ISLAMABAD: Pakistan needs a practical and context-specific artificial intelligence (AI) governance framework that balances technological innovation with national security, data sovereignty, economic priorities, resource constraints, and ethical considerations. The country must move beyond policy announcements toward measurable implementation, strengthen indigenous technological capabilities, and ensure that AI development serves human welfare. The framework must also address AI’s implications for employment, economic inequality, cybersecurity, environmental sustainability, and social values.

These issues came under discussion at a seminar titled “Governing the Algorithm: Comparative AI Policies and Lessons for Pakistan,” organized by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS), Islamabad. Speakers included Dr. Masood Mehmood Khan, faculty member, Curtin University, Australia; Zeeshan Javed, associate director, Strategic Vision Institute, Islamabad; and Muhammad Faizan Fakhar, senior research associate, Center for Aerospace and Security Studies, Islamabad. Yasir Riaz, director general, IPS, also shared his perspective, while Khalid Rahman, chairman, IPS, chaired the session.

Delivering the keynote address, Dr. Masood Khan emphasized that AI policy should be a comprehensive national framework integrating governance, economic priorities, infrastructure, research, and human development. Drawing on international experiences, he outlined ten interconnected policy areas, including governance, digital infrastructure, computing capacity, research, human capital, industrial development, public services, safety, and international cooperation. He stressed that Pakistan’s progress should be assessed through tangible outcomes rather than announcements or pilot projects. He recommended strengthening priority datasets, expanding affordable computing resources, developing practical skills, and adopting an AI model aligned with national requirements.

Complementing this broader policy perspective, Zeeshan Javed drew attention to the environmental and material demands of AI development, particularly water, energy, and computing infrastructure. He argued that indigenization should extend beyond software to include essential hardware, such as graphics processing units and memory components. He called for realistic assessments of Pakistan’s resources, financial capacity, sustainability requirements, and implementation timelines.

Turning to the international dimension, Muhammad Faizan Fakhar examined AI governance approaches adopted by the US, China, and the European Union, highlighting their differing priorities. He cautioned that global AI competition increasingly revolved around technological ecosystems, including semiconductors, computing hardware, and supply chains. He stressed the importance of strengthening indigenous capabilities, protecting data sovereignty, retaining skilled professionals, and independently evaluating AI systems. He also highlighted cybersecurity risks associated with dependence on foreign technologies and outdated government infrastructure.

Moving from technological preparedness to its broader socioeconomic implications, Yasir Riaz observed that technological transformation was inevitable and required proactive adaptation. Drawing parallels with industrialization and the emergence of the internet, he noted that AI would reshape economies and societies while potentially displacing entry-level and middle-skilled workers. He cautioned that its benefits could remain concentrated among highly skilled groups, raising concerns about economic inequality, social structures, and ethical values. He underscored the importance of reliable data systems for ensuring accurate AI outputs.

In his concluding remarks, Khalid Rahman emphasized that AI governance requires an ethical framework grounded in human purpose and accountability. He distinguished between compliance driven by external surveillance and ethical conduct rooted in personal responsibility. He cautioned against allowing algorithms and data-driven systems to determine ethical standards independently, stressing the importance of preserving moral and religious foundations. He maintained that technological advancement should ultimately serve human welfare, development, and peace rather than merely material interests.

The seminar underscored the need for a proactive national approach that brings together sound governance, technological preparedness, institutional responsibility, and a clearly defined ethical direction.