OECD Expert Group on AI Futures –Meeting 1 (13 July 2023)
Context – Goal and Scope of the Expert GroupThe OECD.AI Policy Observatory and OECD Strategic Foresight Unit convened the inaugural meeting ofthe Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence (AI) Futures on 13 July 2023, which is a core component of an
emerging OECD workstream on AI Futures. The overall background and context for the group can befound in the expert group concept note.
The new Expert Group is composed of 54 experts from at least 21 countries representing government,
private sector, academia, and civil society covering critical subject matter areas including healthcare,education, robotics, human cognition, defence, philosophy, and ethics. The group is composed of about
1/3 women, which the OECD will strive to strengthen over time. The group is unique in that, while there
are many efforts focusing on the present-day opportunities and challenges of AI, including other expert
groups of the OECD.AI Policy Observatory, there are few in an international context focused on thefuture(s) of the technology.
The Expert Group is led by three co-chairs:•Stuart Russell, Professor of Computer Science at the University of California, Berkeley and Directorof the Centre for Human-Compatible Artificial Intelligence.

•Francesca Rossi, IBM Fellow and AI Ethics Global Leader.

•Michael Schönstein , Head of Strategic Foresight and Analysis, German Federal Ministry of Labourand Social Affairs.

The full composition of the Expert Group is available here. The list of participants for the inaugural meetingcan be found below.

Introduction
The session was run under the Chatham House Rule. It was kicked off by Karine Perset, head of theOECD.AI Policy Observatory, who provided a general overview and context regarding the expert groupand the purpose of the meeting. The overview covered the role that the OECD plays in fostering beneficial
progress in the AI policy field, including driving progress in the implementation of the OECD AI Principles.
As this was the first meeting of the expert group, the discussion focused on introductions and building
rapport among the expert group members, as well as discussing members’ thoughts on the initial vision
for the group and what they would like to see it achieve. In addition, the OECD briefed the members on apotential questionnaire to help prioritise the group’s future efforts, and to inform OECD research on AIFutures, including a stocktaking report currently under development. The co-chairs facilitated thediscussion items listed below.

Proposed vision for the expert group2Experts were presented with a proposed vision for the expert group, which had been developed based on
feedback from the OECD Working Party on AI Governance. In addition to the concept note, the vision for
the Expert Group included:•Objective: to assess potential future AI milestones, benefits, risks, and solutions to help
policymakers take action today to shape them.

•Next steps: The Expert Group will undertake the following steps.

•oStocktaking: Conduct a stocktake of potential future AI risks, benefits, and policy approaches.

oPrioritisation: Prioritise which risks, benefits, and policy approaches from the stocktake will be
the focus of the Expert Group for the coming year.

oResearch and scenario development: Summarise research and develop scenarios exploring
the highest priority AI futures issues, to determine what desirable and undesirable futures may
look like.

oAssess governance: Consider the current state of managing high-priority risks, identify gaps,and propose solutions.

oRecommendations: Identify priorities and recommendations for shaping positive AI futures, tobe documented for governments’ review.

oFuture priorities: Discuss next steps for action on these recommendations and identify futuregroup priorities.

Outside engagement: OECD will leverage inclusive working methods to provide a voice toother stakeholders, including those who may be impacted by AI, to feed into and supplement Expert
Group discussions.

Experts’ thoughts on the vision presented for the group
Experts showed significant general agreement and support for the proposed vision of the Expert Group,
as outlined in the concept note and presentation. Specific points that were particularly praised consistedof:•The exploration of both positive and negative futures. The analysis of future impacts of AI asone focus of the group was praised as being quite unique with regard to international engagementin the field.

•The diversity of perspectives. The group reflects heterogeneity by the nature of its composition
as well as by its aims. Many experts highlighted how geographical, gender, and expertise-related
diversity is key to achieving a comprehensive vision of the impacts of AI in the near to long-termfuture.

