Making Civic Trust Less Abstract: A Framework for Measuring Trust Within Cities

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by Stefaan Verhulst, Andrew J. Zahuranec, and Oscar Romero: “Trust is foundational to effective governance, yet its inherently abstract nature has made it difficult to measure and operationalize, especially in urban contexts. This report proposes a practical framework for city officials to diagnose and strengthen civic trust through observable indicators and actionable interventions.

Rather than attempting to quantify trust as an abstract concept, the framework distinguishes between the drivers of trust—direct experiences and institutional interventions—and its manifestations, both emotional and behavioral. Drawing on literature reviews, expert workshops, and field engagement with the New York City Civic Engagement Commission (CEC), we present a three-phase approach: (1) baseline assessment of trust indicators, (2) analysis of causal drivers, and (3) design and continuous evaluation of targeted interventions. The report illustrates the framework’s applicability through a hypothetical case involving the NYC Parks Department and a real-world case study of the citywide participatory budgeting initiative, The People’s Money. By providing a structured, context-sensitive, and iterative model for measuring civic trust, this report seeks to equip public institutions and city officials with a framework for meaningful measurement of civic trust…(More)“.

The AI Policy Playbook

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Playbook by AI Policymaker Network & Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH: “It moves away from talking about AI ethics in abstract terms but tells of building policies that work right-away in emerging economies and respond to immediate development priorities. The Playbook emphasises that a one-size-fits-all solution doesn’t work. Rather, it illustrates shared challenges—like limited research capacity, fragmented data ecosystems, and compounding AI risks—while spotlighting national innovations and success stories. From drafting AI strategies to engaging communities and safeguarding rights, it lays out a roadmap grounded in local realities….What can you expect to find in the AI Policy Playbook:

  1. Policymaker Interviews
    Real-world insights from policymakers to understand their challenges and best practices.
  2. Policy Process Analysis
    Key elements from existing policies to extract effective strategies for AI governance, as well as policy mapping.
  3. Case Studies
    Examples of successes and lessons learnt from various countries to provide practical guidance.
  4. Recommendations
    Concrete solutions and recommendations from actors in the field to improve the policy development process, including quick tips for implementation and handling challenges.

What distinguishes this initiative is its commitment to peer learning and co-creation. The Africa-Asia AI Policymaker Network comprises over 30 high-level government partners who anchor the Playbook in real-world policy contexts. This ensures that the frameworks are not only theoretically sound but politically and socially implementable…(More)”

Europe’s dream to wean off US tech gets reality check

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Pieter Haeck and Mathieu Pollet: “..As the U.S. continues to up the ante in questioning transatlantic ties, calls are growing in Europe to reduce the continent’s reliance on U.S. technology in critical areas such as cloud services, artificial intelligence and microchips, and to opt for European alternatives instead.

But the European Commission is preparing on Thursday to acknowledge publicly what many have said in private: Europe is nowhere near being able to wean itself off U.S. Big Tech.

In a new International Digital Strategy the EU will instead promote collaboration with the U.S., according to a draft seen by POLITICO, as well as with other tech players including China, Japan, India and South Korea. “Decoupling is unrealistic and cooperation will remain significant across the technological value chain,” the draft reads. 

It’s a reality check after a year that has seen calls for a technologically sovereign Europe gain significant traction. In December the Commission appointed Finland’s Henna Virkkunen as the first-ever commissioner in charge of tech sovereignty. After few months in office, European Parliament lawmakers embarked on an effort to draft a blueprint for tech sovereignty. 

Even more consequential has been the rapid rise of the so-called Eurostack movement, which advocates building out a European tech infrastructure and has brought together effective voices including competition economist Cristina Caffarra and Kai Zenner, an assistant to key European lawmaker Axel Voss.

There’s wide agreement on the problem: U.S. cloud giants capture over two-thirds of the European market, the U.S. outpaces the EU in nurturing companies for artificial intelligence, and Europe’s stake in the global microchips market has crumbled to around 10 percent. Thursday’s strategy will acknowledge the U.S.’s “superior ability to innovate” and “Europe’s failure to capitalise on the digital revolution.”

