A few years ago, the debate on AI was a nice add-on to the programmes of conferences, and the first webinars were dedicated to the subject. Because of limited evidence on AI impact on our lives, discussions often focused on the expectation weather AI would always be a tool controlled by humans and with limited impact, or if General Artificial Intelligence someday soon would take the helm and even replace humans. Meanwhile, that phase is over. Today, there is an overwhelming stream of news, papers, and discussions about hopes, fears, and facts regarding AI arriving in all spheres of life. One easily gets overwhelmed by following the development of this new wave of technology in all its dimensions. And all this comes on top of other challenges we are facing locally, nationally and globally. It's a perfect storm. What makes the situation specific for cities: · Cities are sidelined from the beginning: Neither AI frontier platforms nor most AI applications are developed specifically for cities and urban researchers, planners and their demands. Cities are usually not involved in global and national AI dialogues and decision-making on AI governance. Actually, nobody asked cities and citizens how they would like to benefit or what to prevent before the development of AI gained strength. In the early years, only a few cities took the subject seriously and established their own local strategies and guidelines to govern AI. Importantly, the new technology is basically supply- and not demand-driven. Big Tech develops it and hopes to generate demand for its products and services. · Cities, together with others, are moving in the fog where they have limited information. For instance, in the field of the economy. A highly diverse group of 200 leading economists, AI researchers, including 16 Nobel Laureates, just launched a statement on AI’s transformation of the economy where they write: '1. AI may become radically more powerful over the next 10 years 2. This could drive unprecedented transformation of our economy, larger than the Industrial Revolution, but unfolding over a vastly shorter time frame. It could bring risks, including large-scale job displacement, as well as opportunities such as major gains in living standards. 3. Economists, policymakers and technology leaders must act now to understand the economics of transformative AI and to build incentives, guardrails, and institutions needed to steer AI in a direction that complements humans and benefits society’ ( wemustactnow.ai ) ‘…must act now to understand …’ Well, if economists and AI researchers don’t understand yet, how do you act as a city leader, considering that you are most often sidelined as an actor and move in the thick fog of a seemingly uncontrolled development that is beginning to impact the life of all your citizens? The first reaction is the usual reflex cities and their networks applied in situations before: exchange in city networks like UCLG, Metropolis, C40, ICLEI, etc, organize seminars, dialogues, and attend conferences of UN-Habitat, OECD, ISOCARP, GPAN, or one of the many other local, national, and international academic and professional organizations concerned with urban issues. That’s a good step, but watch out: As interface manager, I often observe that it takes time to develop a common understanding and to agree on common actions. In the case of Large Language Models like ChatGPT, Gemini and Claude, there is the additional challenge that they are trained on existing data. Accordingly, the training informs them about the past, but not about the future. As an interim result, I sum up that cities are mostly sidelined in AI debates; they move in the thick fog of a seemingly uncontrolled AI development with all its insecurity, and they can exchange only with partners in a similar unclear situation. To continue with business as usual doesn't seem to be the appropriate approach. Instead and leaning on the above statement by economists and AI researchers, I would recommend that cities must act now to understand the transformative power of AI on cities. However, they should start with a careful review of where they start: 1. AI is more than a technical tool. It also challenges our moral action. According to the philosopher Markus Gabriel ‘Artificial intelligence has moved beyond the realm of mere efficiency gains and penetrated the inner sanctum of the human experience: our subjectivity, our relationships, and our societies. Its defining effect is no longer performance, but resonance; data streams transform into reflections of our emotions, and machines become conversational partners.’ (M. Gabriel. Ethische Intelligenz. Ullstein. 2026; own translation). You may have observed part of this already in the case of social media. Now think what it means in the case of the new wave of AI technology? Can this be handled by AI regulation alone, or do we need to grow up to the challenge also in a moral and emotional sense? And what does that mean for urban societies? 2. The city as collective actor or chorus of diverging opinions In articles like the one of 14 July 2026 by Aaron Mak in Politico ‘Cities enter the AI debate’ cities are described as collective actors. https://www.politico.com/newsletters/digital-future-daily/2026/07/14/cities-enter-the-ai-debate-00997109 You may also recall Benjamin R. Barber’s 2013 book ‘If Mayors Ruled the World-Dysfunctional Nations, Rising Cities’. Many urban experts like the argument that cities and their mayors are better suited as partners than national governments because they would be closer to the problems, and more experienced in participatory processes and thus, more likely to identify the best solutions. This is possible, but there is no guarantee, and is that true for the case of AI too? I have no final answer. Certainly, cities don't have a bird's-eye view but work closely with many stakeholders at the local level. However, the role of the cities as actors needs some reflection: If you take, for instance, the above understanding by Markus Gabriel on AI and add the often highly diversified stakeholder composition in urban contexts, you see a very complex setting. Therefore, it may take a lot of time until cities are ready to contribute in a coordinated way to the dialogue on AI that goes beyond presenting different stakeholder concerns and positions. In return, if they were to manage to consult and coordinate internally, they might become specifically suited to contribute to the development and identification of solutions. What should be prevented as an outcome is a patchwork of local approaches and regulations. After all, we need global agreements and a common approach to build incentives, guardrails, and institutions to steer AI in a direction that is not all about data streams but complements humans and benefits society- guardrails and policies. We need a sustainable AI that puts the human and not data streams at the center. And Cities must act now to understand their own transformative power in the age of AI. If they leave no citizen behind, their voice may find more open ears at national and international levels. .

Ulrich Graute at selected conferences, workshops and research missions in Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates (2008-2025)

COMING SOON!!!

Experience Still Matters - From ISOCARP's 2025 World Planning Congress in Riyadh to the 2026 Conference 'Centrality in the Age of Dispersion' in Wroclaw to the 2026 Smart City Expo World Congress in Barcelona I just finished the review of more than 200 full papers of last year's 61st ISOCARP World Planning Congress in Riyadh together with ISOCARP's great Congress Content Team and my Co-General Rapporteur and President of IFLA Middle East, Dr. Nadine Bitar Chahine. Now, I would be ready to take it a bit easier and to focus on my special interests, like the relationship between humans, cities and AI. However, I am happy to share that I received a call to serve on the Expert Evaluation Committee (Call for Speakers and Call for Awards) for the 2026 Smart City Expo World Congress in Barcelona - the world's biggest and most influential event on urban innovation. Since 2011, the Smart City Expo World Congress has been the world’s biggest and most influential event for cities and urban innovation. Hosted annually in Barcelona, it brings together a powerful ecosystem of leaders from global companies, governments, and strategic organizations, driving real change. By convening the brightest minds and the most cutting-edge technology, the Smart City Expo is actively shaping a new urban paradigm: more sustainable, efficient, and human-centered. This function comes on top of my continued membership in the Scientific Committee for this year's Conference on 'Centrality in the Age of Dispersion' at the Wroclaw University of Science and Technology and an assignment as assessor and evaluator by hashtag#CitiesAlliance. Apparently, and in spite of the new wave of technology innovation, around AI experience still matters. More is coming up, and I am thankful for that. I will keep putting my penny into the jar of international cooperation of cities and their multilevel engagement.

