Structural contradiction in the governance of artificial intelligence; Necessity of Returning National Organization – | Iranian and world news

;; Politics Group – Mohammad Sadegh Student: In recent years, the importance of artificial intelligence as a strategic technology in the world has increased dramatically, and most advanced countries have created special structures for policymaking and leadership in the field. In Iran, too, the end of the 13th government was taken an important step, and the National Organization of Artificial Intelligence was formed as an independent institution under the direct supervision of the president. The organization’s mission was national policymaking and coordination in the development of artificial intelligence technologies.

With the start of the fourteenth government, but this structure changed; Instead of the organization, the new government established the “Artificial Intelligence Development Staff” under the auspices of the Vice President of Science and Technology, and was practically stopped and transferred to the headquarters. This displacement and dichotomy in the structure of artificial intelligence has created significant confusion and uncertainty.

On the one hand, the supreme leader of the revolution has emphasized the continuation of that organization under the supervision of the President, and the Islamic Consultative Assembly is disregarding the “headquarters” of the government under the auspices of the National Assembly, which is reaffirming the revival of the National Artificial Intelligence Organization. The following is an analytical view of the dimensions of this dual situation. First, the Supreme Leader’s explicit formulation will be reviewed, then the negative impacts of the existing uncertainty and the experience of other countries in artificial intelligence governance will be examined, and finally suggestions will be suggested to withdraw from this structural stalemate.

Revolutionary Leader’s decree on the continuation of the artificial intelligence organization

The Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution has explicitly called for the continuation of the work of the National Artificial Intelligence Organization under the direct supervision of the president. During the first meeting of the 14th Government (Government Week 2), he emphasized the need for Iran to achieve “deep and infrastructure of artificial intelligence”, while referring to the previous government’s action to establish the National AI and said: “… of course the 13th government was formed under the name of” National AI “. It was a good thing that is halfway now. If if the same organization continues to work under Mr. President’s own supervision, there is a great hope that God willing … “.

The remarks, which were objected to September 5, clearly show that the leader of the semi -finished revolutionary initiative has taken into account the establishment of the National Artificial Intelligence Organization and has considered the right way to continue that structure under the supervision of the president. The supreme emphasis suggests that at the high level of the system, the subject of the organization of artificial intelligence has been assigned and the National Artificial Intelligence Agency must be re -re -activated and activated directly under the supervision of the president.

In addition to determining the macro orientation, this leadership is also legally important; Because the establishment of the National Artificial Intelligence Organization in the 13th government was based on the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution, which also referred to the independence of the organization under the supervision of the president. Therefore, changing its status to a headquarters under the scientific deputy by the new government is practically contrary to the spirit of that decree and leadership guidance. In order to seriously advance Iran’s goal among the world’s top artificial intelligence powers, it is necessary to establish this area at the highest level of governance.

Uncertainty in the structure of artificial intelligence governance and its consequences

With the new government’s decision to replace the organization with the “headquarters” under the Vice President of Science, there is now a kind of duality and confusion in the country’s artificial intelligence management. The National Artificial Intelligence Organization has been virtually closed and all related matters have been transferred to the newly established headquarters. Meanwhile, the Islamic Consultative Assembly has not paid attention to this restructuring, and in its national artificial intelligence plan, it has again anticipated the revival of the National Artificial Intelligence Agency under the president’s supervision. In other words, in the legislative documents, the Majlis is not discussed by the headquarters of the Scientific Department, and the same former independent organization is centered.

This situation has revealed the conflict between the executive and the legislature in the field of artificial intelligence governance. A year after the leadership demanded that the National Organization of Artificial Intelligence continued, the organization’s activities have been halted due to some interdisciplinary competitions, and now the Majlis Industry Commission is trying to provide the organization’s survival through the law. In the context of the House of Representatives, it is also clear that the National Artificial Intelligence Organization is formed to implement the goals of this sector and operates under the supervision of the President, and the government is obliged to prepare the statute for approval within three months. Meanwhile, the government recently established the Artificial Intelligence Headquarters and stated that “all the artificial intelligence affairs of the country will be under the supervision of the headquarters.” Thus, there are two parallel references in government and parliament documents that have led to the contradiction and instability in the policy of this area.

The consequence of this structural uncertainty is the waste of time and energy in a situation where the global realm of artificial intelligence is evolving. This is not in the interest of the country (because it slows progress in the area that will be the competitive advantage of the future countries). The vice president has also been explained that despite the structure of the structure, the headquarters will continue to operate at the highest level of sovereignty. However, critics point out that continuing to work at the highest level is not compatible with the spirit of leadership when it is not under the direct supervision of the president but under the deputy head or headquarters. The result of this institutional conflict has been that while the world is moving accelerated, Iran has been interrupted by governing artificial intelligence.

