Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Arthur Mensch: “Europe is a land of creators. The continent has nurtured ideas that have enriched, and continue to enrich, the world’s intellectual and creative landscape. Its diverse and multilingual heritage remains one of its greatest strengths, central not only to its identity and soft power but also to its economic vitality.

All this is at risk as AI reshapes the global knowledge economy.

Major AI companies in the US and China are developing their models under permissive or non-existent copyright rules, training them domestically on vast amounts of content — including from European sources.

European AI developers, by contrast, operate in a fragmented legal environment that places them at a competitive disadvantage. The current opt-out framework, designed to enable rights holders to protect their content and prevent AI companies from using it for training if they say so, has proven unworkable in practice. Copyrighted works continue to spread uncontrollably online, while the legal mechanisms designed to protect them remain patchy, inconsistently applied and overly complex.

The result is a framework that satisfies no one. Rights holders correctly fear for their livelihoods yet see no clear path to protection. AI developers face legal uncertainty that hampers investment and growth.

Europe needs to explore a new approach.

At Mistral, we are proposing a revenue-based levy that would be applied to all commercial providers placing AI models on the market or putting them into service in Europe, reflecting their use of content publicly available online…(More)”.

Article by Barrett and Greene: “Since GenAI first appeared on the scene in late 2022, both benefits and hazards have been chronicled in multiple places, including this website. Advantages of AI play out on a daily basis providing cities and counties quicker results, increased staff efficiency, and improved government-resident communications. 

But as generative AI use took off, media reports surfaced of fabrications delivered in response to prompts (known as hallucinations) and factual errors that were embarrassing and sometimes costly for governments and their vendors.  

“If you don’t have a strategy or plan in place for how you deal with AI hazards, you’re going to get in trouble very fast,” says Brian Funderburk, an advocate for the responsible use of AI in government, and a retired city manager in Texas with 40 years of experience in local government.

The litany of problematic uses of AI seems to grow every day as its use expands. Just for starters, there have been fictitious precedents cited in legal cases. Chatbot errors have also surfaced with some frequency, notably in the much-heralded chatbot designed for businesses developed by New York City in the fall of 2023, that was roundly criticized the following spring for giving business callers incorrect information and sometimes advising them to engage in illegal behavior. 

Multiple companies have had to deal with the consequences of AI mistakes, including Deloitte, which agreed to refund the equivalent of $290,000 in U.S. dollars to the Australian government for a report “that was littered with apparent AI-generated errors,” according to an AP News report. 

Although hallucinations that AI can conjure have diminished to some extent, the continuing threat of errors requires extensive double-checking and triple-checking by humans that bear responsibility for what’s produced. “It will be a while before we can trust AI unconditionally,” says Funderburk who is currently Vice President and AI Safety Officer at Civic Marketplace…(More)”.

Book edited by Crystal Chokshi and Robin Mansell: “This book is about words that fool us into thinking that the digital technologies we use every day are beautiful, benign, and consequence-free. The collection shows how metaphors used by Big Tech to promote digital technologies are reductive or misleading. With a commitment to social justice, the contributors rename digital technologies in order to subvert Big Tech’s branding. Each chapter discusses a specific technology, rechristening it in a way that points explicitly to the social and political harms it is associated with. The alternative vocabularies that are proposed draw attention to what these technologies bring about, providing a means of resisting Silicon Valley’s claims about what people and organisations should buy and experience…(More)”.

