Ethics & Policy
The AI Ethics Brief #164: Balancing Faith and Governance
Welcome to The AI Ethics Brief, a bi-weekly publication by the Montreal AI Ethics Institute. We publish every other Tuesday at 10 AM ET. Stay informed on the evolving world of AI ethics with key research, insightful reporting, and thoughtful commentary. Learn more at montrealethics.ai/about.
Follow MAIEI on Bluesky and LinkedIn. ❤️ Support Our Work.
-
Can the Vatican Shape AI Ethics? Pope Leo XIV Signals Intent
-
Care or Codependence? The Ethics of AI in Aging Populations
-
When AI Overloads the Grid: From New Zealand to Spain
-
AI Policy Corner: Singapore’s National AI Strategy 2.0
-
Responsible AI as a Business Necessity: Three Forces Driving Market Adoption – Tech Policy Press
-
SHADES: Assessing Multilingual Stereotypes in Large Language Models – Research Summary
-
AI’s Biggest Secret — Creators Don’t Understand It, Experts Split – Forbes
-
Duolingo will replace contract workers with AI. The company is going to be ‘AI-first,’ says its CEO. – The Verge
-
Satya Nadella says AI is now writing 30% of Microsoft’s code but real change is still many years away – SiliconANGLE

At the Point Zero Forum 2025 in Zurich, a roundtable of global leaders, including regulators, central bankers, cloud providers, and civil society organizations, convened under the Chatham House Rule to explore how we might balance innovation, regulation, and ethics in the global race to govern AI.
The Montreal AI Ethics Institute (MAIEI) participated in the session, contributing insights on civic engagement, trust-building, and responsible AI deployment and procurement in high-impact sectors.
The discussion offered five key insights into how jurisdictions could navigate this complex landscape:
-
The global impact of the EU AI Act was a central focus. Its risk-based classification of AI systems, including outright bans on use cases like social scoring, sets a precedent in AI governance. However, concerns were raised that overly rigid compliance obligations could drive startups, talent, and capital out of the EU. Participants emphasized the need for regulatory clarity paired with agility to foster innovation.
-
Principles-based regulatory models were seen as a pragmatic alternative. Jurisdictions favouring sector-specific approaches, such as the UK’s vertical model, in contrast to the EU’s horizontal framework, enable regulators to tailor oversight to their mandates. Similar experimentation-driven models are emerging in Singapore and Japan, using regulatory sandboxes and iterative guidance shaped by real-world use cases.
-
Ethical AI is emerging as a strategic advantage. In sectors like finance and healthcare, responsible AI practices are increasingly influencing procurement decisions. Certification frameworks, such as ISO/IEC 42001, are gaining traction as signals of trust and governance maturity. With regulatory shifts, market pressures, and public expectations converging, ethical AI is moving from a “nice-to-have” to a business necessity.
Note: We explore this further in our recent Tech Policy Press op-ed, “Responsible AI as a Business Necessity: Three Forces Driving Market Adoption.” -
Collaborative ecosystems are essential. Public-private co-creation of policy frameworks was highlighted as key to effective governance, alongside the vital role of civil society and bottom-up public pressure in shaping responsible AI. As more people become informed about AI, engage in public discourse, and organize around workplace concerns, expectations for transparency, fairness, and avenues for redress are rising. Governance mechanisms must be rigorous yet accessible, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and startups, and responsive to these bottom-up forces. Labeling systems, akin to sustainability or data privacy certifications, could help signal trust, but must avoid becoming exclusionary or performative.
-
Balancing innovation with precaution remained a central theme. While regulation is essential for safeguarding rights and public trust, participants debated whether the current risk posture is overly cautious. One provocation captured the tension:
“The question isn’t whether AI should be regulated, but how to do so without stifling what makes it valuable.”
AI governance is no longer hypothetical. It is being shaped in real time by cross-border debates over values, incentives, and risk. These discussions at the Point Zero Forum suggest that ethical AI can indeed be a competitive advantage if regulation is designed with flexibility, collaboration, and global interoperability in mind.
Many thanks to the Global Finance & Technology Network (GFTN) and the Swiss State Secretariat for International Finance for organizing the forum. We look forward to continued engagement with the Point Zero Forum community.