•The use of scenario techniques. Reflecting on issues via strategic foresight techniques, such as
scenario exploitation, was seen as a useful methodology to broaden the perspectives of the Groupand explore potential futures in new ways.

However, there have also been remarks about the vision and final goal of the group that are worth pointingout:•Balancing three different priorities. Some speakers highlighted the importance of balancing
three different priorities when working to produce significant output: the use of AI, its adoption bybusinesses and citizens, and the minimisation of its harms.

•Ensuring any policy solutions are globally inclusive. Others pointed out the importance ofendorsing an inclusive vision and avoiding the creation of an asymmetry between the OECD as a3standard maker and developing countries as standard takers, as these might endorse different
governance approaches which are worth being taken into consideration.

Experts’ views on what the group should seek in order to positively impact AI
futures
The co-chairs then asked members to present their personal views on the goal that the group should aim
to achieve to positively shape AI’s impact on the future of society. Experts shared insights that can becategorised by: (1) views characterised by general agreement, (2) topics characterised by divergence ofopinion and (3) other significant insights.

Points of convergence
Experts’ opinions tended to converge on some key issues which are reported below. Particular points ofagreement that should characterise the Expert Group’s aims concerned:•The focus on evidence to inform policymaking and demystify AI. Experts generally agreed on
the need to explore future plausible AI scenarios, as well as to create a vision of both the potential
future risks and benefits arising from the increasing use of AI in society. In this context, given thefast pace of AI technology development, it is paramount to provide policymakers with potential
future trajectories so that they can be prepared to react promptly and effectively in the present.
Empirical evidence for the impacts of technology on societal values plays a pivotal role in creatinga shared understanding and in dealing with different perspectives.

•The recognition and respect for diverging views as opposed to the reach of a forced
consensus. Given the nature of the Expert Group, characterised by diversity in terms of expertiseand points of view on AI-related topics, it is essential to recognise and respect the experts’
individual insights and points of view, as opposed to limiting novel ideas to produce moderateunified consensus. Experts agreed that such sentiment should be recognised in both meeting
discussions, as well as eventual products and outputs.

•Accelerating the development of international agreements to manage current and future AIharms. As risks in the field are unpredictable but projected to pose substantial harm, it isparamount to make significant investments in order to understand them and effectively mitigate
them by means of international co-operation. The group should aim to create a set of futurefocused principles, good practices, norms and standards that have practical and global support.

•Developing potential technological trajectories to test regulation. Contrarily to the case of theinternet, advances in AI are being carefully monitored from a regulatory perspective. Some experts
thought that there is a tendency to regulate too early and fast on hypothetical harms. Hence, society
and policymakers need to expect possibilities and trajectories, to be ready to act promptly without
preventing benefits from arising. In this context, plausible future scenarios could be developed by
the group to test current and potential future regulations.

•Addressing the lack of understanding of exponential situations and AI developments in thepopulation. Exponential trends such as the exponential increase in computational power used toproduce leading AI systems are generally hard to manage and predict. Experts suggested that thegroup could come up with a set of questions to guide both the general public and policymakers into
thinking more rigorously about the potential future AI benefits, challenges, and solutions. In thissense, it might be possible to derive lessons from other transformative technologies, such as thedevelopment of electricity, nuclear technologies, the internet, and synthetic biology. Public
upskilling was also mentioned as an essential approach to tackling the issue.

4•Avoiding duplication of efforts. A number of experts agreed on the existing plethora of groups
advising governments and the resulting contrasting inputs produced. Consequently, the groupshould focus its efforts on facilitating good governance by collecting and synthesizing pre-existing
work before taking action to pursue new workstreams and products. It is paramount to avoid
duplication of efforts and use the best work developed so far as a robust starting point.

•Focusing on social impacts. Experts generally agreed to include a substantial focus on mappingout social and psychological changes that are arising from AI deployment in society. These areoften overlooked in the literature, despite their crucial importance in defining wellbeing in oursociety.

