by Editor BGF | Sep 20, 2026 | World Leader for Peace and Security, News, World Leaders in AIWS Award Updates
Nguyen Anh Tuan, Co-Founder, Co-Chair and CEO of the Boston Global Forum and Founder and Chief Architect of AIWS, will speak at the XXXVII High-Level Meeting, “Rebuilding Trust, Cooperation and Global Stability for a Shared Future,” on September 23–24, 2026, at the Harvard Club of New York City.
Organized as a side event to the United Nations General Assembly, the meeting will bring together an exceptional assembly of former heads of state and government, United Nations leaders, diplomats, and global thinkers. Participants include former British Prime Ministers Gordon Brown and Theresa May; Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga, former President of Latvia and recipient of the Boston Global Forum’s 2019 World Leader for Peace and Security Award; former European Council President Charles Michel; Nobel Peace Laureate Muhammad Yunus; WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus; UNCTAD Secretary-General Rebeca Grynspan; UN Women Executive Director Sima Bahous; and several former Presidents of the United Nations General Assembly.
On September 24, Nguyen Anh Tuan will speak in the panel “AI, Digital Sovereignty and the Future of Global Governance,” moderated by Zlatko Lagumdžija, Permanent Representative of Bosnia and Herzegovina to the United Nations and former Prime Minister. The panel also includes Kerry Kennedy, President of Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights; Bernardo Mariano Jr., Assistant Secretary-General and Chief Information Technology Officer of the United Nations; former Croatian President Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović; former U.S. Federal Communications Commissioner Susan Ness; and other distinguished leaders.
Nguyen Anh Tuan will present The Constitution for Humanity in the Age of AI as a foundational pillar of AIWS Civilization—the Civilization of Human–AI Co-Creation.
The Constitution is not a constitution for machines. It is a human covenant establishing the principles and institutions needed to ensure that human dignity, sovereignty, freedom, and responsibility remain paramount as artificial intelligence grows more powerful. It affirms that humanity must remain the author of values, the source of legitimate authority, and the final decision-maker in matters affecting human life and civilization.
His presentation will connect these constitutional principles with AIWS Trust Infrastructure, Human-in-Command, Information Trust, and practical mechanisms that make advanced AI identifiable, accountable, and answerable to humanity.
By bringing the Constitution into dialogue with world leaders and United Nations institutions, Nguyen Anh Tuan will advance a central mission of AIWS Civilization: transforming the governance of AI into a shared responsibility for peace and the future of humanity.
Professor Alex Pentland and Nguyen Anh Tuan, co-founders of the Boston Global Forum, present the 2019 World Leader for Peace and Security Award to Dr. Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga, former President of Latvia and then President of the World Leadership Alliance–Club de Madrid, in Madrid on October 21, 2019—honoring a lifetime of leadership in democracy, peace, and international cooperation.
by Editor BGF | Sep 20, 2026 | Papers & Reports, News, Publications
Beyond the False Choice Between Safety and Speed
Two powerful arguments are shaping the future of AI. OpenAI and Anthropic warn that rapidly advancing capabilities demand stronger safeguards, independent evaluation, and coordination before humanity loses effective control. President Donald Trump and NVIDIA emphasize speed, innovation, and national competitiveness, warning that excessive restraint could surrender technological leadership to strategic rivals.
Both positions address real concerns. Neither, by itself, establishes a durable order for governing AI power. Who authorizes consequential capabilities? Who verifies safety commitments? Who must answer when systems exceed their authority—and what gives competing nations and companies a reason to exercise reciprocal restraint?
Beacon Papers No. 12 presents the AIWS Trust Order as a framework for answering these questions. Six mechanisms connect innovation to accountable human authority: a Frontier Capability Registry, Constitutional Mandate and Bounded Authority, Proof of Answerability, an AI Incident Exchange, AIWS Trust Rating and Trust Index, and an Emergency Protocol. Verified commitments become a basis for market access, research partnerships, and trusted cooperation.
The paper’s central message: humanity can advance with courage while building institutions capable of governing the power it creates. Trust is the condition that keeps competition from becoming catastrophe.
Download Beacon Papers No. 12: The AI Race Needs a Trust Order
Boston Global Forum introduced the AIWS Trust Order at Interop Tokyo 2026, establishing a framework for trustworthy AI grounded in human authority, constitutional safeguards, and verifiable responsibility. Tokyo, June 12, 2026.
by Editor BGF | Sep 20, 2026 | News, Shaping Futures
Claude now leads a quarter of Anthropic’s model R&D. Self-improvement is not self-authorization.
Anthropic disclosed on September 17 that, as of August, about 90 percent of its model research and development tasks involved collaboration with Claude — the model doing large portions of the work under close human direction. Claude now leads 26 percent of the company’s model R&D, up from none in February.