Paper by Ricardo Coelho Da Silva, Leid Zejnilović, Marco Berti, Miguel Pina e Cunha and Pedro Oliveira: “When crises strike, new forms of emergent organizing often arise to address urgent societal needs that formal institutions struggle to meet. Among these, emergent response groups (ERGs)—self-organized communities that form to respond to unexpected and extreme events—offer a particularly salient example of decentralized and nonhierarchical organizing. This multicase study investigates eight ERGs that formed during the COVID-19 pandemic to design and distribute critical medical supplies. Drawing on sensemaking theory, we show how bricolage—making do with at-hand resources—supports coordination and community structuring by reducing equivocality caused by distributed actors. Our findings describe how these ERGs grew rapidly by using bricolage to reduce action, goal, and resource equivocality, enabling coordinated and scalable crisis response efforts. We contribute to research on emergent organizing in crisis contexts by revealing how bricolage fosters coherence and rapid scaling in the absence of formal hierarchies. Our study also challenges the dominant assumption that bricolage is inherently limiting to organizational growth, showing that—in the context of self-organizing collectives—it offers a novel solution to the problem of coordinating action among distributed agents…(More)”.

OECD: “Measuring digital transformation is a key component of designing and implementing evidence-based policies. Yet measuring the digital parts of the economy is complex, in part because digital technologies and data are everywhere to some extent, rendering the notion of a siloed “digital economy” obsolete. Key challenges to measuring digital transformation include improving the international comparability of priority indicators and ensuring that statistical systems are flexible and responsive to the introduction of new and rapidly evolving concepts driven by digital technologies and data. Looking ahead, the challenge for the statistical community is to design new and interdisciplinary approaches to data collection and analysis, and to strengthen data infrastructure capabilities. Moreover, partnerships with the private sector and engagement with stakeholders to bring reliable and representative data that is gathered with trust into the policymaking process is an important overarching objective.

To address these challenges, it is important to not only identify common priorities (i.e. what to measure) but also common approaches (i.e. how to measure). The OECD Going Digital Measurement Roadmap 2026 (the Roadmap) aims to support and encourage a co-ordinated approach to digital measurement activities among key actors in the international statistical system. It includes ten actions aimed at advancing the capacity of countries to monitor digital transformation and its impacts. The Roadmap reflects a recognition that national statistical systems need to adapt and expand to adequately reflect the digitalisation of our economies and societies, with disaggregated data providing an evidence base from which to identify where digital divides exist and those who are most at risk from the disruption technological change brings. It also highlights the need for new, complementary data infrastructures capable of monitoring digital activities and data flows on a timely basis wherever they happen. The ten actions are outlined below…(More)”.

Blog by Adam Zable and Stefaan Verhulst: “To monitor open data policies across the world, we developed the Open Data Policy Lab Policy Repository. This quarter, we added 11 new policy developments within and across Africa, Europe, Asia, and North America. They illustrate the range of mechanisms through which governments and international institutions are increasingly structuring access to data. Five approaches emerge:

• mandating the release and reuse of public data; 
• authorizing controlled sharing of government-held datasets; 
• enabling structured access to privately controlled or platform-held data; 
• governing cross-border data flows through trade frameworks, certification regimes, and bilateral agreements; and 
• restructuring the legal architecture that governs data access frameworks themselves.

In the below, we provide further detail…(More)”.

Article by Nana Kajaia and Tuntufye Ntaukira: “Digital wallets are becoming commonplace, often used for digitally storing payment cards instead of physical cards or cash. But beyond payments, as digital public goods with the right safeguards, digital wallets can enable individuals to reliably prove their eligibility for social protection benefits in times of need, securely share health records during an emergency, or promptly provide a certified document needed for a prospective employer.  

Whenever these digital forms are recognized and integrated across systems, they can significantly increase access to public and private services, enhancing people’s lives and livelihoods. This was the theme of UNDP’s recent Digital X 3.0 knowledge-exchange webinar on strengthening human security through digital public goods, organized in partnership with the Government of Japan. 

The discussions underscored how digital wallets as a core part of a country’s digital public infrastructure can unlock new opportunities for strengthening human security, across services, institutions and borders.  

Malawi and Argentina: Overcoming barriers to accessing critical services  

In many countries, people still tend to carry around printouts of essential documents and stand in queues for hours to confirm information that oftentimes already exists digitally. 