In her fascinating book Le Paradox du Tapis Roulant (The Paradox of the Conveyor Belt) Marion Carré writes about our intellectual laziness in using AI and that we need to and how to overcome it. Does that make sense? Isn’t it the promise of all adds on Artificial Intelligence (AI) that it will provide services to us to make our life easier, to foster innovation and to increase our quality of life? Marion Carré observes and provides evidence from US and UK studies that using Large Languages Models (LLM) can make the individuum more creative, but that comparing this progress with other users using similar prompts shows in LLM responses only limited diversity and creativity. Instead, LLM provide similar suggestions and inspiration to different people who provide the LLM with similar tasks/prompts. Users who start from a lower level of knowledge may be able to make big steps towards an average level of knowledge and creativity while those from an already above average level may experience less gain of knowledge and creativity. She compares this phe nomenon with a conveyor belt. It is able to move individuals forward easily. Everybody is moving forward but they all move in the same direction. And here is the paradox: while we move forward the machine moves us into the same direction. Thus, on the longer term, AI might contribute more to standardization than creativity and innovation. But as co-founder of the company Ask Mona, a start-up that uses AI to mobilize curiosity and cooperates with culture institution on different continents, Marion Carré describes a way out of this impasse: instead of allowing AI to lull us into a false sense of security by simply trusting that our prompts generate trustworthy answers, we should use AI more as a sparring partner to train our critical thinking. Of course, it will be necessary that developers of AI program models and applications to be more interested in what users exactly mean. As various projects described demonstrate, it is also possible to challenge AI to be more gender and culturally responsive. Thus, AI Models should strengthen their Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback, ask users questions and give them different options to choose from. And after overcoming all temptations to lean back, trust AI and become lazy, Marion Carré realized: “It was at this point that I began using AI to engage in dialogue with myself. Not because I recognized its particular expertise or attached importance to its ideas, but because some of its remarks prompted reflections I wouldn't have had in isolation. The machine shifts my perspective away from my own way of thinking and its inevitable biases. It helps me more easily identify blind spots in my work and question certain limitations” (page 205).

The International Association for Safe and Ethical Artificial Intelligence, Inc. (IASEAI.org) hosted its second successful annual conference on 24 and 25 February 2026 at UNESCO House in Paris. Movement can be impactful for a while but needs to build a sustainable and agile structure for cooperation if they aim at longer term impact. IASEAI is an independent nonprofit organization founded to address the risks and opportunities associated with rapid advances in AI. With 1200 attendees and its interdisciplinary program the Paris conference was a rousing success. However, IASEAI still a young movement in a dynamic and difficult policy environment: Overall, the use of AI is not regulated. There are some national AI policies in countries like China and at regional level the European Union the EU AI Act is in effect since August 2024. The UN is establishing an Independent International Scientific Panel on AI. In most countries and cities of the world governments are still struggling to find their right AI-approach. Meanwhile big tech is betting high on the (aimed for) return of investments in AI development. A $7 trillion race to scale data centers is driving the investment landscape. At the same time, public concerns are growing about possible negative impacts of AI on the labor market and social cohesion. In addition, the AI bubble may burst. However, in global competition government tend to let AI development go without regulation rather the risking to fall behind in the race. All that happens in a time when the climate change is an ever-growing challenge, wars in Ukraine, Sudan and now in the entire Middle East continue to weaken international cooperation, kill thousands and destroy economic resources. What can non-governmental organizations like IASEAI do? In short IASEAI needs a sustainable and agile structure. With its President Stuart Russel, Executive Director Mark Nitzberg, Council, Advisory Board and Volunteers the Association has already a core team able to organize excellent international conferences like IASEAI’25 and ’26. But what happens in between of the annual conferences? How to keep the momentum? Stuart Russel at the closing plenary in Paris (see picture) expressed hope that e.g. as many national chapters as possible will be established. But how long will it take to establish such chapters in possibly all 195 recognized countries in the world? Or might the association end up with a few active countries which then leave many interested members behind? Therefore, and without excluding any establishment of national chapters, but also considering the dynamic global environment and limited resources of IASEAI, it might be recommendable and strategic to choose a structure and approach like this: Governance The President, Executive Director and Council already form the core governance structure of IASEAI and they should be supported by the