The Outcome: Towards a Public Discussion for Shaping the Future of A.I. Regulations in the U.S. & Beyond Panel
Compiled by Salih MANSUR for the LMGlobal.Org
Based on Zoom/AI Assistant’s provided transcription

Please click on for the Program and Bios of the Speakers

[LMGlobal.Org] The second annual AI-focused panel by The Light Millennium, Charitable Global Human Advancement Organization (LMGlobal.Org), co-organized with Bons-Ai.org, brought together an international roster of experts, engineers, policy practitioners, and researchers. The session, themed “Towards a Public Discussion for Shaping the Future of A.I. Regulations in the U.S. & Beyond,” aimed to offer concrete insights on national and global AI governance, emphasizing public engagement and digital literacy as democratic necessities. The event reaffirmed LMGlobal.Org’s commitment to supporting the UN Global Digital Compact and the Pact for the Future, stressing that protecting future generations requires transparency, accountability, and people-centered AI.
The session was co-moderated by Bircan Ünver (Founder-President, LMGlobal.Org) and Adam Bricker (Chairman, Bons-Ai.Org), building upon the conceptual foundation laid by Prof. Victor B. Lawrence.

I. Framing the Debate:
The Fragmented U.S. Landscape and the Philosophical Core

The session began by establishing the current state of U.S. AI governance and the foundational human philosophy required to guide it.

Opening Remarks: The Wicked Problem and the “To-Be List”

Mr. Adam Bricker (Chairman, Bons-Ai.Org) framed the challenge of AI governance as a “wicked problem”demanding collaboration across engineers, educators, and civic leaders. He characterized the current U.S. AI oversight environment as a “patchwork of voluntary standards,” noting the absence of a single federal law. Policy is currently fragmented, relying on voluntary frameworks and state-level actions in high-risk sectors, which necessitates a more pragmatic, sense-and-respond model of regulation rather than a rigid rulebook.

The core policy challenge requires focusing on accountability and high-risk applications. Bricker highlighted the need for mandatory red-teaming and independent audits, along with enacting targeted rules for bias, discrimination, and transparency—especially in crucial domains like healthcare and finance. The goal is to build government capacity to evaluate AI, moving beyond private-sector claims, while managing risk without stifling innovation.

Fundamentally, Bricker argued that AI must support our “to-be lists”—who we become—not just our “to-do lists.” He warned that AI risks eroding human character if not leveraged properly to accelerate the four sources of human joy (labor, learning, service, and life). To safeguard human wisdom and critical thinking, he called for AI literacy to be included in Mandatory General Populace Education, alongside civics and rhetoric, ensuring the next generation can guide AI systems rather than passively consuming them.
Full Opening Remarks

Keynote Address: The Imperative for Sector-Specific Trust

Mr. Charles Fracchia (CEO, Black Mesa) delivered the keynote, “Nations That Invest in a Human-Centered Infrastructure Will Be the True Winners of the AI Revolution.” He argued that the current, rapid adoption of AI is outpacing necessary governance, and nations must proactively invest in human-centered infrastructure to capture AI’s economic benefits without incurring undue harm. His core conclusion is twofold: AI applications in critical sectors must be thoroughly tested and validated in secure environments, and we must establish clear responsibility frameworks that ensure accountability when something goes wrong—a particularly complex problem with modern, “entangled” deep learning systems where traceability is difficult. Fracchia emphasized that unlike older, traceable models, contemporary deep learning systems can be easily tricked (as shown by classifying a turtle as a rifle with invisible noise) and currently lack the mathematical guarantee to stay within safe operational bounds.

To address these high-stakes risks, Fracchia proposed the urgent creation of sector-specific AI Trust Labs. These dedicated, safe environments would be tailored to the unique risks and regulations of each critical sector—such as healthcare, life sciences, energy, water, and finance. Citing examples from radiology and drug safety (the ARPA-H “Catalyst” program), he stressed that AI must be designed to augment human decision-making, not replace it blindly, especially where decisions are singular and high-stakes. The trust labs, which can be established with modest investments (in the low millions of dollars), serve three critical functions: they verify the accuracy and reproducibility of AI systems, they help discover and defend against security flaws, and they act as powerful innovation hubs that attract and train talent.

Fracchia concluded by asserting that the real leverage of the AI revolution lies not in focusing on massive, singular high-end computing centers, but in the diffusion of safe, practical use across society. He urged governments to distribute investments across multiple, smaller hubs (citing the US’s 16 critical sectors as a target of 16–20 labs) to maximize touchpoints, hands-on experience, and local expertise. Ultimately, he stated, “Nations that invest in this kind of distributed, human-centered infrastructure will be the true winners of the AI revolution.
FULL Keynote Statement

II. The Policy Dichotomy: Fragmentation vs. Centralization

The panel section immediately addressed the contrast between the U.S. policy approach and international models, debating how to regulate fast-moving technology effectively.

Remarks: Human Rights, Ethics, and the Limit of AI

[Former] Ambassador Rodrigo A. Carazo Zeledón (Member, UN Human Rights Committee) described his recent participation in an international congress focused on ethics and human rights in the digital age. Carazo emphasized that ethical considerations—fairness, privacy, transparency, and accountability—lag far behind AI’s rapid evolution. He noted that while musicians and other artists experience benefits, they also express concerns about the rights to work and artistic creativity. He raised particular alarm about autonomous weapons and stressed the fundamental need for humans to remain in the loop to protect broader human rights impacts.