• Imagine a farmer in Malawi having to repeatedly submit physical documentation to show proof of land ownership to pay land taxes, because the national identity, agricultural, and financial systems in his country are not integrated. 
• Imagine a pregnant woman in Argentina trying to access maternal health services in a local clinic, but she is unable to provide a physical identification card that matches the name on her insurance card during an emergency visit…(More)”.

Article by Daniel Sachs: “Most commentaries on democratic erosion focus on the supply side of the equation – the strongmen and new doctrines, blocs, or geopolitical arrangements disrupting domestic politics and the rules-based international order. While important, this perspective ignores the demand that is driving current political trends.

…Proliferating wars and shaky alliances are hallmarks of today’s brutal new political reality, one that would have been unimaginable a decade ago. But the geopolitical rupture currently underway is no accident of history, nor is it simply the result of strongmen, weak institutions, or a sudden loss of restraint. It mirrors something more fundamental: the social soil of our societies. Politics does not occur in a vacuum. It grows out of lived experience, reflecting whether people feel secure, respected, and optimistic about a shared future…(More)”.

Article by byEdoardo Alberto Vigano and Paolo Gambacciani: “…To understand Italy’s approach to this issue, it is useful to look beyond the national context. So far, the adoption of AI in parliaments has been concentrated mainly in highly developed countries and has not been accompanied by a shared regulatory framework. The result is a fragmented landscape in which technological development and regulation are largely shaped by individual parliaments or EU institutions.

In practice, each parliament is adopting one or more AI tools according to internal priorities, with potentially significant implications for institutional organisation and the conduct of democratic deliberation.

Some applications are designed for internal use, supporting parliamentary staff, MPs and legislative committees. Others are outward-facing, aiming to enhance transparency, accessibility and citizen participation.

Some tools affect the legislative process directly; others primarily reshape the relationship between parliament and citizens. Current examples range from AI-assisted transcription and automated classification of debates and parliamentary activities, to automated sequencing of votes on amendments, drafting support and admissibility checks, natural-language search of parliamentary documents, and tools intended to synthesise public sentiment around bills under discussion. These examples suggest that AI is not merely a neutral administrative upgrade. It can reshape parliamentary power and practice, particularly when adoption concentrates on a specific class of tools.

Strategic choices in AI adoption

International cases illustrate how AI deployment may reflect strategic choices about parliament’s institutional role.

The Chilean Congress, for example, through its Caminar platform, has prioritised simplifying legislative activity by supporting the drafting of bills and amendments. By contrast, Brazil’s experience with initiatives such as Brasil Participativo has focused on strengthening popular participation, developing participatory AI solutions.

It is therefore unsurprising that the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), which represents parliaments worldwide, has recently stressed that before adopting AI tools, parliaments should clarify the institutional role they intend to play in the future, particularly in relation to deliberation and the balance between parliament and government.

The IPU outlines three possible trajectories for representative assemblies:

• AI-Augmented Assembly: AI enhances human judgement while democratic primacy is preserved; AI acts as a “co-pilot” rather than replacing human decision-making.
• Data-Driven Legislature: AI becomes central to decision-making, with political deliberation increasingly displaced by predominantly evidence-based processes.
• Shadow Legislature: AI capabilities are concentrated within the executive branch, leaving parliaments structurally disadvantaged in managing emergencies, analysing complex dossiers and engaging citizens…(More)”.

Chapter by Anna De Liddo, Lucas Anastasiou, and Simon Buckingham Shum: “…introduces the concept of Collective Intelligence for Deliberative Democracy (CI4DD). We propose that the use of computational tools, specifically artificial intelligence to advance deliberative democracy, is an instantiation of a broader class of human-computer system designed to augment collective intelligence. Further, we argue for a fundamentally human-centred design approach to orchestrate how stakeholders can contribute meaningfully to shaping the artifacts and processes needed to create trustworthy DD processes. We first contextualise the key concepts of CI and the role of AI within it. We then detail our co-design methodology for identifying key challenges, refining user scenarios, and deriving technical implications. Two exemplar cases illustrate how user requirements from civic organisations were implemented with AI support and piloted in authentic contexts…(More)”.