Points of divergence
There were also some areas of divergence where experts expressed differing preferences on courses ofaction, or where their perspectives seemed to differ more generally. This consisted of:•Open source. There were some differing opinions on open-source AI systems and models. While
open source was highlighted as an effective way to counteract the tendency to lock up foundationalmodels through proprietary protections, others highlighted the potential for misuse and accidentsif there were insufficient controls on powerful models.

•Policy recommendations. On one hand, some experts believe the group should aim to work
towards the development of a set of forward-looking policy recommendations, anticipating theirconcrete needs. On the other hand, others claim that before deciding on a set of policies, the groupshould focus on the big-picture values that will serve as a foundation for policymaking.

•Conditional claims and scenario planning. Some experts see scenario planning and conditional
claims as valuable tools. However, others pointed out the importance of not limiting the exploration
to just scenario planning. According to them, it might be interesting to look at particular narrative
futures, for instance the regrowth of scientific productivity or the impact of artificial agency onhuman autonomy.

•Greater divergence in the AI community. Comments by some of the experts reflected broader
divergence in the AI community, including differences in views related to the potential for Artificial
General Intelligence (AGI), what impacts it may have (e.g., existential risks), and the extent towhich research and dialogue should focus on such longer-term considerations relative to more
immediate concerns on narrow AI impacts. As touched on in the convergent points above,
however, the expert group is in agreement to approach, discuss, and cover all relevant points ofview.

Other insights
Other important insights concerning the desired role of the group, shared by Expert Group members, arereported below. These represent views that were mentioned by individual speakers and that were notexplicitly characterised by broader convergence or divergence among members.
•Recognise the pivotal role of incentives. Instead of focusing on funding and regulation alone, itwill be important to develop other actionable incentives to achieve beneficial futures.

•Consider regulation as an empowering tool. Regulation should be treated as a useful tool toincentivise and foster positive AI developments, rather than just be seen as a “negative” instrument
to forbid and slow down technological progress. It should be seen as a way to empower democracy
to avoid a dependency on non-transparent and centralised large companies.

5•

Focus on the social domain to find solutions. Although the risks posed by AI systems can betechnical, it will be valuable to explore solutions in the social domain (for instance, by analysing
trust networks in the context of misinformation), instead of focusing on AI solutions alone.

•Create a taxonomy to refine the scope of the discussion. It was pointed out how the creationof a taxonomy to better categorise AI risks and benefits, along with the development of responsive
mechanisms to adapt rapidly to technological changes, would represent a significant achievementin the field.

•Articulate key areas of trade-off. It was suggested to create a clear framework of analysis tobetter understand the trade-offs that can arise in different sectors of society concerning thebeneficial and negative impacts of AI.

•Narrow down existing divergencies in the existential risks field. By closing the gap in opinion
concerning the likelihood of materialisation of existential risks, it would be possible to drive effective
policy action.

Expert Group members who were not able to join had a chance to send their written thoughts on the twoquestions. Important insights concerning this second question on the desired achievement of the Expert
Group comprised:•Focus on tangible progress in the international policy domain. To show the early significanceof the group’s effort is important to deliver tangible progress on a specific and achievable goal.
With developments in foundation models/generative AI, it is essential to focus on some specificgoals that will position the group to meet the future impacts that are already characterized in current
scholarship.

•Promote progress that is foundational in the near term and positioned for long-term
success. The group will need to update its work to the timeline of key events and progress thatwill characterise the policy ecosystem and reach a consensus about where its focus will have themost valuable impact.

