It’s about time someone showed what ethical AI governance actually looks like instead of just talking about it. A year after Indonesia dropped its AI Readiness Assessment Report, with UNESCO, they pulled together a National Steering Committee. Government officials, civil society reps, academics, think tanks, UN agencies, industry players, all at the same table. And here’s the kicker: they weren’t debating if AI should be used. They were hammering out how to govern it without letting bias and discrimination run wild.

I think that’s the difference between performative ethics and the real deal. The committee zeroed in on what actually matters: tackling bias head-on, making sure AI procurement fits local cultural and social realities, and building policy frameworks that aren’t just reactive band-aids. It seems obvious, but most countries are still treating ethics like a footnote. Indonesia’s treating it like the foundation.

The conversation kept circling back to trust and accountability, and I feel that’s where most AI governance falls apart. Committee members pushed for redress mechanisms and transparent monitoring systems because without them, who’s holding these AI actors accountable when things go sideways? Citizens need recourse. Institutions need oversight. Otherwise, we’re just crossing our fingers and hoping algorithms don’t screw people over.

UNESCO’s involvement here matters because they’re bringing international standards and real comparative experience to the table. This isn’t some cookie-cutter model Indonesia’s expected to copy. It’s collaborative, adaptable, sector-spanning work that balances innovation with actual ethical oversight.

What strikes me most is UNESCO’s recognition that ethical AI governance can’t be static. Technologies shift, societies evolve, and frameworks have to keep pace. But the principles? Those stay locked: fairness, inclusion, and social benefit. I think that’s the line in the sand. AI should serve communities and respect human rights, not deepen the divides we’re already drowning in.

This isn’t just a policy case study. It’s a challenge. Technology and ethics aren’t separate conversations, and if we keep pretending they are, AI becomes another tool for inequality instead of progress. Indonesia and UNESCO are showing us what happens when you refuse to treat ethics as optional. The question is whether anyone else has the guts to follow through.

Because let’s be real: we’re running out of time to get this right. The blueprint’s right here. The roadmap’s been drawn. Now it’s just a matter of whether we’re serious about building a future where AI actually works for people, or whether we’re content to let it work us over instead.