A/80/278 and culturally diverse teams as a minimum measure to reduce bias in the design of AI systems and operations. 63. Third, AI systems must be programmed to prevent and redress any discrimination and bias. Understanding and mitigating biases is an essential condition for the deployment of more ethical and equitable AI systems. System transparency is required, as only through knowledge of the data used by AI can these biases be reduced. Improving the explainability of these systems is also crucial for an understanding of how decisions are made using AI tools. For this reason, the involvement of sociologists and human rights experts is important. However, these processes have been completely left in the hands of technicians and technology experts who have very limited understanding and knowledge of human rights obligations and standards regarding discrimination and stere otypes. 64. Fourth, States must ensure that they pay particular attention to groups that may be more vulnerable or affected, including children, minorities, Indigenous Peoples, women and persons with disabilities. They must ensure that effective measures are in place to address the cultural rights and the free creativity of these sections of the population. 65. Fifth, even more important is the active and meaningful participation of the individuals and communities whose data has been used, the effective participation of minorities, and the free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous Peoples and local populations. When tools are intended for use by specific groups, particularly minorities and Indigenous Peoples, data sets should be developed with the participation of the concerned groups. 66. Sixth, due to a power imbalance between various stakeholders, human rights impact assessments are essential prior to the deployment of models and could also help to address systemic bias. Benefit-sharing processes can help in the compensation of communities and creators for the use of their work by AI. These are important measures that States should take to fulfil their legal obligations regarding cultural rights. 67. Finally, AI tools must never be developed without control and evaluation by humans. Artificial intelligence is not true intelligence, but rather machine learning, an automatic and repetitive copy or imitation of human creativity. It should not be allowed to develop uncritically. It needs to be subject to revision and revisability, and the impacts of its processes need to be accounted for. States must ensure that they have clear lines both for the periodic and inclusive evaluation of such tools as well a s for accessible remedies for redress for injustices and violations committed . IV. Conclusions and recommendations 68. Artificial intelligence can improve the life of all only if it is critically assessed and consciously channelled towards the respect, protection and exercise of all human rights. If its uses and impacts are not critically assessed and controlled, AI will limit international recognized human rights, dehumanize social interactions and work environments and infringe on human dignity. So far, the impact of AI on cultural rights has been side-stepped, and the protection of cultural rights in AI has not been effectively regulated. The possibility that AI systems may violate the freedom to develop and engage in creative activity and the right to take part in cultural life is not hypothetical: it is currently happening, unfolding insidiously. There is an urgent need to take a step back from the incessant fascination with AI and recognize the multifaceted ways in which its use can irreparably erode human creativity. It is time that States adopted 25-12403 19/21