AI Governance Needs Diplomacy Over Tech Alone

AI Governance Hinges on Diplomacy, Not Just Tech

Maya Sherman, a former senior official at the U.S. State Department, argues that the future of artificial intelligence regulation will be decided more by diplomatic negotiations than by technical fixes. She stresses that without coordinated international agreements, fragmented rules could stifle innovation and leave critical safety gaps.

Sherman’s perspective draws on her experience shaping the U.S. approach to emerging technologies and on recent multilateral efforts. She notes that while technical standards—like model‑card transparency or robustness testing—are essential, they cannot replace the need for binding treaties that align national interests and enforce compliance.

Why Technology‑Only Rules Fall Short

Technical guidelines often suffer from limited enforceability. For example, risk‑based classification systems can be undermined when firms relocate to jurisdictions with looser standards. Sherman points out that similar loopholes appear where voluntary commitments may be ignored by companies seeking competitive advantage.

She also highlights the rapid pace of AI development: new model architectures and generative capabilities emerge faster than any single regulator can update its rulebook. This speed makes it impossible for technology‑centric policies to keep up, reinforcing the need for diplomatic frameworks that can adapt through periodic negotiations.

Diplomatic Paths Already Emerging

Several international bodies are already laying groundwork for AI diplomacy, bringing together policymakers, technology leaders, and civil society to draft shared safety standards. Calls for a global treaty akin to those governing other high‑risk technologies have also been voiced.

Sherman cites upcoming high‑level summits as pivotal moments where governments can negotiate binding commitments on data sharing, model verification, and accountability mechanisms. She believes that such gatherings can produce enforceable accords that complement, rather than replace, technical standards.

What This Means for Israeli Businesses

For Israeli startups and SMEs, the diplomatic shift signals both risk and opportunity. Israel’s vibrant AI ecosystem—supported by the Israel Innovation Authority—must stay agile to comply with emerging international treaties. At the same time, early alignment with global standards can open export markets and reduce compliance costs.

Consider a typical Israeli SaaS firm that automates customer support using chatbots. If future regulations mandate transparent model‑card disclosures, the firm would need to invest in documentation and auditing tools. Using the verified Israeli automation figures (a medium‑complexity automation costs about ₪4,500 per weekly hour), a 10‑hour‑per‑week support bot would cost roughly ₪45,000 to build. Assuming a loaded labor cost of about ₪90 per hour, the automation saves roughly ₪84,000 annually, paying back in about six months—well before any treaty‑related expenses arise.

Businesses can therefore view diplomatic compliance as a strategic advantage: by adopting best‑practice governance early, they mitigate future legal risks and signal reliability to global partners.

The Road Ahead: From Talks to Treaties

Sherman warns that the transition from diplomatic dialogue to enforceable treaties will take years, but the momentum is undeniable. She urges policymakers to embed flexibility into agreements, allowing rapid updates as AI capabilities evolve.

In Israel, this could translate into a national AI charter that aligns with international guidelines while reflecting local industry needs. Such a charter would give Israeli firms a clear roadmap, ensuring they remain competitive while adhering to global safety norms.

Bottom line: AI governance will be shaped less by code and more by the art of negotiation. Companies that anticipate and prepare for diplomatic frameworks will secure both compliance and market advantage.

Sources & further reading

• Original source: Google News — policy