The Double-Edged Sword of AI Use by the UN | Metaglossia: The Translation World | Scoop.it

"...As AI becomes ubiquitous, how will the UN ensure that its software is secure — using encryption, for example — given the many options that are now available? What about workflows, staff training and best practices covering quality control, intellectual property, data privacy and cybersecurity?


One current use of AI internally involves creating multilingual content. For example, AI is being used to take several sources of information — press releases as well as audio from conference summaries enhanced with background material from across the UN ecosystem. This content is used to whip a story into shape. It is also being used to create content around UN observances and international days. This creation involves risk as errors can happen when the content is further translated through AI.


UN language experts routinely using transcription and auto-translation are best positioned to assess the quality of producing content through AI. Since its early days, these teams, especially in the Department of Global Communications, have seen notable improvements in translating such material from several languages into English. Yet, there are many exceptions. Translating content from English into Arabic, Chinese and Russian remains imperfect; and French and Spanish only slightly better. The work of professional translators and communications experts often fill the gaps that AI cannot cover.


Indeed, some major media outlets have told the UN that they are leery about wholesale use of AI and only green-light it for limited fact-checking but not content production.


Meanwhile, the UN plays a leading global role in forging international AI governance and exploring regulatory frameworks for responsible use while bridging the digital divide.


In August 2025, Secretary-General António Guterres established an independent scientific panel on AI — 40 experts serving as a technical body conducting research similar to that of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The new panel will synthesize AI research and policymaking in annual reports, guiding a global dialogue on AI governance launched in September and beginning work in 2026 with sessions on the sidelines of the annual AI for Good Summit, hosted by the International Telecommunications Union to be held in July in Geneva.


These steps kickstart the search for an international framework in which all countries can participate and benefit. The panel acts as an early-warning system and evidence engine, providing scientific foundation while the “dialogue” handles policy discussion. The big-tent approach allows all countries and the private sector to participate, and many parties taking part from the global South are hopeful that it will bridge the digital divide and break the United States-China stranglehold on AI.


In September, the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence warned the UN Security Council that AI progress is concentrated among just a few companies and countries, limiting global benefits.


“When only a few have the resources to build and benefit from AI, we leave the rest of the world waiting at the door,” said Yejin Choi, who heads the Stanford center. She urged stronger linguistic and cultural diversity representation, noting that leading models underperform for non-English languages and reflect narrow cultural assumptions.


At the same time, Guterres told the Security Council that AI had become a daily reality and warned that without guardrails, it could be weaponized. He noted the closing window to develop useful regulatory frameworks and tasked his tech envoy, Amandeep Singh Gill, to lead.


AI use in a political organization offers advantages but can miss nuances, be manipulated and cause other problems. While irresponsible AI threatens journalism principles and feeds disinformation, misinformation and hate speech, UN member states lack consensus on how to use it in communications, translation and other sectors.


At the November committee meeting with Fleming, the United Kingdom lamented growing threats to information integrity fueled by AI, distorting truth and sowing division. The European Union representative at the meeting characterized AI for translation and multilingualism as promising. The group of friends of Spanish flagged that AI allows enormous possibilities with risks and challenges and that nothing the Department of Global Communications does in the name of budgetary constraints should undermine multilingualism.


The Group of 77 and China didn’t say anything at all about use of AI but cautioned about the need to reduce the disparity in the use of official languages.


South Africa was a lone voice warning against over-reliance on AI for UN reports and summaries, given the technology’s early-development inaccuracies and potential manipulation. Several countries remain concerned about a world of AI haves and have-nots.


The contradiction is stark: While the UN establishes global AI governance frameworks emphasizing transparency and human oversight, it lacks clear, approved internal guidelines for its own AI use in critical communications and translation functions. Many UN leaders have pushed to embrace AI, which can offer apparent quick wins, especially amid downsizing and slashed budgets.


AI is a fact of life — but “human oversight” is a loaded term that still demands a sizable cohort of language professionals with appropriate skills to manage the use of AI, and the UN cannot rush into it if it wants to lead with thoughtful internal governance.


This is an opinion essay."
https://passblue.com/2025/12/17/the-double-edged-sword-of-ai-use-by-the-un/
#Metaglossia
#metaglossia_mundus