Please share your thoughts with the MAIEI community:
What Happened: On May 8, 2025, Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost was elected the new Bishop of Rome, taking the name Pope Leo XIV. In his first address to the College of Cardinals, he named artificial intelligence as one of the defining challenges of our time. Citing Pope Leo XIII, who led the Catholic Church through the upheaval of the Industrial Revolution, as inspiration, Pope Leo XIV emphasized the need for ethical reflection as society navigates another transformative era. Notably, he holds a Bachelor of Science in Mathematics from Villanova University (1977) and received an honorary Doctor of Humanities, honoris causa, from the same institution in 2014.
📌 MAIEI’s Take and Why It Matters:
The election of Pope Leo XIV may mark a significant moment for the global AI ethics and responsible AI communities. His remarks suggest an unusual depth of engagement with AI, not just as a technical or economic force, but as a moral and societal one. His decision to draw parallels between the Industrial Revolution and today’s AI transformation is especially noteworthy, as it places justice, labour, and human dignity at the centre of his message.
That Pope Leo XIV is a mathematics graduate is not incidental. In the AI space, there is a persistent belief that mathematically rooted systems are objective and neutral. But as we’ve argued at MAIEI, algorithms often encode and amplify existing societal biases and power dynamics embedded in their training data.
“People have started to realize, well, these [AI] systems aren’t infallible. The belief in their objectivity, because they are mathematically rooted— there is no such thing. They’re simply a reflection, perhaps an amplification, of existing structures, systemic and otherwise, within society.”
— The late Abhishek Gupta, Founder, Montreal AI Ethics Institute
A mathematically literate leader with a pastoral commitment to human dignity may be uniquely positioned to challenge the myth of AI neutrality, recognizing that fairness in algorithmic systems is not a technical outcome, but a collective societal decision.
While the Vatican’s influence differs from that of lawmakers or regulators, Pope Leo XIV’s voice could lend moral clarity to global debates on disinformation, automation, labour displacement, and algorithmic accountability. His engagement may offer a bridge between theological ethics and civic AI governance, one rooted in tradition, but responsive to the ethical imperatives of our time.
What Happened: The Aging and Disability Resource Center (ADRC) of Dunn County, Wisconsin, is piloting a program to provide 250 ElliQ elderly assistance robots to seniors over the age of 60. Similar to Alexa or Siri, ElliQ is an AI-based virtual assistant that speaks to and performs tasks for its users. However, ElliQ differs from other AI assistants as it is specifically designed to benefit seniors through combating loneliness, providing health reminders, and initiating companionship with users. In the ADRC pilot program funded by the Inclusa Foundation, qualifying seniors receive the ElliQ assistant for free for a year in exchange for completing quarterly surveys.
📌 MAIEI’s Take and Why It Matters:
This pilot reflects a broader global shift toward deploying AI tools to support aging populations. In 2022, the New York State Office for the Aging (NYSOFA) launched a similar program, releasing approximately 900 ElliQ devices to New York seniors. Other states have also implemented ElliQ programs, including Florida and Washington. Moreover, PARO, a seal companion designed in Japan, has helped elderly patients with dementia, anxiety, and loneliness. The PARO seal contains a variety of sensors which utilize AI technology to process its environment and respond accordingly. Unlike ElliQ, the PARO seal mimics an animal, not a person, and therefore does not speak to its users.
The growing presence of these technologies is a matter of controversy. On the one hand, ElliQ can give medication reminders, facilitate convenient communication with friends and family, and decrease loneliness. In fact, the NYSOFA pilot program demonstrated a 95% decrease in loneliness for ElliQ users. However, they also raise serious concerns. Chief among them are data privacy and the risks of anthropomorphizing AI companions (which we also discussed in The AI Ethics Brief #163), which may lead to further isolation. The ElliQ FAQ page fails to disclose the level of user data protection, omitting the aggregate, anonymized sharing of data with third parties outlined in their privacy policy. Meanwhile, some users have described ElliQ as a “best friend” or preferable to human interaction, highlighting ethical issues around false intimacy and emotional dependency.
In our view, AI has a role to play in elderly care, but only under stronger data governance and protection mechanisms, as well as safeguards against emotional over-attachment. Rather than replace human connection, AI-backed devices like ElliQ could serve as tools to enable it. Devices could arrange virtual game nights or museum tours between app users, or connect them to local community events to attend with friends or family. Functions such as appointment reminders and video calls are useful, but conversations should ideally happen with people, not programs.
