Who writes the rules for artificial intelligence? HKS students make the case for public leadership

What inspired you to launch the AI Policy Symposium, and why now? 

Marin Furuyama and Slavina Ancheva, AI & Tech Policy Caucus

It became clear to us as a caucus that there is growing interest in AI and tech policy at HKS, reflected both in current students and newly admitted students with whom we speak. We saw this echoed in Dean Jeremy Weinstein’s efforts to modernize the HKS curriculum, the growing number of courses and programs focused on these issues, and strong momentum across HKS and the wider Harvard community. 

Given these factors, it felt like the right moment to put together an AI Policy Symposium to showcase this renewed momentum, discuss some of the most pressing issues in AI policy today, and engage with the broader community. Seeing more than 200 people attend from across Harvard’s schools—including students, fellows, and faculty—confirmed the level of interest we had sensed and made the hard work across our teams feel worthwhile. It is our hope that this serves as a foundation future students can build upon, and as a catalyst to further develop and advance HKS curriculum and programming toward a stronger focus on AI policy. 

Khelil Belkhodja and Ruxanda Renita, Business & Government PIC

Unlike other waves of innovation throughout human history, AI is pushing countries both to protect their sovereignty and to advance partnerships aligned with the resources AI requires—whether energy, water, or rare minerals—rather than relying on traditional alliances in the way the European Union (EU) once did for the United States. It is clear that AI is one of the defining forces in the new global order and in new micro-level governance models between the private and the public sectors. 

As the Business & Government PIC, we saw the symposium as an opportunity to bring together AI labs, hyperscalers, the U.S., the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), and India to discuss the future of the world amid the emergence of AI.

What misconceptions do people commonly have about this area, and how does the AI Policy Symposium’s program address them? 

Marin and Slavina: 

A common misconception is that AI policy requires a technical background, or that it should be left solely to specialists—an assumption we initially held ourselves. However, the breadth of opportunities and challenges that AI presents demands engagement from thoughtful people across policy domains and geographies. We designed the symposium with that approach in mind, bringing together experts who reflect the same diversity of backgrounds we need at the policymaking table. 

Khelil and Ruxanda: 

Many misconceptions are connected to people’s geographic perspectives and systems of governance (e.g., democracy, centralized government, communism). At the individual level, Western cultures often view AI policy primarily through the lenses of risk management, safety, and ethics. At the government level, there can be an inclination to view AI as the next opportunity to enhance American exceptionalism in an arms race with China. 

By contrast, the GCC, as an early adopter of AI governance, often views it through the lens of industrial policy and as an opportunity to position itself as an innovator. These are just a few examples among many. With the symposium, we wanted to illuminate this tension between safety and ethics on one hand, and industrial policy on the other, in an attempt to re-create a more collective narrative.

The AI Policy Symposium was framed around “geopolitics, governance, and growth.” Why did you choose these three lenses, and what connections did you hope participants see between them?

Marin and Slavina: 

While many discussions on AI occur within sector-specific silos, the challenges it poses increasingly cut across traditional policy boundaries. Our symposium brought together senior leaders, scholars, students, and practitioners from diverse policy areas to engage in interdisciplinary dialogue on AI.

We believe HKS is uniquely positioned in this space. While other schools may focus on the technical aspects or the philosophical choices underpinning AI ethics, HKS is one of the few places where students can take classes across these disciplines and do research with world-class experts  on a variety of areas within AI policy. At a moment when government needs more AI expertise than ever, we believe in HKS’s potential to equip public servants—no matter which sector they go into—with the interdisciplinary knowledge needed to tackle today’s problems.

Khelil and Ruxanda: 

“Geopolitics, Governance, and Growth” are the interdependent pillars that countries consider when formulating their positions on AI. To create cohesive AI governance at the national, subnational, or private-sector levels—governance that is global but fragmented—one must account for the geopolitical context and each actor’s definition of growth. 