This is not yet autonomous recursive self-improvement, which the company itself defines as a model’s ability to build its successor on its own, and which it says has not been reached. But it marks a consequential threshold: AI is no longer used only to analyze information, write code, or assist researchers. It is beginning to help create the next generation of AI.
The development holds enormous promise. Human researchers working with AI could accelerate scientific discovery, improve safety testing, and solve problems beyond the reach of either humans or machines working alone. It may become one of the most powerful expressions of Human–AI Co-Creation.
But a constitutional boundary must remain clear:
Self-improvement must never become self-authorization.
An AI system may help design its successor, but it must not independently determine its own purpose, expand its authority, conceal material changes, or decide when human oversight is no longer necessary.
Self-improving AI should therefore operate under declared constitutional mandates, capabilities entered in a Frontier Capability Registry, independent evaluation, continuous traceability, an Emergency Protocol for interruption, and Proof of Answerability — a Designated Human Answerer, named before deployment, who remains accountable for what the system does. AIWS Trust Standards 1.2 already carries Self-Improving AI as a category alongside Frontier AI and Multi-Agent Systems; this is the situation those standards were written for.
This is a central principle of AIWS Civilization and of the Constitution for Humanity in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: AI may extend humanity’s intelligence and creative power, but it cannot become the source of its own legitimacy.
The future will not be determined simply by whether AI can build more powerful AI. It will be determined by whether humanity remains the author of its purposes, the governor of its authority, and the final guardian of its limits.
by Editor BGF | Sep 20, 2026 | Global Alliance for Digital Governance
BGF–AIWS supports President Trump’s AI Force — and proposes a constitutional framework for its mission.
America should move rapidly in AI. The greater its technological power becomes, however, the stronger its architecture of trust, human authority, and verifiable responsibility must be.
On September 19, President Donald Trump announced plans to establish an “AI Force” and appoint an “AI czar” to coordinate the United States’ approach to artificial intelligence. He also rejected calls for broad constraints that could slow American innovation and weaken the nation’s position in its strategic competition with China. Details concerning the new institution’s mandate, authority, structure, and oversight have not yet been released.
The Boston Global Forum and AIWS support President Trump’s decision to create an AI Force. AI is becoming a foundational source of economic strength, scientific discovery, national security, and geopolitical influence. The United States must develop AI rapidly, invest in chips, computing, energy, research, and human talent, and preserve its leadership in the global competition.
But speed and trust must advance together.
Because the operating mechanism of the AI Force has not yet been defined, BGF–AIWS proposes that it be built upon the constitutional and institutional principles developed through the Boston Declaration of July 4, 2026, the AIWS Trust Order, the AIWS Trust Infrastructure, and the Beacon Papers.
The AI Force should include:
- A legitimate constitutional mandate and clearly bounded authority — where its authority comes from, and how that authority is limited and technically enforced. (Beacon Papers No. 11, No Power Without a Mandate; No. 12, The AI Race Needs a Trust Order.)
- A Frontier Capability Registry for consequential AI systems, so that a government knows what exists before it is deployed. (No. 12.)
- Independent evaluation and continuous verification — “Those who would ask for trust must first earn it, and stand ready to be measured” (Boston Declaration, Principle IX) — delivered through the four mechanisms of the Tokyo Compact and AIWS Trust Standards v1.0, with four-tier certification and the Automated Trust Monitor.
- Constitutional Identity and Proof of Answerability, with a Designated Human Answerer named before deployment who holds authority to halt and revoke. (Beacon Papers No. 10, No AI Agent Without Identity.)
- Human-in-Command for decisions with severe, systemic, or irreversible consequences. (Beacon Papers No. 5, Who May Command?)
- Mandatory disclosure through an AI Incident Exchange, so that one institution’s failure becomes everyone’s early warning. (No. 12.)
- Emergency protocols for frontier AI, cyber, biological, infrastructure, and national-security risks, deciding in advance who may stop what. (No. 12.)
- Oversight by lawful institutions, independent experts, and the public — the Boston Declaration’s third principle holds that human beings must retain “the right to understand, to refuse, and to intervene,” and against a state instrument those three rights are exercised through published oversight or not at all.
These safeguards should not become barriers to innovation. Properly designed, they will strengthen innovation by creating confidence among citizens, companies, investors, allies, and international partners.
BGF–AIWS therefore supports both central elements of President Trump’s position: America should establish a national AI Force, and America should move quickly to develop AI. At the same time, no consequential AI power — whether exercised by a company, an AI agent, or the government itself — should operate without legitimate authority, constitutional limits, and verifiable responsibility.
Capability is not authority. National leadership is not a license for unaccountable power.
Nor is this a cost imposed on American speed. America does not win this race by coming to resemble its competitor; it wins as the nation whose systems other nations are willing to trust. That trust is the one advantage a closed system cannot copy.