What Happened: The invisible backbone of our AI revolution has suddenly become glaringly visible. As data centres devour electricity at unprecedented rates, the physical infrastructure of our power grids is buckling under pressure that nobody quite anticipated. In New Zealand, Vector’s sobering forecast of a 60% surge in data centre electricity consumption over the coming decade has forced uncomfortable questions about priorities and planning. Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, Spain and Portugal’s recent nationwide blackout on April 28th wasn’t just an inconvenience; it was a stark warning. The cascading power incidents that preceded the total failure, as documented by Reuters, have exposed the fragility of systems we’ve taken for granted. Throughout Europe, policymakers find themselves caught in an insoluble balancing act: should they pursue AI dominance or prioritize energy stability? This tension isn’t merely technical, it’s the physical manifestation of digital ambitions colliding with material constraints.
📌 MAIEI’s Take and Why It Matters:
The ethical dimensions of this collision run deeper than most tech debates. When hospitals compete with server farms for reliable power during shortages, who decides which lights stay on? The question of justice in allocation becomes worryingly concrete. AI’s energy appetite risks derailing national climate commitments, even as those same governments enshrine ambitious sustainability targets into law. More troubling still is how ordinary households quietly shoulder the financial burden of grid expansions primarily serving private tech interests, with minimal democratic oversight. Such dual power imbalance, both electrical and political, risks cementing global inequality as regions with unstable infrastructure become permanent AI backwaters.
Did we miss anything? Let us know in the comments below.
The Insights & Perspectives summarized below reflect the widening spectrum of Responsible AI governance, from national strategies and organizational adoption to multilingual fairness in model development.
Singapore’s National AI Strategy 2.0 presents a pragmatic roadmap grounded in cross-border collaboration, R&D investment, and workforce development, highlighting the state’s dual role as both regulator and ecosystem enabler. In parallel, our recent op-ed in Tech Policy Press outlines how top-down regulation, market pressure, and bottom-up public influence are converging to shape responsible AI as a business necessity. Yet, responsible governance also hinges on inclusive design. The SHADES dataset challenges the Western-centric defaults of many AI systems by highlighting how stereotypes propagate across 16 languages and 37 geographical regions. Its development marks a critical step toward more equitable, globally attuned AI evaluation frameworks.
Together, these perspectives highlight that AI governance is no longer limited to compliance or ethics checklists. It is increasingly about aligning systems with societal values through policies that anticipate complexity, markets that reward accountability, and datasets that reflect the full diversity of human experience.
AI Policy Corner: Singapore’s National AI Strategy 2.0
By Evan Glenn. This article is part of our AI Policy Corner series, a collaboration between the Montreal AI Ethics Institute (MAIEI) and the Governance and Responsible AI Lab (GRAIL) at Purdue University. The series provides concise insights into critical AI policy developments from the local to international levels, helping our readers stay informed about the evolving landscape of AI governance.
Singapore’s National AI Strategy 2.0 lays out a comprehensive framework to “Harness AI for the Public Good, for Singapore and the World.” Divided into three systems: Activity Drivers, People & Communities, and Infrastructure & Environment, the strategy emphasizes collaboration across government, academia, and industry. Key initiatives include public funding for AI R&D, workforce development, data governance, and cross-border safety testing with partners like Japan. While general in tone, NAIS 2.0 is backed by early implementation milestones and offers a model of pragmatic, internationally-minded AI policymaking.
To dive deeper, read the full article here.
Responsible AI as a Business Necessity: Three Forces Driving Market Adoption – Tech Policy Press
In our latest op-ed published in Tech Policy Press, we explore how responsible AI is increasingly becoming a market-driven necessity. Co-authored by MAIEI’s Marianna B. Ganapini and Renjie Butalid, the piece outlines how top-down regulation, market pressure, and bottom-up public influence are converging to shape responsible AI governance.

Drawing on case studies from Microsoft and Moody’s Ratings, as well as findings from PwC’s 2024 US Responsible AI Survey and the Partnership on AI’s 2025 Guidance for Inclusive AI: Practicing Participatory Engagement, we contend that responsible AI is moving beyond voluntary principles toward operational frameworks, certification schemes, and procurement standards, emerging as both a key differentiator and a source of competitive advantage.
