Since the start of 2025, the strategic direction of artificial intelligence (AI) policy has shifted to focus on individual nation-states’ ability to win “the global AI race” by prioritizing national technological leadership. As countries increase their investments in AI, discussions around safety and existential risks appear to be losing momentum, raising questions about the future of international AI collaboration.
Since the start of 2025, the strategic direction of artificial intelligence (AI) policy has shifted to focus on individual nation-states’ ability to win “the global AI race” by prioritizing national technological leadership. As countries increase their investments in AI, discussions around safety and existential risks appear to be losing momentum, raising questions about the future of international AI collaboration.
Since the start of 2025, the strategic direction of artificial intelligence (AI) policy has shifted to focus on individual nation-states’ ability to win “the global AI race” by prioritizing national technological leadership. As countries increase their investments in AI, discussions around safety and existential risks appear to be losing momentum, raising questions about the future of international AI collaboration.
Since the start of 2025, the strategic direction of artificial intelligence (AI) policy has shifted to focus on individual nation-states’ ability to win “the global AI race” by prioritizing national technological leadership. As countries increase their investments in AI, discussions around safety and existential risks appear to be losing momentum, raising questions about the future of international AI collaboration.
Since the start of 2025, the strategic direction of artificial intelligence (AI) policy has shifted to focus on individual nation-states’ ability to win “the global AI race” by prioritizing national technological leadership. As countries increase their investments in AI, discussions around safety and existential risks appear to be losing momentum, raising questions about the future of international AI collaboration.
Artificial intelligence is increasingly becoming integral to corporate compliance functions, streamlining processes but also introducing regulatory and operational risks. Compliance leaders must ensure that AI systems adhere to established standards of accountability and transparency to mitigate potential liabilities.
A recent study reveals that while 93 percent of UK organizations are using AI, only seven percent have implemented proper governance frameworks to manage associated risks. This gap highlights the urgent need for updated software development processes that address AI-specific challenges such as model bias and explainability.
The EU AI Act proposes a framework to regulate AI, focusing on “high-risk” systems and emphasizing the importance of data governance to prevent biases and discrimination. Article 10 outlines strict standards for the datasets used in high-risk AI systems, ensuring they are suitable and reliable for their intended purposes.
The EU AI Act proposes a framework to regulate AI, focusing on “high-risk” systems and emphasizing the importance of data governance to prevent biases and discrimination. Article 10 outlines strict standards for the datasets used in high-risk AI systems, ensuring they are suitable and reliable for their intended purposes.
The European Commission has released a voluntary Code of Practice for general-purpose AI models to help industry comply with the AI Act’s obligations on safety, transparency, and copyright. The AI Office invites providers to sign the Code, which will be publicly listed on 1 August 2025, ahead of the Act’s obligations taking effect.