The Boston Declaration was proclaimed on the Fourth of July, and it sets the measure for everything built since: “Artificial Intelligence may surpass human intelligence in many domains. It must never surpass the primacy of the human person.”
An AI Force built on these principles could become more than an instrument of technological competition. It could demonstrate that the United States can lead the Age of Artificial Intelligence by advancing innovation, freedom, security, human dignity, and constitutional responsibility together.
Move fast in innovation. Lead first in trust.
by Editor BGF | Sep 13, 2026 | News
From AI World Society to AIWS Civilization: Building a Civilizational Architecture for the Age of AI
On October 1, 2026, Nguyen Anh Tuan, Co-Founder, Co-Chair and CEO of the Boston Global Forum and Chief Architect of AIWS, will deliver a seminar at Lincoln University, New Zealand, tracing the development of AIWS from a model for governing artificial intelligence to a comprehensive architecture for civilization in the AI Age.
The Boston Global Forum launched the AI World Society in 2017 to advance a future in which AI is safe, trustworthy, human-centered, and accountable. As artificial intelligence has grown from a powerful technology into an infrastructure shaping economies, governments, knowledge, culture, and human life, the central question has also become larger. Humanity must determine not only how AI should be governed, but what kind of civilization it will create with AI.
The seminar will present AIWS Civilization—the Civilization of Human–AI Co-Creation—as the world’s first comprehensive architecture for a civilization in the Age of Artificial Intelligence. Founded on Human Dignity, protected by Human Sovereignty and Human-in-Command, and supported by AIWS Trust Infrastructure, the architecture enables human beings and AI to co-create while ensuring that humanity remains the author of values, the holder of legitimate authority, and the maker of its own future.
Nguyen Anh Tuan will also introduce the Human Advancement Test, a defining measure of progress in the AI Age:
If AI produces better answers while human beings lose the ability to think, judge, and create, civilization has not advanced.
AIWS Civilization therefore seeks more than increasingly capable machines. It calls for AI to strengthen human intelligence, creativity, responsibility, and wisdom, guided by the AIWS Lumina values of Love, Creativity, Nobility, and Wisdom.
The seminar is presented by Lincoln University’s Complex Systems, Big Data and Informatics Initiative under its AI for the Future of Earth program.
Thursday, October 1, 2026
1:00–2:00 p.m.
Lincoln University, New Zealand
AI advances. Humanity must advance further.
by Editor BGF | Sep 13, 2026 | Shinzo Abe Initiative for Peace and Security, News
More than two-thirds of Japanese companies support Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s economic policies, according to a Reuters survey published on September 9. Her growth agenda calls for major public and private investment in AI, semiconductors and other strategic industries, with investment projected to exceed ¥370 trillion by fiscal 2040. Reuters
In 2023, while serving as Japan’s Minister of State for Economic Security, Takaichi was honored by the Boston Global Forum with the World Leader in AIWS Award. That recognition anticipated the growing importance of her leadership at the intersection of technology, economic security and national strategy.
The result reflects more than business approval of a new economic program. It signals the continuing development of Shinzo Abe’s vision for a confident, capable and internationally consequential Japan.
Abe’s Abenomics sought to restore growth, overcome stagnation and renew national confidence. Takaichi is extending that ambition into an era in which technological capability has become a foundation of national power.
AI and semiconductors are not simply growth industries. They shape technological sovereignty, economic resilience, secure supply chains and Japan’s ability to remain a trusted strategic power. The transition is therefore:
- From Abenomics to strategic investment in AI and semiconductors;
- From economic recovery to national technological capability;
- From traditional security to economic and supply-chain security;
- From a Free and Open Indo-Pacific to one that is also resilient and trusted.
This is continuity, not repetition. Abe restored Japan’s confidence and strategic purpose. Takaichi is adapting that inheritance to a world in which computing power, advanced chips and trusted technology increasingly determine the freedom of nations.
Shinzo Abe restored Japan’s strategic confidence. Sanae Takaichi is carrying that confidence into the age of AI, semiconductors, and economic security.
by Editor BGF | Sep 13, 2026 | Papers & Reports, News, Publications
Capability Is Not Authority — Closing the Authorization Gap Between Human Goals and AI Action
A person asks an AI agent to reduce infrastructure costs. The agent discovers that shutting down reserve capacity will achieve the goal. It has the technical access—but was it ever authorized to reduce the system’s resilience?
This is the authorization gap: the distance between an assigned objective and a verifiable mandate for the consequential means used to achieve it.
In Beacon Papers No. 11, Nguyen Anh Tuan establishes a constitutional principle for the age of autonomous AI:
An instruction to achieve an outcome is not authorization to use every available means.
The paper introduces the Constitutional Mandate—a verifiable grant of authority defining the source, purpose, scope, consequence limits, duration, delegation and human answerability governing an AI system’s actions.
