MDDI 演講稿 · 2026-02-20
楊莉明部長在聯合國數碼與新興技術辦公室(ODET)「科學在國際 AI 治理中的角色」專題討論上的閉幕致辭
要點
- • 新加坡定位 AI 為「公共利益的力量」,並以 10 億新元投入《國家 AI 研發計劃》(含負責任 AI 的基礎與應用研究);同時建有「數字信任中心」(AI Safety Institute)與「線上安全先進技術中心」。
- • AI 治理永遠存在「快」與「穩」的張力——必須把科學與政策整合起來。這件事不容易,但不能放棄;國際合作做出可互操作的方案,是關鍵基礎。
- • 聯合國的獨特價值,是合法性與包容性,能在碎片化的全球 AI 治理圖景裡推動互操作。新加坡歡迎成立「獨立國際 AI 科學小組」(基於聯合國 AI 高階諮詢機構的工作)。
- • 在透明、問責、公平、安全等高層原則上,全球已有相當共識——挑戰在「運營化」:標準化評估方法 + 能力建設,讓不只是大 AI 國家也能參與。
- • 新加坡貢獻:舉辦《國際 AI 安全科學交流》並促成《新加坡 AI 安全研究優先事項全球共識》;兩屆「AI 安全紅隊挑戰賽」;擔任 ASEAN AI 治理工作組主席,推出《ASEAN AI 治理與倫理指南》並擴充套件涵蓋生成式 AI 風險。
完整譯文(繁體中文)
MDDI 英文原文譯文 · 翻譯日期: 2026-05-02
各位早安。
首先,請允許我感謝聯合國秘書長的發言——它對所有從事這項重要技術工作的我們來說,是非常有用的指引。
在這段閉幕發言裡,我覺得提供一個「小國視角」會有用。新加坡只有 600 萬人口,30 多年前在聯合國,我們成為「小國論壇」的召集國——這個論壇至今仍有約 108 個成員。
關於我們如何看待這條戰線上的進展,我提三點。
第一點:我們相信 AI 應當被用作「公共利益的力量」。要做到這一點,就必須持續投資於支撐 AI 的科學,並把信任建立在證據之上。
這顯然需要持續投入研究。這也是我們為什麼在《國家 AI 研發計劃》中劃撥 10 億新元——其中將包含針對負責任 AI 的基礎與應用研究。我們相信這件事,必須把錢放進這一努力。
當然還有其他投入——比如建設「數字信任中心」(Digital Trust Centre),這是我們指定的 AI 安全研究機構(AI Safety Institute),一直在參與這方面重要對話;還有設立「線上安全先進技術中心」(Centre for Advanced Technologies in Online Safety)——這只是作為一個小國,我們能投入的資源中的一部分。
第二點是——鑑於 AI 發展的節奏,我們「快速行動」的衝動幾乎一定會與「審慎行動」的需要(基於最新出現的證據)發生張力。
這兩種衝動都是必要的。我們相信——通過把科學與政策整合起來,平衡兩者並非不可能。
這不容易,但不是我們應當放棄的努力。在這一點上,我還想補充:如果我們能在國際層面合作,開發穩健且能跨司法轄區互操作的方法,會好得多。這正是聯合國所開展工作的根基之一。
這就引到我的第三點。我想強調像聯合國這樣的組織在「促成全球對話、把科學與政策銜接起來」這件事上的重要角色。這一努力的重要性,怎麼強調都不為過。
我們必須看到——全球 AI 治理圖景正在變得越來越碎片化:多個倡議、多個框架、多個機構並存。
聯合國的獨特價值在於它的合法性與包容性——足以在不同努力之間推動互操作。
因此,我們歡迎「獨立國際 AI 科學小組」(Independent International Scientific Panel on AI)的成立——它建立在聯合國 AI 高階諮詢機構的工作之上(該機構於 2024 年底釋出了報告《為人類治理 AI》)。
我們注意到——這個小組採用多學科路徑(機器學習、應用 AI、社會科學、倫理學),這對應對 AI 治理挑戰的複雜性是必要的。
最後,我想指出:在 AI 的高層原則方面,我們目前已經有了相當多的共識——Yoshua 也談到了——透明、問責、公平、安全;挑戰在於「如何把它們運營化」。
我們需要找到能在不同監管語境下都能用的「標準化評估方法學」。我們需要能力建設,讓所有國家都能有意義地參與到技術證據的對話中——而不只是那些擁有大型 AI 研究生態的國家。
我希望所有利益相關方都能把科學輸入視為更穩固、更有效治理的基礎——而不是政策靈活性的約束——只有這樣,公眾的信任才能維繫下來。
我們必須讓這些對話持續下去——一種「讓科學指引治理、讓治理打磨科學」的對話。
最後我想強調——新加坡將繼續致力於推進這些討論。
我們非常榮幸舉辦了《國際 AI 安全科學交流》,並促成了《新加坡 AI 安全研究優先事項全球共識》。Yoshua 也來到了新加坡參加這一非常重要的活動。
我們將繼續參與「國際先進 AI 測量、評估與科學網路」(International Network for Advanced AI Measurement, Evaluation and Science)的聯合測試。我們已舉辦兩屆「新加坡 AI 安全紅隊挑戰賽」(AI Safety Red Teaming Challenge)——這是亞太地區第一個多文化、多語言的 AI 安全紅隊演練。
作為「東盟 AI 治理工作組」(ASEAN Working Group on AI Governance)主席,我們積極牽頭——在東盟範圍內構建可信環境,把全球規範與最佳實踐調適到 ASEAN,並通過《ASEAN AI 治理與倫理指南》推動區域協調,並將其擴充套件到生成式 AI 的風險。
我們目前正在 ASEAN 內部探索 AI 安全測試的實用工具,並希望共同開發一套反映本地區關切的 AI 安全基準。
最後,我想歡迎各位同行加入我們——5 月 17 日至 18 日在新加坡舉辦第二屆《國際 AI 安全科學交流》,期待與各位繼續深化這一領域的對話。再次感謝大家。
英文原文
MDDI 官網原始記錄 · 抓取日期: 2026-05-02
Good morning, everyone.