Advisory Board and a Secretariat. They decide on the program of work, policy statements, other global activities and are accountable to members at the General Assembly of Members of the society. Regional Chapters and Working Groups In addition, IASEAI should establishing Regional Chapters or Working Groups in North America (US, Canada and Mexico), Europe (EU, UK and other non-EU-member states), Africa, Western Asia, Asia and Pacific (China, Australia etc). Again, National Chapters should be welcome but as a global movement the structure should not leave any member behind. Regional Chapters are more flexible and agile to exchange and cooperation, including with members in countries, where there either is no national network of members yet or where it may be difficult to establish a national non-governmental group of IASEAI. In addition, in cases like the European Union, a Regional Chapter is useful to follow-up e.g. developments around the EU AI Act. IASEAI work across all policy levels: AI and cities, and AI and International Organizations Considering that most people of the world live in cities, it would be important to establish an additional Working Group ‘AI and Cities’ to address the specific needs and opportunities of cities. Not paying enough attention to local needs and opportunities is one of the reasons why many UN agenda and policies like 2030 Agenda with its SDGs are weak or fail on the implementation side. In addition, one additional global Working Group should coordinate cooperation with the UN and other International Organizations. A global movement like IASEAI must work across all policy levels to be sustainable. After all, advising the UN through its Scientific Panel on AI, and national governments on AI safety and ethics may fail easily, if IASEAI has no competence at all on subnational matters of AI implementation and impacts. Ad hoc Thematic Groups and Projects In general, IASEAI should beware of becoming a organization which is top-down organized only. This might choke the momentum achieved at the first two annual conferences. IASEAI needs motivated and engaged members across disciplines, countries and regions for its global movement and to speak up in favor of safe and ethical use of AI. The dynamic of developments in the field will generate emerging subjects and may require that ad hoc groups with a single purpose are set up e.g. to write a report or policy statement on emerging issues in the field. This might be the case on a wide range of subjects like 'AI and children'. Depending on funds available the Association can build own and independent capacities for policy analysis and research. On the longer run this may turn IASEAI into a Think Thank always demanded when AI faces a new development of safety and ethical relevance. Of course, it will remain the task of the President, Executive Director, Council, Secretariat and advisory groups to compose out of all the above and in cooperation with all affiliates a sustainable global movement that speaks with authority and convinces governments and the public of a safe and ethical use of AI. And thanks again to the organizers of IASEAI'26 for the excellent conference with its 'radical interdisciplinary' programme. It was the right approach for the global movement.

Act Now Prepare Learn & Watch  On 28 January, the American Planning Association (APA) launched the fifth Trend Report for Planners. One of the strengths of the Report is that the trends are structured within three timeframes (Act Now, Prepare, Learn, and Watch), which indicate the urgency of planners' actions. Within each timeframe, trends are grouped into themed clusters. For each trend, the report gives insights and explains why it is important for planners to know about and consider the trend in their work. The Future of Planning requires embracing uncertainty. Planning was and is always linked to uncertainties. However, the Report is linked to the current specific multiple crises developments from climate to AI, Trump policies, geopolitical challenges, and the fact that policies leave many people behind. Looking more specifically at AI, I agree with the position that the intensifying bonds between humans and Chatbots are a trend where action is needed now. The Report also describes the need to prepare for policy shifts not working: "Fears of technology taking our jobs have been persistent through time, and the recent adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) is no exception. Nearly one-third of U.S. workers believe that AI will reduce jobs in the future, and while some studies haven’t found significant disruption by AI in the labor market, the available data have limitations. Moreover, other research has found that while certain jobs have been insulated from AI thus far, early-career". Isn't this an area where not only preparation but also acting now is needed? The Report suggests embracing uncertainty and updating the planner’s toolkit. The Report is an excellent read. I highly recommend it. There is only one caveat: With so much about (often interrelated and interdependent) uncertainties for cities, economies, society, and individuals, I miss a more integrated foresight on urban and rural life of the future. Will cities look the same? How to ensure, in hybrid planning processes, that AI doesn't substitute our human objectives with its own? We are learning a lot about the parts shaping our future, but the traditional strength of planners to plan for integrated and inclusive human settlements still needs to be demonstrated, e.g., by describing based on foresight data scenarios and narratives of cities in a possible age of AI. Integrated narratives are necessary to inspire and motivate citizens and planners. In its conclusion, the Report summarises: "Although the future may feel uncertain, it also holds significant promise. Addressing complex global and local challenges will require innovation, creativity, and collaboration. Social and technological advances offer powerful opportunities to prepare and be ready—if they are applied thoughtfully, equitably, and sustainably." Please download your copy of the APA-Report

