A keynote delivered on Day 1 of the AI in Regulation Conference by Carol Anne Hilton, founder of the Global Centre of Indigenomics, challenged a core assumption shaping regulatory responses to artificial intelligence: that neutrality is inherently safe.
Hilton argued that while regulators often do strong work on principles, frameworks, and process, many of the most consequential decisions about AI, its architecture, ownership, scale, and dependency are being made elsewhere. These decisions, she noted, are typically set by technical and commercial actors long before regulation meaningfully engages. In this context, neutrality can shift from a protective stance to a quiet concession of authority.
AI systems, the session observed, are frequently deployed at speed, driven by global competition narratives, investment pressure, and international benchmarking. Regulators are then left responding after the fact, issuing guidance, discussion papers, or consultations once systems are already embedded in public services. Claiming neutrality toward underlying infrastructure, Hilton warned, risks normalizing a loss of control while framing it as fairness.
Using the metaphor of a dance, Hilton described how AI regulation often unfolds. A new application enters the sector, regulators respond with discussion papers, industry advances pilots or proofs of concept, civil society raises critique, and institutions circle back with amendments. This cycle can preserve legitimacy and avoid open conflict, but it does not necessarily set direction or determine whose interests ultimately shape outcomes.
Neutrality, Hilton emphasized, is not the same as impartiality. In highly unequal power environments, refusing to take a position can leave existing power arrangements intact. Regulating behaviour through transparency requirements, bias testing, or consent obligations without addressing structural questions such as ownership, market concentration, or deployment pace risks treating symptoms rather than causes.
The keynote concluded with a call for regulators to treat neutrality as a strategic choice rather than a default posture. The responsibility, Hilton argued, is to recognize when neutrality supports responsible governance, and when it becomes a way of yielding authority without acknowledging its consequences for public interest, sovereignty, and long-term accountability.
