Let 2026 be the year the world comes together for AI safety
Article metadata
Article Date: 29 December 2025
Article URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-04106-0
Article Image: https://media.nature.com/lw767/magazine-assets/d41586-025-04106-0/d41586-025-04106-0_51849218.jpg
Author style: Punchy
Summary
Nature’s editorial urges global coordination on AI safety in 2026. It highlights rapid AI advances and a surge in national laws, but warns of stark gaps — particularly in low- and lower-middle-income countries. The piece criticises recent US federal backtracking on AI policy, contrasts that with moves in the EU, China and Africa towards firmer oversight, and calls for transparency from AI developers about training data, copyright compliance and safety testing. The editorial recommends peer review of models, stronger disclosure rules and international cooperation, possibly under the UN, so regulation can enable innovation while protecting people.
Key Points
- AI progress is accelerating and many countries are enacting AI laws, but coverage is uneven globally.
- Low- and lower-middle-income countries lag far behind in AI policy and need international support to regulate effectively.
- The US federal government has paused or reversed some AI-policy work, creating regulatory gaps despite active state-level legislation.
- The EU, China and the African Union are moving towards stronger disclosure and governance; a UN-led or global organisation for cooperation is proposed.
- Regulation should require transparency on training data, respect for copyright, demonstrable safety testing and accountability for harms.
- Peer review and publication of models are encouraged to increase scrutiny, trust and reproducibility.
Context and relevance
This editorial matters because it frames AI as a general-purpose technology that requires the same kind of safety and oversight as energy, pharmaceuticals and communications. It ties into current trends — nation-level AI strategies, industry dominance in model development, debates on data rights and calls from researchers about existential risks. For policy-makers, industry leaders and researchers, the piece stresses that inconsistent or absent regulation risks public trust and stable long-term planning.
Why should I read this?
Quick version: if you care about where AI is headed — and whether it wrecks trust, privacy or safety — this editorial tells you why 2026 needs to be the year countries actually get their act together. Short, sharp and worth a couple of minutes.