Inspired by Adam Bricker’s “to-be list” philosophy, Ambassador Carazo reflected on how AI challenges human-centered work. He shared a personal example: an AI-generated summary of his three-and-a-half-year advocacy effort in Costa Rica over a financial scandal.

While factually accurate, the Ambassador noted that the AI document lacked human passion and the emotional truth behind the fight. He ended by acknowledging both AI’s strengths and its distinct limitations, underscoring that human values and passion cannot be replicated by technology.
Full Remarks

III. Panel Section

Prof. S. Radha Rammohan – Head, Centre for Open and Digital Education (CODE), India
Prof. Rammohan presented a detailed look at the AI policy landscape in India, contrasting it with the fragmented approach of the U.S. He explained that India is pursuing a centralized and balanced framework designed to foster innovation while simultaneously building strong guardrails for public protection. Key regulatory mechanisms include the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (2023) and dedicated, sector-specific rules governing AI use in finance and health.

His presentation strongly advocated for the mandatory implementation of red teaming: structured, adversarial testing where independent experts deliberately try to expose hidden vulnerabilities and ethical risks in AI systems before they are deployed. He argued that robust pre-deployment testing and accountability are necessary to ensure that safety and privacy are not determined solely by a person’s geographic location. Prof. Rammohan underscored that the challenge is achieving global alignment on AI oversight to guarantee universal standards of transparency and fairness.
Abstract/Speech | Presentation (PDF)

Dr. Katherine Grace August, PhD – Biomedical & Communications Engineer; IEEE Standards Leader
Dr. August spoke from the vantage point of the engineering and standards community, highlighting IEEE’s work on Transparent Design for Wellbeing. She noted that political gridlock and shutdowns in Washington have real costs: they delay critical investments and leave the U.S. years behind in crafting coherent AI policy, while other regions move faster. She drew attention to global competition over intellectual property, observing that only three of the world’s top 10 AI patent holders are U.S. companies. Beyond innovation metrics, she introduced the concept of “emotional integrity”: AI systems and policies should be judged by how they affect stress, pressure, and human well-being, not only efficiency or profit. Responsible AI, in her view, must be measured against its impact on human lives and mental health.
Narration of the Presentation | Presentation (PDF)

Mr. Justin Trugman – Co-founder and Head of Technology, BetterFutureLabs
Mr. Trugman mapped three global approaches to AI governance: a strict, rights-driven EU, a multi-layered, state-steered China (with algorithmic filing and monitoring), and an “evolving Wild West” U.S. with scattered laws and fast-moving innovation. He cited the Take It Down Act (deepfakes and image harms) as one of the few concrete U.S. examples of AI-related legislation. He cautioned against a simplistic “first-mover advantage” narrative, arguing that getting the rules wrong is worse than moving slightly slower. He echoed debates around companies like Mistral, agreeing that regulators should prioritize applications and use-cases (e.g., impaired driving, hiring, deepfakes) rather than trying to directly regulate the “engine” or base models in isolation.
Narration of the Presentation | Presentation (PDF)

Mr. Salih Mansur – Independent Researcher (Instructional Technology & AI Systems)
Mr. Mansur examined “The U.S. State of AI Policies and Regulations,” confirming that the U.S. federal level relies on a patchwork of Executive Orders and domain-specific guidance, mirrored by diverse, uncoordinated state initiatives. He contrasted this with the centralized, unified approaches of the European Union’s GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) and AI Act. Mansur praised elements of Canada’s AIDA for its specific requirement for human reviewof government AI decisions for fairness, underscoring the necessity of human oversight as a safeguard. He concluded by stressing the importance of international collaboration over competition to ensure AI remains safe, fair, and human-focused.
Narration of the presentation | Presentation (PDF)

IV. Conclusion and Call to Action

Prof. Victor B. Lawrence (Senior Research Scientist and Director, iNetS, Stevens Institute of Technology)summarized the core tension: the U.S. remains fragmented across 50 states and multiple federal agencies, while Europe leads with a unified policy. He posed the essential question: Can the United States develop a coherent national AI policy? He urged participants to translate the day’s insights into concrete action toward a unified federal framework that respects local diversity, setting the stage for measurable progress by the third annual session.
Concluding Remarks

Ms. Ünver closed the session by reiterating that the ultimate goal is to advance public awareness and provide specific advice for safe, productive, and innovation-friendly AI policies aligned with human rights and the UN agenda. She emphasized the continuity of this long-term vision with the upcoming “Compulsory Peace & ICTs Education” campaign, scheduled for January 24, 2026, in support of the United Nations International Day of Education, which aims to reducing the mega gap in digital literacy.

Then she acknowledged and thanked to the:
• All our esteemed speakers

• BondsAI.org for this unique collaboration

• Chairman Adam Bricker

• Our guests and prior contributors, including Paul Mikov, CEO of ETS and a speaker in our previous session

• Dr. Kit (Katherine) August for her extended support with outreach

• Justin Trugman for his extended support with outreach

• Harvey Dupiton and his UN Affairs Weekly Group


Key Takeaways

Across all speakers, the panel established that:
• The U.S. urgently needs a coherent federal AI framework, preceded by sector-specific AI Trust Labs for validation and safety.
• Digital literacy and AI literacy must be expanded dramatically to close the mega gap between experts and the public.
• International cooperation (EU, Canada, UN, India) offers vital models for governance.
• Human rights, well-being, emotional integrity, and human oversight must remain at the center of AI design and governance.

This second annual AI panel by LMGlobal.Org successfully built a foundation for ongoing work: strengthening global partnerships, inspiring policy innovation, and ensuring that AI remains safe, fair, and human-focused.