A hyperscaler, AI lab, or national or subnational government cannot define its AI growth strategy without accounting for the geopolitics and governance required at the global and regional levels. This is especially necessary as AI’s “cognitive growth”—the Artificial General Intelligence/Artificial Superintelligence north star—is increasingly defined by a country’s or company’s capacity to extend its physical AI footprint and secure access to resources such as energy and rare minerals. At the symposium, the goal was not to provide a universal response, but to immerse our attendees in the complexities that define the future of AI and humanity's trajectory. 

How did your time at HKS shape your understanding of this issue, and your sense of responsibility to act on it? 

Marin: 

Being surrounded by students approaching AI from a variety of perspectives—labor rights, election integrity, international development—made the challenges feel even more vast and urgent than I had previously understood. The peers, courses, and extracurriculars I engaged with at HKS pushed me to think more carefully about who is and isn’t at the table when these decisions are being made, and how, in a policy area still taking shape, we can do things differently to ensure people aren’t left further behind. HKS gave me the tools to think about how other policy domains, like social and economic policy, will need to evolve in the age of AI.

Slavina: 

Before coming to HKS, most of my work focused on AI and tech policy in the EU context, including in the European Parliament on legislation like the EU AI Act [the world’s first comprehensive law on AI]. I came to HKS to branch out beyond Brussels and learn more about how the U.S. and the rest of the world are thinking about pressing AI governance issues. Having had the chance to take classes and engage in rigorous research over the last two years on topics spanning from AI policy in the U.S. Congress, to AI-enabled emerging technologies, to AI in diplomacy and statecraft, I feel much more equipped to tackle these issues.  

Khelil: 

My time at HKS deepened both my understanding of AI and my sense of responsibility to act on it. I came here precisely to study questions like how AI will reshape human capacities, work, and opportunity, and how we can prepare for what is coming. That led me to focus on both the foundational human skills that will matter even more in the AI era—leadership, judgment, adaptability—and the broader economic, policy, and geopolitical forces shaping this transition. Through classes, lectures, JFK Jr. Forum events, and conversations with classmates, fellows, and experts, HKS helped me see this issue not only as a technological shift but as a societal one that requires thoughtful leadership and action. 

Ruxanda: 

I joined the MC/MPA Program to explore human value in the age of AI, which led me to focus primarily on AI governance in capital markets, the knowledge industry, human productivity, and physical AI. 

Classes like Dean Jeremy Weinstein and Professor Sharad Goel’s Public Problem Solving with Generative AI: Challenges and Opportunities, Professor Jake Sullivan’s The Policy and Geopolitics of Artificial Intelligence, Professor John Haigh and Professor Jonathan Sallet’s Big Tech and the Importance of Competition: Public Policy in the 2020s, and, at HBS, Professor Shikhar Ghosh and Professor Zoe Cullen’s Navigating Your Worth: AI, Negotiations and the Nature of Expertise and Professor John Macomber and Professor Camille Douglas’ Real Property all contributed to my understanding and added nuance to an already complex AI landscape across sectors, disciplines, and governments. This symposium represented an intersection of my personal and collective interests and a reflection on the new world order in the age of AI. 

If participants remember only one idea from the AI Policy Symposium, what do you hope it is? 

Marin and Slavina: 

We find ourselves at a unique moment in AI development where what is needed is not just technical capabilities, but broader societal and policy understanding. HKS is uniquely positioned to prepare students for these skills, and we hope that the AI Policy Symposium can serve as a first step in that broader conversation.

Khelil and Ruxanda:  

We, as representatives of humankind, are the creators of AI in its physical and cognitive forms. As Professor Mark Esposito highlighted during his panel discussion, this is not a moment to surrender, but rather an opportunity to redefine our collective narrative and the direction of humankind. It is a time of regeneration and net-new beginnings.

Banner image: Cash Macanaya/Unsplash. Inline photos courtesy of Marin Furuyama, Slavina Ancheva, Khelil Belkhodja, and Ruxanda Renita.