The first international treaty on artificial intelligence (AI), signed on September 5, is so vague that it may seem inconsequential. But it is dangerous.

The treaty is titled “Council of Europe Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law.” It was signed by the European Union, the United States, the United Kingdom, Andorra, Georgia, Iceland, Norway, Moldova, San Marino and Israel. Argentina, Australia, Canada, Costa Rica, the Vatican, Japan, Mexico, Peru and Uruguay were also involved in negotiations.

“Each party shall adopt or maintain measures with a view to ensuring that activities within the lifecycle of artificial intelligence systems respect equality, including gender equality, and the prohibition of discrimination, as provided under applicable international and domestic law,” it states.

Every signatory is meant to ensure this happens; how exactly is not defined. One thing the Council of Europe finds annoying is that different countries allow different levels of freedom. The council’s website states:

The treaty covers the use of AI systems in the public sector—including companies acting on its behalf—and in the private sector. The convention offers parties two ways of complying with its principles and obligations when regulating the private sector: Parties may opt to be directly obliged by the relevant convention provisions or, as an alternative, take other measures to comply with the treaty’s provisions while fully respecting their international obligations regarding human rights, democracy and the rule of law. This approach is necessary because of the differences in legal systems around the world.

In other words, not every government can take absolute control, but they should go as far as they can.

The Guardian commented: “The UK government has signed the first international treaty on artificial intelligence in a move that aims to prevent misuses of the technology, such as spreading misinformation or using biased data to make decisions.”

That sounds great, but misinformation and biased data need to be defined. It is key to look at who wants to define it.

The strongest force behind the treaty was the EU, which already has its own AI Act. This institution is infamous for regulating anything from how you wash your dishes to what you say online. It fines the smallest businesses and the largest technology firms. The EU sets the global standard in strict regulations.

Another lesser known participant in the AI treaty is the Vatican. Pope Francis specifically advocated for it. Last December, he stated: “The global scale of artificial intelligence makes it clear that, alongside the responsibility of sovereign states to regulate its use internally, international organizations can play a decisive role in reaching multilateral agreements and coordinating their application and enforcement.” The Catholic Church has a history of defining international laws that go beyond national sovereignty.

Another key signatory is the U.S., which recently passed an executive order on AI. Former U.S. President Barack Obama inspired the executive order and has pushed for AI regulations since 2016. In March, Obama visited then British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and discussed AI; he also then met with Sir Keir Starmer, Britain’s current prime minster. Global AI regulation is on his mind.

Why have a vague AI treaty that doesn’t entail concrete punishments? Concerning the Paris Agreement, Obama stated:

We all knew at the time that Paris by itself doesn’t solve the climate crisis, because what it did was ask every country to set its own goals for reducing its greenhouse gases. And we knew that some countries were not going to be as ambitious as they needed to be, that the transition from a dirty energy economy to a clean energy economy was going to be disruptive and wouldn’t happen overnight. But our basic assumption was once we got everybody signed on, once we had the architecture for a global agreement, then with each successive year, we could try to negotiate for greater and greater reductions, more and more ambitious goals.

Obama admitted to forcing his will on other countries. The Obama Foundation’s website states: “The Paris Agreement remains one of President Obama’s proudest accomplishments.” This agreement brought down the economy of the U.S. and other Western nations and extended government reach into industries worldwide. (Learn more in “What the Paris Climate Agreement Was Really About” by Trumpet editor in chief Gerald Flurry.)

The main power behind this AI treaty is the EU, more specifically Germany. But the strategy is the same. First, convince as many as possible to sign a vague treaty that allows independent management. Next, define guidelines and push for more regulations and control.

This is in line with past EU regulations. As Trumpet editor in chief Gerald Flurry explained in “Germany Is Taking Control of the Internet”: “New EU laws attempt not only to curb America’s big technology companies, but to take over the World Wide Web. … The German-led EU is behaving the way the Holy Roman Empire has always behaved. Germany is once again seeking to impose its will on the world.”

EU regulations always come down to a power grab. But why regulate AI?

AI is a powerful and dangerous tool. Google searches, social media feeds, YouTube recommendations are increasingly defined by AI algorithms. To some this is frightening because it could mean that people’s thinking is shaped by AI. They may be denied access to crucial services such as banking or government programs due to decisions automated by AI. AI is also used in facial recognition methods which could decide criminal persecution. AI is said to revolutionize almost everything.

Some of those fears may be overstated, and the EU uses this to get people signed on to their regulations. But given that AI is set to revolutionize almost everything, the regulator gets to control virtually everything.

This is the danger of international AI regulation. Instead of individual companies making decisions that you may be able to escape, international bodies set the standard. This could ensure that every chatbot teaches that there are more than two genders, climate change is real, and we all evolved from apes. They will say things like: “It’s important to note that evolutionary theory is not based on belief, but on empirical evidence that has been rigorously tested and validated by the scientific community over many decades” (perplexity.ai).

Universal regulation may ensure that no lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer would be denied the right to adopt children. It could ensure that people who believe in traditional marriage are censored and possibly arrested for hate speech.

The applications are numerous and frightening. That’s why we need to watch the power that wants to define our world.

The Bible is clear that the push for humans to unite under one set of man’s rules is of Satan, who deceived the whole world (Revelation 12:9). He is the father of lies (John 8:44). Any tool that suppresses truth is his design. But the Bible is clear that man’s final attempt to rule itself will fail and be superseded by God’s eternal rule (Daniel 2:44).