What the G7 Hiroshima AI Process produced
By AI Resource Zone Admin · February 15, 2026 · 4 min read
The Hiroshima AI Process delivered a voluntary code of conduct and guiding principles for advanced AI developers.
The Group of Seven launched the Hiroshima AI Process during Japan's presidency in 2023, with a particular focus on advanced AI systems. By October of that year, the group released International Guiding Principles for organizations developing advanced AI, followed by an International Code of Conduct that provides operational expectations for the same audience. Both instruments are voluntary and are designed to complement, not replace, national regulation.
The Code addresses practices such as identifying and mitigating risks across the life cycle, conducting internal and external testing, publicly reporting capabilities and limitations, investing in security controls, developing content authentication tools, and prioritizing research on societal risks. Participating governments agreed to support the Code's adoption and to coordinate with industry and international organizations. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which hosts the G7's AI-related technical work, helps track implementation and progress.
Since the initial release, the Hiroshima framework has been referenced in subsequent international discussions, including the Bletchley and Seoul AI summits and successor meetings. Some of its language has been echoed by voluntary commitments from leading AI developers and by national AI Safety Institute work programs. The framework does not carry enforcement power, but it helps establish shared vocabulary that makes cross-border coordination easier.
Editor's note: Voluntary international codes rise or fall on whether signatory companies treat them as real operational expectations or as public relations talking points. The most useful test is whether a given developer can demonstrate the practices from the Code in its published documentation, its safety evaluations, and its incident response behavior. Civil society groups that hold developers to that standard, rather than only pressing for new statutes, are doing work that complements formal regulation well.