Imagine you’re standing on Main Street, watching a parade of dazzling technology march by — robots, smart assistants, self-driving cars. It’s the AI parade. But behind the spectacle, a dispassionate figure looms: artificial general intelligence (AGI). Yes, even its name brings an added “gee” to the parade. That’s because parents and kids alike sense that it could turn them from spectators into the ones being watched.

The UN chief bureaucrat, António Guterres, positioning himself as the drum major in front of everybody, announced in February the Independent International Scientific Panel on Artificial Intelligence — the AI Panel.  As UN groups go, they routinely miss the “gee,” which is the case here, as well.

It’s a bold move, but this parade needs more than a drum major. It is missing its grand marshal to deal with the gee-force. And this is where a pre-existing High-Level Expert Panel on Artificial General Intelligence, or the AGI Panel, could step in to harness the G factor before it harnesses us.

The UN’s AI panel: good intentions, troubling gaps

The UN’s AI Panel aims to bring order by gathering experts to assess risks and offer guidance. Yet critics of the AI Panel — governments, tech leaders and concerned citizens — see troubling gaps. The UN AI panel’s mandate is broad, its structure vague and its political context tangled.

The UN is already juggling climate change, development and peacekeeping. Can it really steer AI governance without slowing innovation or diluting scientific independence?

UN advisory frameworks easily accumulate outsized influence, shaping expectations and political pressure.

AI — the gateway to AGI — isn’t just a gadget; it’s a pillar of national security and economic strategy.  So, many are concerned about sovereignty and fragmentation. Attended by states with very different digital governance models, the AI Panel risks becoming a battleground for competing visions: open societies versus state-centric control. Without strong safeguards, neutrality will be hard to maintain.

Further, critics worry that the AI Panel’s recommendations could create obligations that clash with domestic priorities and market realities moving at lightning speed. Tech-heavy nations fear global oversight will hobble their competitiveness. And industry would take little notice of it in any event.

Practical questions abound: How were the AI Panel’s experts chosen? If it becomes “a thing,” will industry, academia and civil society have a real say? Can the AI Panel be independent from political blocs? And what happens to its recommendations?

Without clear pathways for its findings, the risk is that the AI Panel produces reports that are cited widely but acted upon narrowly. If the UN sets one standard while democratic alliances and industry groups set others, we could end up with parallel governance tracks — fragmentation that slows innovation and complicates cross-border cooperation.

For these and other concerns, Washington argued against the AI Panel and did not support its establishment. But none of this even acknowledges that AI concerns are secondary because AGI is already developing faster than the number of unpaid parking tickets around the UN.

AGI will act if we don’t

Worries about AI bring to mind the fabled Y2K (Year 2000 Problem) realm — we’ll get past it. AGI, however, pushes humanity to 2001: A Space Odyssey and beyond.

Here’s the real issue: AGI is not just another float in the parade. If we don’t do something, it pulls rank over the drum major and becomes the grand marshal, determining the world’s narrative, direction and pace. AGI will solve novel problems (good), rewrite its own code (not so good) and then pursue objectives beyond human control (bad).

AGI is not just a smarter version of today’s AI — it’s a leap from humans to machines for solving problems old and new, rewriting their own code and pursuing goals beyond human guidance. AGI’s powers and risks far exceed those of ordinary AI, compelling us to make it our central target for urgent action.

Chasing opportunity, big tech is investing $650 billion into AGI: history’s largest investment. Early forms are already out of the test tube, and advanced versions are likely within a few years, if not sooner.

Thought leaders like Bill Gates, Demis Hassabis, Stuart Russell, Yoshua Bengio, Sam Altman, Elon Musk and Geoffrey Hinton warn that the risk is real and urgent.

This isn’t science fiction; it’s a clear and present danger.

The risks are existential — if unregulated, AGI could threaten human civilization itself.

A grand marshal ready to wave us in the right direction

Recognizing the gap, the nonprofit Council of Presidents of the UN General Assembly established last year a High-Level Expert Panel on AGI. This “AGI Panel,” composed of top experts, produced the report “Governance of the Transition to Artificial General Intelligence (AGI): Urgent Considerations for the UN General Assembly.” It clearly documents that the looming AGI is distinct from today’s AI, and its benefits and risks must be urgently addressed.

But where to be addressed and by whom? Yes, the UN General Assembly is a legitimate place for this global discussion — but not through the Secretary-General’s AI Panel as currently organized. Why not? Because the AI Panel is an abacus, whereas the G threat is using angstrom-class semiconductors.

The AI Panel is a parade without a grand marshal, lacking the leadership and urgency AGI demands. The High-Level Expert Panel on AGI offers a clear route forward.

This AIG Panel reveals that the maiden AI Panel is unaware of the power of AGI under its feet as it dallies on its path to the “Great Oz.” So, the AGI Panel recommends concrete steps in lieu of yellow bricks: a global observatory, international certification and an agency dedicated to AGI. And it calls for an emergency UN General Assembly session, given the forecast of much bigger tornadoes on the horizon.

Second best

At least the UN Secretary-General should refit his AI Panel by (1) making AGI its key focus with urgency, (2) distributing the AGI Panel’s report to all parties and (3) tapping the only AGI expert on his panel, Joshua Bengio, to start a working group on AGI. And he should push for that emergency General Assembly session to put measures into play, harnessing AGI for humanity by minimizing its risks while realizing its benefits.

Otherwise, the drum major should move to the end of the parade with a big shovel. Why? To sort through the many elephant-sized catastrophes that humanity would have to endure indefinitely.

[Kaitlyn Diana edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.