co-founder Tom Brown, and Palantir CEO Alex Karp. On the opening day, OSTP Director Michael Kratsios hosted conversations with Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and Google DeepMind co-founder Demis Hassabis.
Jensen Huang and Sam Altman are both honorees of the America 250: AI Pioneers Award, presented by the Boston Global Forum and AIWS at Loeb House, Harvard University, on May 1, 2026. The Boston Global Forum honored them for building the foundations of the AI Age — and, in August 2026, addressed directly the public responsibilities that accompany that achievement.
His intervention places AI at the center of a new economic and strategic reality. If AI is infrastructure, then access to computing power, advanced chips, models, data centers, energy, and trusted digital systems will increasingly shape the prosperity, security, and sovereignty of nations.
A call against regulation based on theoretical harms
Huang urged G20 governments not to construct AI regulation around speculative harms, advising them to regulate practical and actual harm, and not regulate theoretical and hypothetical harm. He added that the burden of safe development falls on the companies building the technology rather than on public officials.
His position broadly aligned with the approach advanced by the United States at the ministerial:
- Governments should not create an entirely new legal system simply because a technology is called AI.
- New regulation should address genuinely novel problems not already covered by existing law.
- Intellectual-property frameworks should enable AI development while protecting and rewarding creators.
- Countries should accelerate investment in data centers, energy, computing capacity, and AI infrastructure so that their people are not left behind.
All twenty G20 members endorsed the U.S.-backed Carolina Principles for Emerging Technologies, which call on countries to invest in foundational research, strengthen commercialization, apply sector-specific approaches rather than new AI-specific regulators, and work more closely with private industry. China joined the consensus despite the wider strategic competition between the American and Chinese AI ecosystems. The Ministerial also produced the AI Prosperity Objectives and the AI Prosperity Compact.
The consensus was not unanimous in spirit. Demis Hassabis emerged as the most notable dissenting voice among the industry leaders present — a reminder that the question of how much restraint the AI Age requires remains open inside the field itself, not only between industry and government.
From a technology sector to national infrastructure
Huang’s argument is larger than a defense of NVIDIA or the commercial interests of the AI industry. It proposes a new conception of AI’s place within the modern state:
AI is no longer only a technology sector. It is becoming foundational infrastructure for the economy, government, science, education, national security, and human creativity.
This shift carries historic consequences. Roads determine where people and goods can travel. Electricity determines what an industrial economy can produce. The internet determines how societies communicate and how knowledge moves. AI infrastructure will increasingly influence what people can know, create, decide, and accomplish.
Once AI is recognized as infrastructure, the central questions become constitutional:
- Who owns and governs the AI infrastructure?
- Who controls compute, chips, models, data, and energy?
- Will citizens and smaller nations have fair access?
- Which consequential decisions may be delegated to AI?
- How can the infrastructure be inspected and verified?
- When an AI system causes harm, who has the authority — and the duty — to answer?
Infrastructure of this magnitude cannot be governed solely by market competition, corporate promises, or technological capability.
Beyond the choice between regulation and innovation
Huang is right that innovation should not be constrained by undefined fears simply because AI is new. Regulation that responds to labels rather than actual functions can become outdated before it takes effect, protect incumbent firms, and prevent societies from benefiting from scientific and technological progress.
But the distinction between a theoretical harm and a foreseeable systemic risk is narrowing rapidly.
The emergence of increasingly capable frontier models, autonomous agents, self-improving systems, and AI-enabled cyber operations demonstrates that some dangers must be addressed before irreversible harm occurs. Waiting for failure is not a responsible governing principle when systems can act at machine speed, operate across national borders, or affect critical infrastructure.
The necessary alternative is neither to regulate everything nor to wait until damage has occurred.
Do not regulate AI merely because it is new. But no consequential AI power should be deployed without verifiable safeguards, bounded authority, Human-in-Command, and Proof of Answerability.
This approach protects innovation while establishing clear requirements for systems capable of exercising significant power.
The AIWS constitutional requirement
The Boston Global Forum and AIWS recognize the importance of Huang’s central insight. AI is becoming infrastructure — not only for economies, but for civilization itself.