To dive deeper, read the full article here.
SHADES: Towards a Multilingual Assessment of Stereotypes in Large Language Models
SHADES represents the first comprehensive multilingual dataset explicitly aimed at evaluating stereotype propagation within large language models (LLMs) across diverse linguistic and cultural contexts. Developed collaboratively by an international consortium of researchers, SHADES compiles over 300 culturally-specific stereotypes, rigorously gathered and validated by native and fluent speakers across 16 languages and 37 geographical regions. The dataset aims to support more inclusive AI governance and guide policymakers, researchers, and developers in identifying and mitigating bias within multilingual systems.
To dive deeper, read the full article here.
AI’s Biggest Secret — Creators Don’t Understand It, Experts Split – Forbes
Summary: Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei recently acknowledged a critical tension in AI development: even the creators of today’s frontier models often do not fully understand how they work.
People outside the field are often surprised and alarmed to learn that we do not understand how our own AI creations work. They are right to be concerned: this lack of understanding is essentially unprecedented in the history of technology.
– Dario Amodei (The Urgency of Interpretability, April 2025)
This rare moment of candor has reignited debate in the AI community over whether this interpretability gap constitutes a crisis or is simply part of the learning curve in an emerging field. Some experts argue that the opacity of AI systems poses serious risks in sectors like healthcare and finance, while others point to historical parallels in other complex technologies, where trust was earned over time through performance and oversight. Increasingly, the debate is shifting from pure technical transparency to broader calls for accountability, open science, and responsible deployment.
Why It Matters: This moment of honesty from a leading AI figure should serve as a wake-up call, not to panic, but for society to pay attention. When creators admit they cannot fully explain their own systems, the burden of caution shifts unfairly to users. Yet within this challenge lies an opportunity. Non-technical professionals play a critical role, not in decoding models, but in shaping their governance. This means engaging, learning, and leading with awareness. Trust, transparency, and accountability are no longer just engineering goals, they are business and ethical imperatives. If we are to coexist with AI systems we do not fully understand, we need stronger safeguards and a shared commitment to responsible innovation.
To dive deeper, read the full article here.
Summary: Duolingo has announced plans to become an “AI-first” company, gradually phasing out contract workers for tasks AI systems can now perform. CEO Luis von Ahn emphasized that this shift “isn’t about replacing Duos with AI. It’s about removing bottlenecks so we can do more with the outstanding Duos we already have.”
Why It Matters: Duolingo joins a growing list of companies, Shopify among them, transitioning routine operational tasks to AI as part of broader cost-efficiency and productivity strategies. While framed as a move to accelerate content creation and scale services, the shift raises questions about accountability in algorithmic decision-making and the future of work. What does it mean for companies to publicly declare themselves “AI-first”? And what signals does this send to existing and prospective employees, especially in creative, linguistic, or human-centred roles, about their value within these organizations?
To dive deeper, read the full article here.
Summary: During a fireside chat with Mark Zuckerberg at LlamaCon 2025, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella revealed that AI now generates approximately 30% of Microsoft’s internal codebase. He noted that while AI performs well in Python, it remains less effective in more complex programming languages like C++. Both Nadella and Zuckerberg emphasized that the full economic and societal impact of AI may still take “many years” to materialize.
Why It Matters: Microsoft’s announcement offers a concrete data point in the ongoing shift toward AI-assisted development, but also serves as a caution: productivity gains are not evenly distributed across domains. Nadella stressed that AI’s potential hinges not just on technical capacity, but on rethinking how humans and machines collaborate. As AI tools increasingly take on high-volume, low-judgment tasks (e.g. routine coding tasks, automating technical workflows), the strategic value of human input will shift toward oversight, critical thinking, and contextual judgment, core pillars of ethical AI deployment. Rather than eliminating the need for human input altogether, AI raises the bar on where that input matters most.
To dive deeper, read the full article here.
Help us keep The AI Ethics Brief free and accessible for everyone by becoming a paid subscriber on Substack or making a donation at montrealethics.ai/donate. Your support sustains our mission of democratizing AI ethics literacy and honours Abhishek Gupta’s legacy.