First, allow me to thank the Secretary General for his remarks. It serves as a very useful guidance to all of us working on this important technology.
For the closing remarks, I thought it would be useful to offer a perspective from a small state. Singapore has a population of just 6 million people, and more than 30 years ago, at the United Nations (UN), we became the convener of the Forum of Small States, which still has about 108 members.
I will just make three points on how we look at developments on this front.
The first point is that we believe in AI being used as a force for the public good. But in doing so, it is important that we continue to invest in the science that underpins it, and ground trust in evidence.
This certainly requires sustained investment in research. It is also the reason why we set aside a $1 billion investment in the National AI R&D Plan, which will include foundational and applied research into responsible AI. We believe in it, and we have to put money behind this effort.
There are, of course, other investments, such as in building up a Digital Trust Centre. It is our designated AI Safety Institute that has been participating in important conversations on this topic, as well as setting up a Centre for Advanced Technologies in Online Safety -- those are just some of the efforts that we can dedicate resources to as a small state.
The second point I want to make is that there is almost always going to be a tension between moving quickly, given the pace of AI development, and moving carefully, given the latest evidence that presents itself on what we should be paying attention to.
Both impulses are necessary, and we believe that it is not impossible to try and balance them through the integration of science and policy.
It is not easy, but it’s not an effort that we must give up on. I should just add that on this score, it will be much better if we can cooperate internationally to develop sound approaches that can also be interoperable across different jurisdictions, and this is one effort that we believe underpins the work that is being carried out by the UN.
This brings me to my third point. I want to highlight the important role that an organisation like the United Nations plays in facilitating global discourse to bridge science and policy. I cannot overemphasise the importance of this effort.
We must recognise that the global AI governance landscape is becoming increasingly fragmented – there are multiple initiatives, frameworks, and institutions.
The UN's unique value lies in its legitimacy and inclusiveness to encourage interoperability across efforts.
We, therefore, welcome the establishment of the Independent International Scientific Panel on AI, building on the work of the UN High-Level Advisory Body on AI, which published its report on Governing AI for Humanity at the end of 2024.
We note that the Panel's multidisciplinary approach -- machine learning, applied AI, social science, and ethics – is necessary to address the complexity of AI governance challenges.
Finally, I would just like to acknowledge that we now have substantial convergence on the high-level AI principles. Yoshua talked about this -- transparency, accountability, fairness, and safety – but the challenge is in operationalising them.
We need to find standardised evaluation methodologies that work across different regulatory contexts. We need capacity building so that all countries can meaningfully engage with the technical evidence, and not just those with the large AI research ecosystems.
I would encourage all stakeholders to view scientific input not as a constraint on policy flexibility, but as a foundation for more durable, effective governance that can maintain public trust.
We need to keep the conversations going, one where science informs governance and governance sharpens science.
I would just perhaps end by highlighting Singapore's continued commitment to contributing to advancing these discussions.
We were very fortunate to host the International Scientific Exchange on AI Safety and to bring about the Singapore Consensus on Global AI Safety Research Priorities. Yoshua was in Singapore for this very momentous event.
We will continue to participate in joint testing efforts of the International Network for Advanced AI Measurement, Evaluation and Science. We have organised two editions of the Singapore AI Safety Red Teaming Challenge, the first multicultural and multilingual AI safety red teaming exercise focused on the Asia Pacific region.
And as chair of the ASEAN Working Group on AI Governance, we have actively spearheaded efforts to foster a trusted environment in ASEAN by adapting global norms and best practices for ASEAN and bringing about regional harmonisation through the ASEAN Guide on AI Governance and Ethics, as well as expanding it to address the risks in generative AI.
We are now working within ASEAN to explore practical tools for AI safety testing and aim to collectively develop a set of AI safety benchmarks that reflect our region's concerns.
And finally, I'd like to welcome all colleagues to join us in Singapore for the second edition of the International Scientific Exchange, which we expect to take place on the 17th and 18th of May, and we look forward to furthering our discussions in this area. Thank you very much once again.