What’s missing are viable solutions to the complex problem of unwinding deep-rooted dependencies….(More)”

Hamburg Declaration on Responsible AI

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Declaration by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), in partnership with the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ): “We are at a crossroads. Despite the progress made in recent years, we need renewed commitment andvengagement to advance toward and achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Digital technologies, such as Artificial Intelligence (AI), can play a significant role in this regard. AI presents opportunities and risks in a world of rapid social, political, economic, ecological, and technological shifts. If developed and deployed responsibly, AI can drive sustainable development and benefit society, the economy, and the planet. Yet, without safeguards throughout the AI value chain, it may widen inequalities within and between countries and contribute to direct harm through inappropriate, illegal, or deliberate misuse. It can also contribute to human rights violations, fuel disinformation, homogenize creative and cultural expression, and harm the environment. These risks are likely to disproportionately affect low-income countries, vulnerable groups, and future generations. Geopolitical competition and market dependencies further amplify these risks…(More)”.

Children’s Voice Privacy: First Steps And Emerging Challenges

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Ajinkya Kulkarni, et al: “Children are one of the most under-represented groups in speech technologies, as well as one of the most vulnerable in terms of privacy. Despite this, anonymization techniques targeting this population have received little attention. In this study, we seek to bridge this gap, and establish a baseline for the use of voice anonymization techniques designed for adult speech when applied to children’s voices. Such an evaluation is essential, as children’s speech presents a distinct set of challenges when compared to that of adults. This study comprises three children’s datasets, six anonymization methods, and objective and subjective utility metrics for evaluation. Our results show that existing systems for adults are still able to protect children’s voice privacy, but suffer from much higher utility degradation. In addition, our subjective study displays the challenges of automatic evaluation methods for speech quality in children’s speech, highlighting the need for further research…(More)”. See also: Responsible Data for Children.

Scientific Publishing: Enough is Enough

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Blog by Seemay Chou: “In Abundance, Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson make the case that the biggest barriers to progress today are institutional. They’re not because of physical limitations or intellectual scarcity. They’re the product of legacy systems — systems that were built with one logic in mind, but now operate under another. And until we go back and address them at the root, we won’t get the future we say we want.

I’m a scientist. Over the past five years, I’ve experimented with science outside traditional institutes. From this vantage point, one truth has become inescapable. The journal publishing system — the core of how science is currently shared, evaluated, and rewarded — is fundamentally broken. And I believe it’s one of the legacy systems that prevents science from meeting its true potential for society.

It’s an unpopular moment to critique the scientific enterprise given all the volatility around its funding. But we do have a public trust problem. The best way to increase trust and protect science’s future is for scientists to have the hard conversations about what needs improvement. And to do this transparently. In all my discussions with scientists across every sector, exactly zero think the journal system works well. Yet we all feel trapped in a system that is, by definition, us.

I no longer believe that incremental fixes are enough. Science publishing must be built anew. I help oversee billions of dollars in funding across several science and technology organizations. We are expanding our requirement that all scientific work we fund will not go towards traditional journal publications. Instead, research we support should be released and reviewed more openly, comprehensively, and frequently than the status quo.

This policy is already in effect at Arcadia Science and Astera Institute, and we’re actively funding efforts to build journal alternatives through both Astera and The Navigation Fund. We hope others cross this line with us, and below I explain why every scientist and science funder should strongly consider it…(More)”.

Silicon Valley Is at an Inflection Point

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Karen Hao: “…In the decade that I have observed Silicon Valley — first as an engineer, then as a journalist — I’ve watched the industry shift to a new paradigm. Tech companies have long reaped the benefits of a friendly U.S. government, but the Trump administration has made clear that it will now grant new firepower to the industry’s ambitions. The Stargate announcement was just one signal. Another was the Republican tax bill that the House passed last week, which would prohibit states from regulating A.I. for the next 10 years.

The leading A.I. giants are no longer merely multinational corporations; they are growing into modern-day empires. With the full support of the federal government, soon they will be able to reshape most spheres of society as they please, from the political to the economic to the production of science…(More)”.