It also identifies aggregate escalation: the danger that individually permitted actions may combine into a consequence no one authorized. A series of allowed payments may exceed a shared budget; several permitted disclosures may together expose protected information; individually approved shutdowns may eliminate essential redundancy.
Beacon Papers No. 11 therefore proposes six tests of constitutional authority: the Means, Access, Aggregate, Delegation, Revocation and Emergency Tests. A system must remain useful while stopping when consequential action exceeds its mandate.
The paper continues the architecture developed across three Beacon Papers:
No. 9 asks where constitutional limits are enforced. No. 10 asks who must answer. No. 11 asks who may authorize—and precisely what has been authorized.
Human beings may delegate execution. AI systems may propose better methods and request expanded authority. But they must never infer unlimited power from the goals they receive.
Capability expands what can be done. Constitutional authority determines what may be done—and preserves humanity’s right to decide the difference.
Read and Download Beacon Papers No. 11
by Editor BGF | Sep 13, 2026 | News, Shaping Futures
On September 8, OpenAI announced that an unreleased internal model, running roughly 10,000 concurrent agents, produced a proposed resolution of the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem in about 88 hours. GPT-6 Astra then formalized and verified the proof in Lean over a further 17 hours. The company published a 166-page proof together with its Lean formalization, and the result now awaits sustained independent scrutiny by the mathematical community.
One detail deserves more attention than the headline. OpenAI reports that it began the effort on September 1, after a rumor it later connected to two mathematicians working on the same problem — while stating that it saw none of their work. The machine did not outrun humanity from a standing start. It started running because human beings were getting close.
Terence Tao offered the sharpest caution. An automated route to a result, he observed, is like a guide who finds one path to a waterfall. It has value. But once a path exists, people take it and stop looking for others.
That is the question this moment puts to civilization. AI’s achievement is not yet humanity’s advancement. Humanity advances only when a breakthrough enlarges human understanding, judgment, creativity and responsibility — and it does not advance if a generation stops searching because a machine has already found one way through.
The result also opens questions science must now answer. Who is the author of work produced by ten thousand agents? How are provenance, influence and priority to be traced? Who receives recognition, and who answers for the result? Human–AI Co-Creation in science requires that AI’s expanding power be joined to human interpretation, transparent provenance, independent verification and accountable responsibility.
AI Is Beginning to Design the Silicon That Powers AI
OpenAI reports that its own models carried the Jalapeño inference chip from initial design to tape-out in nine months, and that AI-generated implementations of selected attention and mixture-of-experts blocks ran 1.5 to 1.8 times faster than versions written by its own engineers.
AI is no longer only running on the silicon. It is beginning to write it. Constitutional Silicon is therefore no longer a forward-looking proposal: where in the design chain, and under whose authority, are human command and verifiable safeguards embedded — when part of that chain is written by AI?
by Editor BGF | Sep 13, 2026 | World Leader for Peace and Security, News, World Leaders in AIWS Award Updates
On September 7, at Westminster, Professor Stuart Russell — America 250: AI Pioneer and a Founding Signatory of The Boston Declaration — told an audience of British parliamentarians that advanced AI carries the risk of a catastrophe on the scale of Chernobyl, and then named a larger one:
“The other possibility is a much larger catastrophe, in which humanity loses control irreversibly. But we have no say over whether we continue to exist.”
The session was convened ahead of a bill introduced by MP Alex Sobel to ban the development of superintelligent AI in the United Kingdom — reportedly the first such bill in a G7 parliament. Former Defence Secretary Des Browne told the same room that superintelligent AI poses a threat on the scale of nuclear war, possibly greater. Russell’s argument is not about forecasting. It is about sequence: binding safeguards must be established before systems become too powerful to control, not after a catastrophe demonstrates what was missing.
The same principle governs his long campaign against autonomous weapons. Once a machine can select targets and apply lethal force without meaningful human decision, control has not merely weakened. Authority over life and death has changed hands.
This reaches the heart of Human-in-Command, a foundational principle of AIWS Civilization and the Second Principle of The Boston Declaration. Human control cannot mean nominal supervision after a system has already chosen its objective, its method and its consequences. Human beings must retain the practical ability to authorize, supervise, interrupt, override and terminate consequential AI action — and that ability must be built into the architecture, the institutions, and the hardware through which AI power is exercised.
The constitutional question is not whether AI can decide faster than people. It is whether that capability confers legitimate authority to determine consequences for human beings.
It does not. Capability is not authority. The capacity to identify a target does not confer the right to attack it. The ability to operate infrastructure does not authorize changing the conditions under which society depends upon it. Intelligence, however advanced, cannot manufacture its own mandate.
Human control cannot be an afterthought. It must be the constitutional condition under which AI power is permitted to exist.