Experience of artificial intelligence in advanced countries

A look at the experiences of superior technology powers shows that most of these countries manage artificial intelligence at the highest levels of their governance, and for national coordination in this area have established special institutions under the supervision of the executive branch or in the central government structure. Here are some examples of the approach of advanced countries:

USA: The US government has taken a major approach. The White House declared artificial intelligence as a “national priority” since 2008, and a special office was established to coordinate the field at the Presidential Science and Technology Office (OSTP). According to the law approved, the National Office of Artificial Intelligence Initiative was established at the White House to coordinate and coordinate AI -related activities at the federal level. The office is directly under the supervision of the President’s scientific advisor and is the central contact point of national artificial intelligence programs. A High Technology Council (NSTC), headed by the President and Membership of Ministers, coordinates macro science and technology policies – including AI. The United States has so far made tens of billions of dollars in government investment in AI and has allocated more than $ 5 billion in recent years. This reflects US sovereignty to maintain superiority in the field of artificial intelligence led by the White House.

China: China, as a serious US rival in the AI ​​field, pursues a centralized state -of -the -art strategy. The Chinese government approved a new generation of artificial intelligence at the state council level (equivalent to the cabinet) in the past year, which aims to turn China into the first superpower of artificial intelligence by year 2. In this regard, a National Artificial Intelligence Office has been established under the supervision of the central government, which is responsible for formulating and implementing policies in this area. It is seriously pursuing the National AI strategy and has injected huge budgets into the research sector. China spends tens of billions of dollars on AI research and development each year, and has reportedly made more than $ 5 billion in direct government investment in the field. The focused policy of the top and the specific targeting has been the key to China’s success in winning the first rank of many AI indicators in the world.

Britain: The British government has also created a coordinated central entity to take advantage of AI opportunities. In 2008, within the framework of the Industrial Strategy, Office for AI was established as a new government unit. The office is jointly operating under the supervision of the two ministries (the Ministry of Digital Affairs and the Ministry of Business) and is responsible for the implementation of the National Artificial Intelligence Development Program. The British Artificial Intelligence Bureau plays a central role and oversees the government’s efforts to invest in research, improvement of skills, and AI regulations. In addition, the United Kingdom has formed an artificial intelligence council consisting of industry and university experts for consulting the government. The presence of these specialized institutions at the heart of the British government shows that decision -making about AI is at a high level of government, although its implementation has been distributed among various ministries.

France: France has put artificial intelligence among its strategic priorities since the initiative of President Emmanuel Macron. In a speech at the Dual College, the French president announced the National AI program with an investment of € 1.5 billion by year. With this plan, Macron intended to turn France into a top hub of artificial intelligence research and innovation in Europe. Subsequently, the French government appointed a national coordinator called “Monsieur IA” to pursue policies in all ministries. The French High Council of Digital and Innovation was also tasked with overseeing the progress of the programs. The result was the formation of large research centers (such as 3IA institutions) and attracting significant private sector investment in the French AI startups. The president’s direct support for the AI ​​program has made France a leading European in the past few years and dozens of innovative AI companies emerge.

The United Arab Emirates: The UAE‘s approach as a developing but ambitious country in the AI ​​is also worth noting. The UAE appointed artificial intelligence as the world’s first country in the world. The creation of the post of “Minister of State for Artificial Intelligence”, which was led by a 5 -year -old young man, showed attention at the highest level of government in the UAE. It is the task of this coordination minister among all sectors of the government to take advantage of AI as well as to formulate the AI ​​national policy. In parallel, the UAE has approved the national strategy of artificial intelligence and has made a heavy investment in data infrastructure and talent absorption. The UAE’s initiative to have an artificial intelligence minister is a unique model that many great powers have not yet followed. However, as the Time Magazine points out, such a position helps to take a comprehensive and harmonious look at AI applications throughout the government and avoid partiality. With these measures, the UAE is trying to make itself a leading country in the Arab world in the AI.

In general, international experience indicates that countries have no choice but to focus on the highest levels of the state to govern artificial intelligence. Whether through the formation of the Supreme Council headed by the head of state (such as the US and China) or by appointing a special trustee in the central government (such as the British AI office or the UAE AI minister), it is a common model that the initiative is in the hands of the government or the closest circle to him. This is due to both the mid -range and transformational nature of AI that requires transcendental coordination, and because of the intense global competition that requires decisions with executive power and maximum political support. Therefore, the current situation in Iran, where there is no consensus on the authority of AI, is a serious deficiency compared to the global practice.

