UN adopts Chinese resolution with US support on closing the gap in access to artificial intelligence

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Edith Lederer: “The U.N. General Assembly adopted a Chinese-sponsored resolution with U.S. support urging wealthy developed nations to close the widening gap with poorer developing countries and ensure that they have equal opportunities to use and benefit from artificial intelligence.

The resolution approved Monday follows the March 21 adoption of the first U.N. resolution on artificial intelligence spearheaded by the United States and co-sponsored by 123 countries including China. It gave global support to the international effort to ensure that AI is “safe, secure and trustworthy” and that all nations can take advantage of it.

Adoption of the two nonbinding resolutions shows that the United States and China, rivals in many areas, are both determined to be key players in shaping the future of the powerful new technology — and have been cooperating on the first important international steps.

The adoption of both resolutions by consensus by the 193-member General Assembly shows widespread global support for their leadership on the issue.

Fu Cong, China’s U.N. ambassador, told reporters Monday that the two resolutions are complementary, with the U.S. measure being “more general” and the just-adopted one focusing on “capacity building.”

He called the Chinese resolution, which had more than 140 sponsors, “great and far-reaching,” and said, “We’re very appreciative of the positive role that the U.S. has played in this whole process.”

Nate Evans, spokesperson for the U.S. mission to the United Nations, said Tuesday that the Chinese-sponsored resolution “was negotiated so it would further the vision and approach the U.S. set out in March.”

“We worked diligently and in good faith with developing and developed countries to strengthen the text, ensuring it reaffirms safe, secure, and trustworthy AI that respects human rights, commits to digital inclusion, and advances sustainable development,” Evans said.

Fu said that AI technology is advancing extremely fast and the issue has been discussed at very senior levels, including by the U.S. and Chinese leaders.

“We do look forward to intensifying our cooperation with the United States and for that matter with all countries in the world on this issue, which … will have far-reaching implications in all dimensions,” he said…(More)”.

A lack of data hampers efforts to fix racial disparities in utility cutoffs

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Akielly Hu: “Each year, nearly 1.3 million households across the country have their electricity shut off because they cannot pay their bill. Beyond risking the health, or even lives, of those who need that energy to power medical devices and inconveniencing people in myriad ways, losing power poses a grave threat during a heat wave or cold snap.

Such disruptions tend to disproportionately impact Black and Hispanic families, a point underscored by a recent study that found customers of Minnesota’s largest electricity utility who live in communities of color were more than three times as likely to experience a shutoff than those in predominantly white neighborhoods. The finding, by University of Minnesota researchers, held even when accounting for income, poverty level, and homeownership. 

Energy policy researchers say they consistently see similar racial disparities nationwide, but a lack of empirical data to illustrate the problem is hindering efforts to address the problem. Only 30 states require utilities to report disconnections, and of those, only a handful provide data revealing where they happen. As climate change brings hotter temperatures, more frequent cold snaps, and other extremes in weather, energy analysts and advocates for disadvantaged communities say understanding these disparities and providing equitable access to reliable power will become ever more important…(More)”.

Positive Pathways report

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by Michael Lawrence and Megan Shipman: “Polycrisis analysis reveals the complex and systemic nature of the world’s problems, but it can also help us pursue “positive pathways” to better futures. This report outlines the sorts of systems changes required to avoid, mitigate, and navigate through polycrisis given the dual nature of crises as harmful disasters and opportunities for transformation. It then examines the progression between three prominent approaches to systems change—leverage points, tipping points, and multi-systemic stability landscapes—by highlighting their advances and limitations. The report concludes that new tools like Cross-Impact Balance analysis can build on these approaches to help navigate through polycrisis by identifying stable and desirable multi-systemic equilibria…(More)”

A systematic analysis of digital tools for citizen participation

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Bokyong Shin et al: “Despite the increasing use of digital tools for citizen participation, their ecosystem and functionality remain underexplored. What digital tools exist, and how do they help citizens engage in policymaking? This article addresses this gap by examining the supply side of digital tools for citizen participation. We compiled a comprehensive dataset of 116 digital tools from three public repositories. Using the collective intelligence genome framework, adapted for the e-participation context, we systematically examined the dynamics and trends of these tools through cluster analyses. Our findings highlight the potential of digital participatory tools to facilitate the flow of information from citizens to governments using advanced technologies. However, a prominent deficiency was identified in disseminating accountability information to citizens regarding how policy decisions are made, realised, and assessed. These findings offer valuable insights and notable gaps in the digital tool ecosystem…(More)”.

The societal impact of Open Science: a scoping review

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by Nicki Lisa Cole, Eva Kormann, Thomas Klebel, Simon Apartis and Tony Ross-Hellauer: “Open Science (OS) aims, in part, to drive greater societal impact of academic research. Government, funder and institutional policies state that it should further democratize research and increase learning and awareness, evidence-based policy-making, the relevance of research to society’s problems, and public trust in research. Yet, measuring the societal impact of OS has proven challenging and synthesized evidence of it is lacking. This study fills this gap by systematically scoping the existing evidence of societal impact driven by OS and its various aspects, including Citizen Science (CS), Open Access (OA), Open/FAIR Data (OFD), Open Code/Software and others. Using the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews and searches conducted in Web of Science, Scopus and relevant grey literature, we identified 196 studies that contain evidence of societal impact. The majority concern CS, with some focused on OA, and only a few addressing other aspects. Key areas of impact found are education and awareness, climate and environment, and social engagement. We found no literature documenting evidence of the societal impact of OFD and limited evidence of societal impact in terms of policy, health, and trust in academic research. Our findings demonstrate a critical need for additional evidence and suggest practical and policy implications…(More)”.

