As AI continues to transform industries worldwide, developing countries face a critical challenge: how to design legal frameworks that ensure accountability without stifling innovation. This question took center stage at the recent AIFOD Public Forum on AI Legal Liability, where Andrés Rojas, President and CEO of GCE Augmented Intelligence, contributed insights grounded in the practical realities of the Global South.
Rather than advocating for one legal model over another, the forum opened a space for deeper reflection: how can regulation be shaped from within, aligned with each country’s institutional capacity, economic priorities, and innovation goals? The answer lies in fostering context-aware frameworks that protect without paralyzing progress.

A strategic reflection: what’s at stake?

As a company dedicated to Augmented Intelligence as a force to empower human potential, we embrace a strategic, long-term view on responsible AI regulation. The forum emphasized four key principles that resonated throughout the discussion:

1. We need more than protection, we need precision

In many developing nations, AI oversight remains limited. Legal infrastructure is often under-resourced, and technical expertise is unevenly distributed. Imposing strict liability without nuance risks discouraging innovation and reinforcing technological dependency.
A fault-based approach, by contrast, allows for proportional responses. It distinguishes between negligence and genuine effort, recognizing when companies have acted responsibly, even in complex or unforeseen scenarios.

2. AI regulation must align with developmental priorities

The rules created today will shape the innovation landscapes of tomorrow. In countries striving to close digital divides, grow local tech ecosystems, and attract ethical investment, regulatory affordability and scalability are essential.
Strict liability models, while common in developed economies, can unintentionally exclude startups, researchers, and early-stage innovators from the equation. What’s needed are frameworks that support safe, inclusive, and sustainable growth.

3. International cooperation requires legal compatibility

AI systems don’t stop at national borders and neither do their risks. Liability regimes that ignore context and intent can undermine cross-border collaboration. A harmonized, fault-based approach allows countries to cooperate without sacrificing accountability, especially when AI tools are developed in one country and deployed in another. For organizations operating across jurisdictions, flexible, principles-based regulation is essential to scaling innovation responsibly.

4. From risk aversion to risk intelligence

The forum reframed risk not as something to avoid, but as something to manage with foresight. Legal frameworks should reward companies that integrate ethical design, privacy safeguards, and transparency into their systems.
When regulation supports responsible risk-taking, it builds trust in AI systems and trust is the foundation of adoption.

Final thought: regulation that builds, not blocks

There’s no universal blueprint for AI regulation but one principle holds true: regulation must evolve alongside innovation, not restrict it. As highlighted throughout the forum, legal systems in developing countries must be designed with wisdom, care, and a deep understanding of local realities.
At GCE, we understand that Augmented Intelligence is not just about algorithms, it’s about responsibility. Our commitment is to keep building trustworthy systems that serve people first, in collaboration with policymakers, industry leaders, and communities around the world.