A rare policy consensus emerges as AI’s impact moves beyond innovation into governance and societal risk
Updated
May 5, 2026 5:42 PM
A mechanical hand reaching for the hand of flesh. PHOTO: UNSPLASH
A new survey from Povaddo, a policy research firm, suggests that concern about artificial intelligence is no longer limited to industry or academia. It is now firmly present within the policy community.
The survey draws on responses from 301 public policy professionals across the United States and Europe, including lawmakers, staffers and analysts involved in shaping and evaluating public policy. A majority of respondents—61%—say governments are falling short in addressing the negative impacts of AI.
There is also broad agreement that regulation needs to increase. In the United States, 92% of respondents support stronger AI regulation, compared to 70% in Europe. At a time when consensus is often difficult, the findings point to a shared view across policy circles that current frameworks are not keeping pace with technological development.
Differences emerge when looking at how AI is affecting national contexts. In the U.S., 57% of policy experts believe AI is already harming the labor market. In Europe, 34% say the same. U.S. respondents are also more likely to see AI as a greater threat to jobs than immigration, with 63% holding that view compared to 47% in Europe.
On misinformation, responses are closely aligned. A large majority of policy experts in both regions expect an AI-driven misinformation crisis within the next one to two years—87% in the U.S. and 82% in Europe. Many also believe that AI-generated or AI-amplified misinformation could affect elections and public health information.
Some respondents frame the risks in more fundamental terms. In the United States, 41% of policy experts say AI poses an existential threat to humanity. In Europe, 29% share that view. U.S. respondents are also more likely to believe that advances in AI could harm global security and stability.
The findings come as policymakers begin to respond more actively. In the U.S., Senators Josh Hawley, Richard Blumenthal and Mark Warner have introduced bipartisan legislation focused on AI accountability, including measures aimed at protecting workers and children.
In Europe, the introduction of the EU AI Act marks a more advanced regulatory approach. The framework sets out rules based on levels of risk and is widely seen as the first comprehensive attempt to govern AI at scale.
William Stewart, President and Founder of Povaddo, said: "What makes these findings so significant is who is saying it. These are the practitioners who work inside the policy process every day, spanning every corner of the policy world from defense to healthcare to finance, not activists or everyday citizens. These findings foreshadow real action. The current path of governments accelerating AI deployment while falling short on governance is not sustainable, and the people who know that best are the ones in this survey. You cannot have nine-in-ten policy insiders demanding more regulation and four-in-ten calling AI an existential threat without that eventually moving the needle in Washington and Brussels in terms of legislative or regulatory action".
Taken together, the survey reflects a shift in how AI is being discussed within policymaking circles. Concern is no longer limited to future risks. It is increasingly tied to current gaps in governance and the pace of deployment.
Keep Reading
HKU professor apologizes after PhD student’s AI-assisted paper cites fabricated sources.
Updated
January 8, 2026 6:33 PM
.jpg)
The University of Hong Kong in Pok Fu Lam, Hong Kong Island. PHOTO: ADOBE STOCK
It’s no surprise that artificial intelligence, while remarkably capable, can also go astray—spinning convincing but entirely fabricated narratives. From politics to academia, AI’s “hallucinations” have repeatedly shown how powerful technology can go off-script when left unchecked.
Take Grok-2, for instance. In July 2024, the chatbot misled users about ballot deadlines in several U.S. states, just days after President Joe Biden dropped his re-election bid against former President Donald Trump. A year earlier, a U.S. lawyer found himself in court for relying on ChatGPT to draft a legal brief—only to discover that the AI tool had invented entire cases, citations and judicial opinions. And now, the academic world has its own cautionary tale.
Recently, a journal paper from the Department of Social Work and Social Administration at the University of Hong Kong was found to contain fabricated citations—sources apparently created by AI. The paper, titled “Forty Years of Fertility Transition in Hong Kong,” analyzed the decline in Hong Kong’s fertility rate over the past four decades. Authored by doctoral student Yiming Bai, along with Yip Siu-fai, Vice Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences and other university officials, the study identified falling marriage rates as a key driver behind the city’s shrinking birth rate. The authors recommended structural reforms to make Hong Kong’s social and work environment more family-friendly.
But the credibility of the paper came into question when inconsistencies surfaced among its references. Out of 61 cited works, some included DOI (Digital Object Identifier) links that led to dead ends, displaying “DOI Not Found.” Others claimed to originate from academic journals, yet searches yielded no such publications.
Speaking to HK01, Yip acknowledged that his student had used AI tools to organize the citations but failed to verify the accuracy of the generated references. “As the corresponding author, I bear responsibility”, Yip said, apologizing for the damage caused to the University of Hong Kong and the journal’s reputation. He clarified that the paper itself had undergone two rounds of verification and that its content was not fabricated—only the citations had been mishandled.
Yip has since contacted the journal’s editor, who accepted his explanation and agreed to re-upload a corrected version in the coming days. A formal notice addressing the issue will also be released. Yip said he would personally review each citation “piece by piece” to ensure no errors remain.
As for the student involved, Yip described her as a diligent and high-performing researcher who made an honest mistake in her first attempt at using AI for academic assistance. Rather than penalize her, Yip chose a more constructive approach, urging her to take a course on how to use AI tools responsibly in academic research.
Ultimately, in an age where generative AI can produce everything from essays to legal arguments, there are two lessons to take away from this episode. First, AI is a powerful assistant, but only that. The final judgment must always rest with us. No matter how seamless the output seems, cross-checking and verifying information remain essential. Second, as AI becomes integral to academic and professional life, institutions must equip students and employees with the skills to use it responsibly. Training and mentorship are no longer optional; they’re the foundation for using AI to enhance, not undermine, human work.
Because in this age of intelligent machines, staying relevant isn’t about replacing human judgment with AI, it’s about learning how to work alongside it.