Surveillance pricing: How your data determines what you pay

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Douglas Crawford: “Surveillance pricing, also known as personalized or algorithmic pricing, is a practice where companies use your personal data, such as your location, the device you’re using, your browsing history, and even your income, to determine what price to show you. It’s not just about supply and demand — it’s about you as a consumer and how much the system thinks you’re able (or willing) to pay.

Have you ever shopped online for a flight(new window), only to find that the price mysteriously increased the second time you checked? Or have you and a friend searched for the same hotel room on your phones, only to find your friend sees a lower price? This isn’t a glitch — it’s surveillance pricing at work.

In the United States, surveillance pricing is becoming increasingly prevalent across various industries, including airlines, hotels, and e-commerce platforms. It exists elsewhere, but in other parts of the world, such as the European Union, there is a growing recognition of the danger this pricing model presents to citizens’ privacy, resulting in stricter data protection laws aimed at curbing it. The US appears to be moving in the opposite direction…(More)”.

Collective Bargaining in the Information Economy Can Address AI-Driven Power Concentration

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Position paper by Nicholas Vincent, Matthew Prewitt and Hanlin Li: “…argues that there is an urgent need to restructure markets for the information that goes into AI systems. Specifically, producers of information goods (such as journalists, researchers, and creative professionals) need to be able to collectively bargain with AI product builders in order to receive reasonable terms and a sustainable return on the informational value they contribute. We argue that without increased market coordination or collective bargaining on the side of these primary information producers, AI will exacerbate a large-scale “information market failure” that will lead not only to undesirable concentration of capital, but also to a potential “ecological collapse” in the informational commons. On the other hand, collective bargaining in the information economy can create market frictions and aligned incentives necessary for a pro-social, sustainable AI future. We provide concrete actions that can be taken to support a coalitionbased approach to achieve this goal. For example, researchers and developers can establish technical mechanisms such as federated data management tools and explainable data value estimations, to inform and facilitate collective bargaining in the information economy. Additionally, regulatory and policy interventions may be introduced to support trusted data intermediary organizations representing guilds or syndicates of information producers…(More)”.

Human rights centered global governance of quantum technologies: advancing information for all

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

UNESCO Brief: “The integration of quantum technologies into AI systems introduces greater complexity, requiring stronger policy and technical frameworks that uphold human rights protections. Ensuring that these advancements do not widen existing inequalities or cause environmental harm is crucial.

The  Brief  expands  on  the  “Quantum  technologies  and  their  global  impact:  discussion  paper ”published by UNESCO. The objective of this Brief is to unpack the multiple dimensions of the quantum ecosystem and broadly explore the human rights and policy implications of quantum technologies, with some key findings:

  • While quantum technologies promise advancements of human rights in the areas of encryption, privacy, and security,  they also pose risks to these very domains and related ones such as freedom of expression and access to information
  • Quantum  innovations  will  reshape security,  economic  growth,  and  science, but  without  a robust human  rights-based  framework,  they  risk  deepening  inequalities  and  destabilizing global governance.
  • The quantum  divide  is  emerging  as  a  critical  issue,  with  disparities  in  access  to  technology,  expertise, and infrastructure widening global inequalities. Unchecked, this gap could limit the benefits of quantum advancements for all.
  • The quantum gender divide remains stark—79% of quantum companies have no female senior leaders, and only 1 in 54 quantum job applicants are women.

The Issue Brief provides broad recommendations and targeted actions for stakeholders,emphasizing

human  rights-centered  governance,  awareness,  capacity  building,  and  inclusivity  to  bridge global and gender divides. The key recommendations focus on a comprehensive governance model which must  ensure  a  multistakeholder  approach  that  facilitates,  state  duties,  corporate  accountability, effective remedies for human rights violations, and open standards for equitable access. Prioritizing human  rights  in  global  governance  will  ensure  quantum  innovation  serves  all  of  humanity  while safeguarding fundamental freedoms…(More)”.