Suggested strategies to fix uncertainty

Given all the aspects of these, it is in the right of the country to clarify the task of the structure of artificial intelligence. In this regard, two basic axes must be the criterion of action: the first of the explicit guidance of the revolutionary leader and the second model of successful global experience. Accordingly, the following solutions are suggested:

1. Return of the National Organization of Artificial Intelligence below: The best and fastest way is to voluntarily take the government to revive the National AI. The President can re -enable the National Artificial Intelligence Organization with a managerial decision (such as notifying a resolution in the Cabinet). The move will be in line with the decree of the revolution in September, and will send a message of government seriousness in the implementation of the supreme manuscripts of the system. The experience of other countries also shows that the direct support of the government is a decisive factor in advancing AI initiatives. Therefore, the fourteenth government can reform the past path and once again establish a single command in the presidential institution for this area by implicit acceptance of a mistake in restructuring. This is also faster than timely bureaucracy and eliminates existing uncertainty immediately.

2. Coordination of Government and Parliament over the single structure: In addition to the government’s executive action, the legislature and the executive must also have a close interaction to avoid parallel structures. The continuation of the current trend and the formation of the two institutions (organizations and staff) simultaneously will not help advance artificial intelligence in the country. Therefore, it is appropriate for the government and parliament to reach an understanding of a single structure before the final approval of the plan or bill. If the National Parliament’s National Artificial Intelligence Plan is to be based on the operation and the National Organization of Artificial Intelligence is to be restored, the government can accompany the delegates instead of resistance and cooperate in formulating details of the Statute and the Organization of the Organization to provide an efficient and agreed legal legal. On the contrary, if the government has justified reasons for integrating artificial intelligence, it must provide these reasons to the parliament and the elites, and may want to give a comprehensive bill to determine the duty of this area. However, the constructive interaction of the two branches can reduce the waste of time in legal commutes and lead to a single planning plan. It should not be forgotten that the ultimate goal of both is to strengthen AI’s governance and the development of the country; So the difference on the shape of the structure should not prevent that purpose.

1. Using the capacity of the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution: Since the initial decision of the formation of the National Artificial Intelligence Organization has been approved by the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution, the council still has legal authority. One solution could be to raise the issue in the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution and to make a decision with the presence of the heads of the three branches. The Supreme Council can update the previous resolution, for example, and explicitly determine what institution to be managed by the country’s artificial intelligence. The council’s resolution, which is also endorsed by the leader of the revolution, will be necessary for all agencies and can be a chapter of disagreement. The condition of the success of this strategy, of course, is that the government also obey it and avoid interpretation of the approval.

1. Strengthen the Staff and Budget of the Trustee: Regardless of whether the organization is ultimately resuscitated or the reinforced headquarters under the supervision of the First Vice President, the authority, resources and human resources must be provided to the trustee. One of the criticisms of the National Artificial Intelligence Organization at the time of its establishment was the lack of compilation of the statute and the lack of specification of its duties. Therefore, if the organization is resuscitated by the President, it is necessary to formulate the statute and its organizational chart as soon as possible so that parallelism with the ministries and other councils is necessary. It should also be considered sufficient funding to launch national projects. If the structure of the headquarters remains in the scientific deputy, it is best to assign it to the first vice president to gain a higher weight on the cabinet and to guarantee its decisions. In addition, the previous formed artificial intelligence council should continue to be active and formulate a single roadmap for the country with the presence of related agencies (Ministry of Communications, Defense, Sit, Science, etc.). Thus, whether in the form of an organization or headquarters, decision -making will be prevented.

Conclusion

The uncertainty created by the country’s artificial intelligence governance structure is not only a managerial challenge, but also a strategic threat because of the speed of developments in this area. While global powers are investing and gaining an advantage in the AI ​​with centralized planning at the highest levels of government, opportunities should not be spent on structural disputes and interdisciplinary conflicts. The explicit decree of the supreme leader has specified the assignment to lead the president directly under the supervision of the President to achieve long -term goals. The practice of advanced countries also confirms that promoting the position of the AI ​​trustee in the structure of the state is a prerequisite for success in this competitive field. Accordingly, it seems that the best strategy is for the government, in cooperation with the Majlis, to re -activate the National Organization of Artificial Intelligence, and the presidency itself has direct supervision of its performance. In addition to ending the existing confusion, this step will provide a clear message to the technology and elite community that see the sovereignty of artificial intelligence as a real priority and in the balance of other strategic issues in the country. In the light of such determination, it is hoped that Iran will also be able to gain a good place among the world’s top artificial intelligence powers according to the targets.