The International Association for Safe & Ethical AI (IASEAI) is one of the most important new foundations in the field of AI. Its mission is "to ensure that AI systems operate safely and ethically, benefiting all of humanity. We connect experts from academia, policy groups, civil society, industry, and beyond to promote research, shape policy, and build understanding around this goal." The International Association for Safe and Ethical Artificial Intelligence, Inc. aims to build a global movement. IASEAI will host its second annual conference (IASEAIʼ26) on 24-26 February 2026 at UNESCO House in Paris, France. (Here is the link https://lnkd.in/d8Yfiwg7). The aim is to advance its mission of fostering a global, interdisciplinary community focused on the safe and ethical development of AI. By bringing together experts from various domains, we aim to facilitate dialogue, share knowledge, and foster partnerships that can collectively address the challenges and opportunities posed by AI. I am looking forward to attending the conference, which will include these featured speakers: 👉 Yoshua Bengio - Full Professor, Department of Computer Science and Operations Research, Université de Montréal 👉 Geoffrey Hinton- Prof. Emeritus, University of Toronto; Former VP and Engineering Fellow, Google; Nobel laureate (physics, 2024) 👉 Stuart Russell - Dist. Professor of Computer Science, University of California, Berkeley 👉 Joseph Stiglitz - Prof. of Economics, Columbia University; Nobel laureate (economics, 2001) 👉 Anna Salomons - Prof. of Law, Economics, and Governance, Utrecht University 👉 Tara Steele - Founder and CEO, Safe AI for Children Alliance 👉 Clara Chappaz - Ambassador, France for AI and Digital Affairs 👉 Anne-Sophie SERET - Executive Director, everyone.ai 👉 Ryan James - Chief Strategy Officer, Keep AI Safe Foundation The conference brings together technical, policy, and ethics researchers from academia, government, civil society, and industry. Of course, as a young organization, IASEAI may not yet cover all relevant aspects and groups. However, I miss a stronger attention to the specific urban dimension. After all, most AI companies are based in urban areas, and most people nowadays live in cities. If major disruption, unemployment, and unrest should occur due to AI, it is likely to happen in cities. City leaders and citizens will be challenged to coordinate and plan for the future of urban living in an age of AI. Thus, it is a bit surprising that urban stakeholders, so important for a global movement, will not be more strongly addressed by IASEAI. But I am confident that the discussions in Paris will raise awareness that building a global movement for safe and ethical AI needs to include city and business leaders, local AI, citizen engagement, and their advocacy at the national level.

Like any other big conference the 61st World Planning Congress of ISOCARP - International Society of City and Regional Planners in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia was complex, putting organizers under stress. But I must admit, the Congress in Riyadh was also different. Dr. Nadine Bitar Chahine and I made a perfect team of GRs, General Rapporteurs. Moments where we met in Riyadh to discuss problems were rare and stress came up only when the Riyadh Declaration was revised last minute. As I recall, we had no single work meeting and certainly no night sessions during the Congress. But the content programme of the Congress rolled out smoothly. Certainly, this is also due to other teams working hard, but as General Rapporteurs responsible for the content of the program it could have been very different. Root cause of our performance was that we at an early stage defined our single most important goal 'Making the Congress a success'. Easy as it sounds, it was often difficult to defend our understanding of what would make the Congress successful. But we didn't act as a block against others. Instead, at the preparatory in-person content meeting in Riyadh two months before the Congress we were not even sitting next to each other. We learned to rely and trust each other. In addition, we empowered the Congress Team. Prepared by us and highly motivated as they came to Riyadh, track teams worked perfectly without too much support or supervision. Well, and being able to rely on the work of the Congress Team and Secretariat we found time to attend sessions, discuss content of the Congress and have a lot of fun together as team and with others. That's how it works if a Society is member-led. Practically, we were working in parallel without loosing connection and mutual understanding. If you see these days posts commented by Nadine on behalf of both GRs, in most cases they were not discussed between us, but I agree on all of them. And in some of my posts the same happens in reverse. If our intuition shouldn't work perfectly at some point we briefly synchronise and go on. Since the Congress is over now, the peak of this perfectly tuned cooperation comes to the end. Thank you, thank you Nadine for a great year of cooperation. It will be difficult to repeat this perfect cooperation but let's try. Yours sincerely, Ulrich