AIWS therefore adds a constitutional dimension to the infrastructure debate. Through AIWS Trust Infrastructure, AIWS Trust Order, Human-in-Command, Constitutional Silicon, Constitutional Identity, and Proof of Answerability, AIWS seeks to ensure that technological capability remains connected to legitimate human authority and responsibility.
A system may be technically secure yet constitutionally dangerous. It may reliably identify which machine or process performed an action while failing to establish which human being authorized that action and must answer for its consequences.
For AIWS, infrastructure worthy of civilization must do more than operate efficiently. It must uphold human dignity, preserve human sovereignty, enable verification, constrain the exercise of power, and maintain an unbroken line of answerability from consequential AI action to responsible human authority.
Jensen Huang is right that AI must be understood as essential infrastructure. AIWS adds the constitutional requirement: the infrastructure of the AI Age must remain trustworthy, verifiable, bounded by legitimate authority, and ultimately answerable to humanity.
NVIDIA President and CEO Jensen Huang, an America at 250: AI Pioneers honoree, speaks at the G20 Innovation Ministerial as U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick listens in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, September 2, 2026. Photo: REUTERS
by Editor BGF | Sep 6, 2026 | Shinzo Abe Initiative for Peace and Security, News
The Asian Foundation of the AIWS Lumina Cities
Through the Shinzo Abe Initiative for Peace and Security, four pioneering Asian cities join Boston and Rome in building AIWS Civilization — the Civilization of Human–AI Co-Creation.
The AIWS Lumina Cities link six pioneering cities across three continents. Four of them — Hà Nội, Nha Trang, Tokyo and Osaka — form the Asian foundation of that constellation, and the Shinzo Abe Initiative for Peace and Security is the channel through which they now advance together.
The work has already begun. Văn Miếu – Quốc Tử Giám, Vietnam’s thousand-year seat of learning, has agreed to partner with the Boston Global Forum and regards the hosting of BGF honorees as an honour; it is the Asian home of the AIWS Lumina Laureates, and will host AIWS Lumina Lectures. In Nha Trang, the leadership of Khánh Hòa has responded to the Boston Global Forum’s proposal and will convene to implement it, opening the way for the Gathering of 100 World AI Pioneers.
The four Asian cities
Hà Nội — history, education, and civilizational dialogue. A city where the principles of AIWS Civilization can be presented at Văn Miếu – Quốc Tử Giám and carried into governance, education, and international cooperation. Home of the AIWS Film and Culture Park.
Nha Trang — natural beauty, openness, and creative spirit. Home to AIWS House, AIWS Lumina programs, Hồn Trà ceremonies, and initiatives celebrating the beauty of humanity in the AI Age.
Tokyo — technology, strategic leadership, and international cooperation. The principal platform for the AIWS Trust Order, AIWS Trust Infrastructure, Human-in-Command, and a free and open Indo-Pacific.
Osaka — enterprise, innovation, and human vitality. The bridge connects industry, universities, and young creators to practical models of Human–AI Co-Creation.
Boston and Rome
Boston is the founding home of the Boston Global Forum and AIWS, where pioneering ideas take form through the Beacon Papers, the AIWS Civilization Lectures, and the Constitution for Humanity in the Age of AI. Rome carries the inheritance of human civilization — spiritual reflection, human dignity, and dialogue among cultures and faiths — and is where technological progress can be brought into conversation with the enduring moral values of humanity.
Rome belongs in this constellation for a reason that lies at the heart of the Shinzo Abe Initiative. Prime Minister Abe’s vision was of an order founded on values, not on geography alone. Rome is where those values meet one of humanity’s most enduring moral and spiritual inheritances.
What the six cities will do together
- AIWS Civilization Lectures and high-level dialogues on peace, human dignity, freedom, and responsibility in the AI Age
- Implementation of AIWS Trust Infrastructure and trustworthy AI cooperation
- The AIWS Lumina Series, connecting education, music, the arts, heritage, and human encounter
- Exchanges among governments, universities, scientists, AI Pioneers, artists, businesses, students, and young leaders
- AIWS Lumina Labs and international Human–AI Co-Creation projects
- Hồn Trà ceremonies and the creation and sharing of Hạt Sáng — Seeds of Light: contributions that are new, beautiful, and noble
- An annual journey of events rotating among Asia, Boston, and Rome
This is not a new brand. It is a program of the Shinzo Abe Initiative for Peace and Security, carrying forward Prime Minister Abe’s vision of a free, open, peaceful, and prosperous Indo-Pacific — and extending it into a wider partnership for humanity in the AI Age.