6

List of Participants
Anthony Aguirre - Co-founder at Future of Life InstituteMarkus Anderljung - Head of Policy at Centre for the Governance of AI
Rebecca Anselmetti - Senior Policy Advisor at Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
Carolyn Ashurst - Senior Research Associate in Safe and Ethical AI at the Alan Turing Institute
Azeem Azhar – Founder of the Exponential View newsletter
Joscha Bach - Principal AI Engineer at Intel LabsAmir Banifatemi – Chief Innovation & Growth Officer - XPRIZEYoshua Bengio - Founder and Scientific Director at MILA, Quebec AI InstituteJamie Berryhill – AI Policy Analyst at OECD
Duncan Cass-Beggs - Strategic Foresight expert at IndependentRumman Chowdhury - Responsible AI Fellow at Harvard University’s Berkman Klein Center
Mariano-Florentino (Tino) Cuéllar - President and CEO at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Vilas Dhar - President and Trustee at Patrick J. McGovern Foundation
Virginia Dignum - Professor at Umea University
Pam Dixon - Founder and Executive Director at World Privacy ForumDexter Docherty - Foresight Analyst at OECDCharles Fadel - Founder & Chairman at Center for Curriculum Redesign
Daniel Faggella - Head of Research, CEO at Emerj AI ResearchRebecca Finlay - CEO at Partnership on AI
Marko Grobelnik - AI Researcher at Artificial Intelligence Lab at Jozef Stefan Institute.
Sebastian Hallensleben - Head of Digitalisation and AI at VDE Association for Electrical, Electronic &Information Technologies
Juha Heikkilä - Head of Unit, Robotics, Directorate-General for Communication Networks, Content andTechnology at DG CONNECT, European Commission
Hamish Hobbs - Policy Advisor at Longview and to the OECD Strategic Foresight Unit - Longview
Takayuki Honda - Assistant Director at Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications
Eric Horvitz - Chief Scientific Officer at Microsoft
Holden Karnofsky - Director of AI Strategy at Open Philanthropy
Ziv Katzir - Head of the National Plan for Artificial Intelligence Infrastructure at Israel’s Innovation authority
Rafal Kierzenkowski - Senior Counsellor for Strategic Foresight at OECD
Hiroaki Kitano - Senior Executive Vice President and CTO at Sony Group Corporation
Daniel Leufer - Senior Policy Analyst at Access Now
Jade Leung - Governance Lead at OpenAI
Nicklas Lundblad - Head of Global Policy and Public Affairs at Deepmind7Laurens van der Maaten - Senior Research Director at Meta AI
Aaron Maniam - Fellow of Practice and Director, Digital Transformation Education at Blavatnik School ofGovernment, University of Oxford
Fernando Martínez-Plumed - Associate Professor at Technical University of Valencia
Jason Matheny - President & CEO at RANDSarah Myers-West - Managing Director of the AI Now InstituteClara Neppel - Senior Director at IEEE European Business Operations
Sean Ó hÉigeartaigh - Interim Executive Director of CSER (Centre for the Study of Existential Risk) atUniversity of Cambridge
Toby Ord - Senior Research Fellow at University of Oxford.
Asu Ozdaglar - Mathworks Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS) at theMassachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)Karine Perset - Head of AI Unit and OECD.AI, OECD Digital Economy Policy Division - OECD
Andrea Renda - Senior Research Fellow and Head of Global Governance, Regulation, Innovation and theDigital Economy (GRID) - Centre for European Policy Studies
Francesca Rossi - IBM Fellow and AI Ethics Global Leader
Stuart Russell - Professor of Computer Science at the University of California, Berkeley and Director of theCentre for Human-Compatible Artificial Intelligence
Michael Schönstein - Head of Strategic Foresight and Analysis, German Federal Ministry of Labour andSocial Affairs.
Osamu Sudoh - Professor at the Graduate School of Interdisciplinary Information Studies (GSII), The
University of Tokyo
Helen Toner - Director of Strategy and Foundational Research Grants at Center for Security and Emerging
Technology (CSET)
Conrad Tucker - Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Carnegie Mellon University
Effy Vayena - Professor of Bioethics and Deputy Head of Institute of Translational Medicine at Swiss
Federal Institute of Technology Zürich (ETH Zürich)
Toby Walsh - Chief Scientist of UNSW.AI
Jess Whittlestone - Head of AI Policy at Centre for Long-Term Resilience
Rose Woolhouse - Head of International at Office for AI
Katharina Zweig – Professor and Researcher at TU Kaiserslautern