For corporate partnerships or larger contributions, please contact us at support@montrealethics.ai
Have an article, research paper, or news item we should feature? Leave us a comment below — we’d love to hear from you!
Ethics & Policy
AI and ethics – what is originality? Maybe we’re just not that special when it comes to creativity?
I don’t trust AI, but I use it all the time.
Let’s face it, that’s a sentiment that many of us can buy into if we’re honest about it. It comes from Paul Mallaghan, Head of Creative Strategy at We Are Tilt, a creative transformation content and campaign agency whose clients include the likes of Diageo, KPMG and Barclays.
Taking part in a panel debate on AI ethics at the recent Evolve conference in Brighton, UK, he made another highly pertinent point when he said of people in general:
We know that we are quite susceptible to confident bullshitters. Basically, that is what Chat GPT [is] right now. There’s something reminds me of the illusory truth effect, where if you hear something a few times, or you say it here it said confidently, then you are much more likely to believe it, regardless of the source. I might refer to a certain President who uses that technique fairly regularly, but I think we’re so susceptible to that that we are quite vulnerable.
And, yes, it’s you he’s talking about:
I mean all of us, no matter how intelligent we think we are or how smart over the machines we think we are. When I think about trust, – and I’m coming at this very much from the perspective of someone who runs a creative agency – we’re not involved in building a Large Language Model (LLM); we’re involved in using it, understanding it, and thinking about what the implications if we get this wrong. What does it mean to be creative in the world of LLMs?
Genuine
Being genuine, is vital, he argues, and being human – where does Human Intelligence come into the picture, particularly in relation to creativity. His argument:
There’s a certain parasitic quality to what’s being created. We make films, we’re designers, we’re creators, we’re all those sort of things in the company that I run. We have had to just face the fact that we’re using tools that have hoovered up the work of others and then regenerate it and spit it out. There is an ethical dilemma that we face every day when we use those tools.
His firm has come to the conclusion that it has to be responsible for imposing its own guidelines here to some degree, because there’s not a lot happening elsewhere:
To some extent, we are always ahead of regulation, because the nature of being creative is that you’re always going to be experimenting and trying things, and you want to see what the next big thing is. It’s actually very exciting. So that’s all cool, but we’ve realized that if we want to try and do this ethically, we have to establish some of our own ground rules, even if they’re really basic. Like, let’s try and not prompt with the name of an illustrator that we know, because that’s stealing their intellectual property, or the labor of their creative brains.
I’m not a regulatory expert by any means, but I can say that a lot of the clients we work with, to be fair to them, are also trying to get ahead of where I think we are probably at government level, and they’re creating their own frameworks, their own trust frameworks, to try and address some of these things. Everyone is starting to ask questions, and you don’t want to be the person that’s accidentally created a system where everything is then suable because of what you’ve made or what you’ve generated.
Originality
That’s not necessarily an easy ask, of course. What, for example, do we mean by originality? Mallaghan suggests:
Anyone who’s ever tried to create anything knows you’re trying to break patterns. You’re trying to find or re-mix or mash up something that hasn’t happened before. To some extent, that is a good thing that really we’re talking about pattern matching tools. So generally speaking, it’s used in every part of the creative process now. Most agencies, certainly the big ones, certainly anyone that’s working on a lot of marketing stuff, they’re using it to try and drive efficiencies and get incredible margins. They’re going to be on the race to the bottom.
But originality is hard to quantify. I think that actually it doesn’t happen as much as people think anyway, that originality. When you look at ChatGPT or any of these tools, there’s a lot of interesting new tools that are out there that purport to help you in the quest to come up with ideas, and they can be useful. Quite often, we’ll use them to sift out the crappy ideas, because if ChatGPT or an AI tool can come up with it, it’s probably something that’s happened before, something you probably don’t want to use.
More Human Intelligence is needed, it seems:
What I think any creative needs to understand now is you’re going to have to be extremely interesting, and you’re going to have to push even more humanity into what you do, or you’re going to be easily replaced by these tools that probably shouldn’t be doing all the fun stuff that we want to do. [In terms of ethical questions] there’s a bunch, including the copyright thing, but there’s partly just [questions] around purpose and fun. Like, why do we even do this stuff? Why do we do it? There’s a whole industry that exists for people with wonderful brains, and there’s lots of different types of industries [where you] see different types of brains. But why are we trying to do away with something that allows people to get up in the morning and have a reason to live? That is a big question.