Hà Nội brings historical depth and the spirit of learning. Nha Trang brings beauty and creative energy. Tokyo brings strategic leadership and trust. Osaka brings innovation and human enterprise. Boston brings pioneering ideas and constitutional architecture. Rome brings spiritual depth and the inheritance of civilization.
From Hà Nội, Nha Trang, Tokyo and Osaka to Boston and Rome, six cities can illuminate a shared path — where technology strengthens peace, innovation serves human dignity, cultures enrich one another, and people remain the authors of civilization in the Age of AI.
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, whose vision inspires the Shinzo Abe Initiative for Peace and Security and the AIWS Lumina Cities program
by Editor BGF | Sep 6, 2026 | Papers & Reports, News, Publications
From Proof of Identity to Proof of Answerability
Artificial intelligence has crossed from producing answers to taking actions. AI agents can now open accounts, move funds, file documents, reconfigure infrastructure, and instruct other agents — often across organizational and national boundaries, at machine speed.
Existing identity systems can establish which agent acted and what it was authorized to do. But they do not yet reliably answer the constitutional question:
When an AI agent’s action affects or harms someone, who must come forward and answer for it?
In Beacon Papers No. 10, “No AI Agent Without Identity,” Nguyen Anh Tuan, Founder and Chief Architect of AIWS, introduces the doctrine of Constitutional Identity. An AI agent is not constitutionally identified merely because it possesses verifiable credentials. It is identified only when every consequential action remains linked to a human being who has the authority, capacity, and duty to answer for it.
The paper advances a fourth foundational requirement — Proof of Answerability:
Constitutional Identity = Proof of Identity + Proof of Mandate + Proof of Accountable Action + Proof of Answerability
Building on Beacon Papers No. 9, Civilization Begins with the Chip, No. 10 completes the constitutional chain from machine power to human responsibility:
Chip → Agent → Action → Human Answerer
A break anywhere in this chain disqualifies an AI agent from exercising consequential power in society.
Beacon Papers No. 10 proposes seven principles and five practical tests for Constitutional Identity, including prior designation of a human answerer, authority commensurate with power, inherited answerability across chains of agents, the prevention of orphaned authority, meaningful review for affected persons, and identity without surveillance.
Its message is direct:
No AI agent without identity.
No identity without answerability.
No answerability without a person.
Read and download Beacon Papers No. 10: “No AI Agent Without Identity — From Proof of Identity to Proof of Answerability.”
AI Pioneers and leaders at the Boston Global Forum’s America at 250 Conference on May 1, 2026 — affirming that responsibility in the AI Age must ultimately remain human
by Editor BGF | Aug 30, 2026 | News
From Silicon Valley to the United Nations, Nguyen Anh Tuan will advance a new civilizational architecture for humanity in the AI Age
September 2026 will mark an important series of international dialogues on AIWS Trust Infrastructure, the Constitution for Humanity in the Age of AI, and AIWS Civilization.
On September 18, at the Silicon Valley Peace Conference, Nguyen Anh Tuan, Co-founder and CEO of the Boston Global Forum and Founder and Chief Architect of AIWS, will deliver the opening keynote address. He will present the Constitution for Humanity in the Age of AI and AIWS Civilization — the Civilization of Human–AI Co-Creation as foundations for peace, human dignity, and responsible human leadership in the AI Age.
From September 21 to 23 in New York, during the United Nations General Assembly, Nguyen Anh Tuan will participate in dialogues, UNGA side events, and roundtables with heads of state and international leaders attending the General Assembly.
The discussions will focus on AIWS Trust Infrastructure, the Constitution for Humanity in the Age of AI, and the development of AIWS Civilization — a new civilizational architecture in which human beings remain the authors of values, the holders of responsibility, and the leaders of Human–AI Co-Creation.
Together, the Silicon Valley and New York dialogues will bring these initiatives directly into conversations with political leaders, policymakers, peacebuilders, and technology pioneers. They will also serve as important steps toward the Boston Global Forum Conference on November 10, 2026, where BGF will further advance the institutions and architecture needed for a trustworthy, human-centered civilization in the AI Age.
