The article argues that governments around the world are woefully unprepared to deal with an AI‑related disaster and need to create formal emergency response plans before a crisis hits. Technology has advanced rapidly, but legal and institutional planning has lagged far behind. Without agreed-upon definitions and frameworks, nations may struggle to respond when an AI malfunction, misuse, or unintended consequence threatens large-scale harm that crosses borders.
Drawing lessons from existing global emergency systems — such as those used for pandemics, nuclear accidents, and cybercrime — the article suggests that an AI emergency playbook could build on established treaties and response mechanisms. For instance, international health regulations allow a global body to declare a health crisis and coordinate action, while nuclear agreements require rapid notification of dangerous incidents. Such models show how coordination, rapid response, and predefined authority structures can work in practice during high-risk situations.
A central challenge highlighted is the need for a shared definition of what constitutes an AI emergency. An AI emergency isn’t confined to clear cases of system failure; it must also include scenarios where AI involvement is suspected or one of several plausible causes of widespread harm. Establishing this definition is crucial so that governments can act quickly, even before full forensic certainty about the cause is available — something that may take too long in a real emergency.
The author concludes that new institutions aren’t necessary, but governments must agree on how and when to use existing tools and create specific protocols tailored to AI risks. Advance planning, shared agreements, and practical readiness could help prevent or mitigate catastrophic outcomes, ensuring that nations aren’t caught off-guard when the next major AI-driven crisis emerges.