My second ethical thing is, what do we do with the next generation who don’t learn craft and quality, and they don’t go through the same hurdles? They may find ways to use {AI] in ways that we can’t imagine, because that’s what young people do, and I have faith in that. But I also think, how are you going to learn the language that helps you interface with, say, a video model, and know what a camera does, and how to ask for the right things, how to tell a story, and what’s right? All that is an ethical issue, like we might be taking that away from an entire generation.
And there’s one last ‘tough love’ question to be posed:
What if we’re not special? Basically, what if all the patterns that are part of us aren’t that special? The only reason I bring that up is that I think that in every career, you associate your identity with what you do. Maybe we shouldn’t, maybe that’s a bad thing, but I know that creatives really associate with what they do. Their identity is tied up in what it is that they actually do, whether they’re an illustrator or whatever. It is a proper existential crisis to look at it and go, ‘Oh, the thing that I thought was special can be regurgitated pretty easily’…It’s a terrifying thing to stare into the Gorgon and look back at it and think,’Where are we going with this?’. By the way, I do think we’re special, but maybe we’re not as special as we think we are. A lot of these patterns can be matched.
My take
This was a candid worldview that raised a number of tough questions – and questions are often so much more interesting than answers, aren’t they? The subject of creativity and copyright has been handled at length on diginomica by Chris Middleton and I think Mallaghan’s comments pretty much chime with most of that.
I was particularly taken by the point about the impact on the younger generation of having at their fingertips AI tools that can ‘do everything, until they can’t’. I recall being horrified a good few years ago when doing a shift in a newsroom of a major tech title and noticing that the flow of copy had suddenly dried up. ‘Where are the stories?’, I shouted. Back came the reply, ‘Oh, the Internet’s gone down’. ‘Then pick up the phone and call people, find some stories,’ I snapped. A sad, baffled young face looked back at me and asked, ‘Who should we call?’. Now apart from suddenly feeling about 103, I was shaken by the fact that as soon as the umbilical cord of the Internet was cut, everyone was rendered helpless.
Take that idea and multiply it a billion-fold when it comes to AI dependency and the future looks scary. Human Intelligence matters
Ethics & Policy
Experts gather to discuss ethics, AI and the future of publishing
Publishing stands at a pivotal juncture, said Jeremy North, president of Global Book Business at Taylor & Francis Group, addressing delegates at the 3rd International Conference on Publishing Education in Beijing. Digital intelligence is fundamentally transforming the sector — and this revolution will inevitably create “AI winners and losers”.
True winners, he argued, will be those who embrace AI not as a replacement for human insight but as a tool that strengthens publishing’s core mission: connecting people through knowledge. The key is balance, North said, using AI to enhance creativity without diminishing human judgment or critical thinking.
This vision set the tone for the event where the Association for International Publishing Education was officially launched — the world’s first global alliance dedicated to advancing publishing education through international collaboration.
Unveiled at the conference cohosted by the Beijing Institute of Graphic Communication and the Publishers Association of China, the AIPE brings together nearly 50 member organizations with a mission to foster joint research, training, and innovation in publishing education.
Tian Zhongli, president of BIGC, stressed the need to anchor publishing education in ethics and humanistic values and reaffirmed BIGC’s commitment to building a global talent platform through AIPE.
BIGC will deepen academic-industry collaboration through AIPE to provide a premium platform for nurturing high-level, holistic, and internationally competent publishing talent, he added.
Zhang Xin, secretary of the CPC Committee at BIGC, emphasized that AIPE is expected to help globalize Chinese publishing scholarships, contribute new ideas to the industry, and cultivate a new generation of publishing professionals for the digital era.
Themed “Mutual Learning and Cooperation: New Ecology of International Publishing Education in the Digital Intelligence Era”, the conference also tackled a wide range of challenges and opportunities brought on by AI — from ethical concerns and content ownership to protecting human creativity and rethinking publishing values in higher education.
Wu Shulin, president of the Publishers Association of China, cautioned that while AI brings major opportunities, “we must not overlook the ethical and security problems it introduces”.