Satisfaction with democracy has declined in recent years in high-income nations

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Pew Research Center: “..Since 2017, we’ve regularly asked people in 12 economically advanced democracies how satisfied they are with the state of their democracy. Overall, satisfaction declined in these countries between 2017 and 2019 before bouncing back in 2021, during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Trend chart over time showing that satisfaction with democracy across 12 high-income, democratic countries is down in recent years

Since 2021, however, people in these nations have become more frustrated with their democracies. A median of 49% across these 12 nations were satisfied with the way their democracy was working in 2021; today, just 36% hold this view. (The 2024 survey was conducted before the European Parliament elections in June.)

Trend chart over time showing declines in satisfaction with democracy since 2021 across 9 countries

Satisfaction is lower today than it was in 2021 in nine of the 12 nations where we have asked the question consistently. This includes six countries where satisfaction has dropped by double digits: Canada, Germany, Greece, South Korea, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Satisfaction has not increased in any of the 12 countries surveyed…(More)”

From Waves to Ecosystems: The Next Stage of Democratic Innovation

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Josh Lerner: “Anti-democratic movements are surging around the world, threatening to undermine elections and replace them with oligarchy. Pro-democracy movements mainly focus on defending elections, even though most people think that elections alone are inadequate. While elections dominate current thinking about democracy, the history and future of democracy is much broader. For over 5,000 years, people have built up competing waves of electoral, direct, deliberative, and participatory democracy. We are now seeing a transition, however, from waves to ecosystems. Rather than seeking one single solution to our ailing democracy, a new generation of democracy reformers is weaving together different democratic practices into balanced democratic ecosystems. This white paper provides a roadmap for this emerging next stage of democratic innovation. It reviews the limitations of elections, the different waves of democratic innovation and efforts to connect them, and key challenges and strategies for building healthy ecosystems of democracy…(More)”.

AI, data governance and privacy

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

OECD Report: “Recent AI technological advances, particularly the rise of generative AI, have raised many data governance and privacy questions. However, AI and privacy policy communities often address these issues independently, with approaches that vary between jurisdictions and legal systems. These silos can generate misunderstandings, add complexities in regulatory compliance and enforcement, and prevent capitalising on commonalities between national frameworks. This report focuses on the privacy risks and opportunities stemming from recent AI developments. It maps the principles set in the OECD Privacy Guidelines to the OECD AI Principles, takes stock of national and regional initiatives, and suggests potential areas for collaboration. The report supports the implementation of the OECD Privacy Guidelines alongside the OECD AI Principles. By advocating for international co-operation, the report aims to guide the development of AI systems that respect and support privacy…(More)”.

Government + research + philanthropy: How cross-sector partnerships can improve policy decisions and action

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Jenni Owen: “Researchers often lament that government decision-makers do not generate or use research evidence. People in government often lament that researchers are not responsive to government’s needs. Yet there is increasing enthusiasm in government, research, and philanthropy sectors for developing, investing in, and sustaining government-research partnerships that focus on government’s use of evidence. There is, however, scant guidance about how to do so. To help fill the gap, this essay addresses (1) Why government-research partnerships matter; (2) Barriers to developing government-research partnerships; (3) Strategies for addressing the barriers; (4) The role of philanthropy in government-research partnerships. The momentum to develop, invest in, and sustain cross-sector partnerships that advance government’s use of evidence is exciting. It is especially encouraging that there are feasible and actionable strategies for doing so…(More)”.

Oracles in the Machine

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Essay by Zora Che: “…In sociologist Charles Cooley’s theory of the “looking glass of self,” we understand ourselves through the perceptions of others. Online, models perceive us, responding to and reinforcing the versions of ourselves which they glean from our behaviors. They sense my finger lingering, my invisible gaze apparent by the gap of my movements. My understanding of my digital self and my digital reality becomes a feedback loop churned by models I cannot see. Moreover, the model only “sees” me as data that can be optimized for objectives that I cannot uncover. That objective is something closer to optimizing my time spent on the digital product than to holding my deepest needs; the latter perhaps was never a mathematical question to begin with.

Divination and algorithmic opacity both appear to bring us what we cannot see. Diviners see through what is obscure and beyond our comprehension: it may be incomprehensible pain and grief, vertiginous lack of control, and/or the unwarranted future. The opacity of divination comes from the limitations of our own knowledge. But the opacity of algorithms comes from both the algorithm itself and the socio-technical infrastructure that it was built around. Jenna Burrell writes of three layers of opacity in models: “(1) opacity as intentional corporate or state secrecy, (2) opacity as technical illiteracy, and (3) an opacity that arises from the characteristics of machine learning algorithms and the scale required to apply them usefully.” As consumers of models, we interact with the first and third layer of the opacity―that of platforms hiding models from us, and that of the gap between what the model is optimizing for and what may be explainable. The black-box model is an alluring oracle, interacting with us in inexplicable ways: no explanation for the daily laconic message Co-Star pushes to its users, no logic behind why you received this tarot reading while scrolling, no insight into the models behind these oracles and their objectives…(More)”.