Catriona Stevenson, deputy CEO of the UK Publishers Association, echoed this sentiment. She highlighted how British publishers are adopting AI to amplify human creativity and productivity, while calling for global cooperation to protect intellectual property and combat AI tool infringement.
The conference aims to explore innovative pathways for the publishing industry and education reform, discuss emerging technological trends, advance higher education philosophies and talent development models, promote global academic exchange and collaboration, and empower knowledge production and dissemination through publishing education in the digital intelligence era.
yangyangs@chinadaily.com.cn
Ethics & Policy
Experts gather to discuss ethics, AI and the future of publishing
Publishing stands at a pivotal juncture, said Jeremy North, president of Global Book Business at Taylor & Francis Group, addressing delegates at the 3rd International Conference on Publishing Education in Beijing. Digital intelligence is fundamentally transforming the sector — and this revolution will inevitably create “AI winners and losers”.
True winners, he argued, will be those who embrace AI not as a replacement for human insight but as a tool that strengthens publishing”s core mission: connecting people through knowledge. The key is balance, North said, using AI to enhance creativity without diminishing human judgment or critical thinking.
This vision set the tone for the event where the Association for International Publishing Education was officially launched — the world’s first global alliance dedicated to advancing publishing education through international collaboration.
Unveiled at the conference cohosted by the Beijing Institute of Graphic Communication and the Publishers Association of China, the AIPE brings together nearly 50 member organizations with a mission to foster joint research, training, and innovation in publishing education.
Tian Zhongli, president of BIGC, stressed the need to anchor publishing education in ethics and humanistic values and reaffirmed BIGC’s commitment to building a global talent platform through AIPE.
BIGC will deepen academic-industry collaboration through AIPE to provide a premium platform for nurturing high-level, holistic, and internationally competent publishing talent, he added.
Zhang Xin, secretary of the CPC Committee at BIGC, emphasized that AIPE is expected to help globalize Chinese publishing scholarships, contribute new ideas to the industry, and cultivate a new generation of publishing professionals for the digital era.
Themed “Mutual Learning and Cooperation: New Ecology of International Publishing Education in the Digital Intelligence Era”, the conference also tackled a wide range of challenges and opportunities brought on by AI — from ethical concerns and content ownership to protecting human creativity and rethinking publishing values in higher education.
Wu Shulin, president of the Publishers Association of China, cautioned that while AI brings major opportunities, “we must not overlook the ethical and security problems it introduces”.
Catriona Stevenson, deputy CEO of the UK Publishers Association, echoed this sentiment. She highlighted how British publishers are adopting AI to amplify human creativity and productivity, while calling for global cooperation to protect intellectual property and combat AI tool infringement.
The conference aims to explore innovative pathways for the publishing industry and education reform, discuss emerging technological trends, advance higher education philosophies and talent development models, promote global academic exchange and collaboration, and empower knowledge production and dissemination through publishing education in the digital intelligence era.
yangyangs@chinadaily.com.cn
-
Funding & Business7 days ago
Kayak and Expedia race to build AI travel agents that turn social posts into itineraries
-
Jobs & Careers7 days ago
Mumbai-based Perplexity Alternative Has 60k+ Users Without Funding
-
Mergers & Acquisitions6 days ago
Donald Trump suggests US government review subsidies to Elon Musk’s companies
-
Funding & Business6 days ago
Rethinking Venture Capital’s Talent Pipeline
-
Jobs & Careers6 days ago
Why Agentic AI Isn’t Pure Hype (And What Skeptics Aren’t Seeing Yet)
-
Funding & Business4 days ago
Sakana AI’s TreeQuest: Deploy multi-model teams that outperform individual LLMs by 30%
-
Jobs & Careers6 days ago
Astrophel Aerospace Raises ₹6.84 Crore to Build Reusable Launch Vehicle
-
Funding & Business7 days ago
From chatbots to collaborators: How AI agents are reshaping enterprise work
-
Funding & Business4 days ago
HOLY SMOKES! A new, 200% faster DeepSeek R1-0528 variant appears from German lab TNG Technology Consulting GmbH
-
Tools & Platforms6 days ago
Winning with AI – A Playbook for Pest Control Business Leaders to Drive Growth