Stefaan Verhulst

Governing with Collective Intelligence

Curated on January 12, 2017August 3, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Tom Saunders and Geoff Mulgan at Nesta: “This paper provides an introduction to collective intelligence in government. It aims to be useful and relevant to governments of countries at very different levels of development. It highlights the ways in which governments are better understanding the world around them, drawing on ideas and expertise from their citizens, and encouraging greater scrutiny of their actions.

Collective intelligence is a new term to describe something which is in some respects old, but in other respects changing dramatically thanks to advances in digital technologies. It refers to the ability of large groups – a community, region, city or nation – to think and act intelligently in a way that amounts to more than the sum of their parts.

Key findings

Our analysis of government use of collective intelligence initiatives around the world finds that activities fall into four broad categories:

1. Better understanding facts and experiences: using new digital tools to gather data from many more sources.

2. Better development of options and ideas: tapping into the collective brainpower of citizens to come up with better ideas and options for action.

3. Better, more inclusive decision-making: involving citizens in decision making, from policymaking to planning and budgeting.

4. Better oversight of what is done: encouraging broader involvement in the oversight of government activity, from monitoring corruption to scrutinising budgets, helping to increase accountability and transparency….(More)”

The Signal Code

Curated on January 11, 2017August 3, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

The Signal Code: “Humanitarian action adheres to the core humanitarian principles of impartiality, neutrality, independence, and humanity, as well as respect for international humanitarian and human rights law. These foundational principles are enshrined within core humanitarian doctrine, particularly the Red Cross/NGO Code of Conduct⁵ and the Humanitarian Charter.⁶ Together, these principles establish a duty of care for populations affected by the actions of humanitarian actors and impose adherence to a standard of reasonable care for those engaged in humanitarian action.

Engagement in HIAs, including the use of data and ICTs, must be consistent with these foundational principles and respect the human rights of crisis-affected people to be considered “humanitarian.” In addition to offering potential benefits to those affected by crisis, HIAs, including the use of ICTs, can cause harm to the safety, wellbeing, and the realization of the human rights of crisis-affected people. Absent a clear understanding of which rights apply to this context, the utilization of new technologies, and in particular experimental applications of these technologies, may be more likely to harm communities and violate the fundamental human rights of individuals.

The Signal Code is based on the application of the UDHR, the Nuremberg Code, the Geneva Convention, and other instruments of customary international law related to HIAs and the use of ICTs by crisis affected-populations and by humanitarians on their behalf. The fundamental human rights undergirding this Code are the rights to life, liberty, and security; the protection of privacy; freedom of expression; and the right to share in scientific advancement and its benefits as expressed in Articles 3, 12, 19, and 27 of the UDHR.⁷

The Signal Code asserts that all people have fundamental rights to access, transmit, and benefit from information as a basic humanitarian need; to be protected from harms that may result from the provision of information during crisis; to have a reasonable expectation of privacy and data security; to have agency over how their data is collected and used; and to seek redress and rectification when data pertaining to them causes harm or is inaccurate.

These rights are found to apply specifically to the access, collection, generation, processing, use, treatment, and transmission of information, including data, during humanitarian crises. These rights are also found herein to be interrelated and interdependent. To realize any of these rights individually requires realization of all of these rights in concert.

These rights are found to apply to all phases of the data lifecycle—before, during, and after the collection, processing, transmission, storage, or release of data. These rights are also found to be elastic, meaning that they apply to new technologies and scenarios that have not yet been identified or encountered by current practice and theory.

Data is, formally, a collection of symbols which function as a representation of information or knowledge. The term raw data is often used with two different meanings, the first being uncleaned data, that is, data that has been collected in an uncontrolled environment, and unprocessed data, which is collected data that has not been processed in such a way as to make it suitable for decision making. Colloquially, and in the humanitarian context, data is usually thought of solely in the machine readable or digital sense. For the purposes of the Signal Code, we use the term data to encompass information both in its analog and digital representations. Where it is necessary to address data solely in its digital representation, we refer to it as digital data.

No right herein may be used to abridge any other right. Nothing in this code may be interpreted as giving any state, group, or person the right to engage in any activity or perform any act that destroys the rights described herein.

The five human rights that exist specific to information and HIAs during humanitarian crises are the following:

The Right to Information
The Right to Protection
The Right to Data Security and Privacy
The Right to Data Agency
The Right to Redress and Rectification…(More)”

Artificial Intelligence “Jolted by Success”

Curated on January 11, 2017August 3, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Steven Aftergood in SecrecyNews: “Since 2010, the field of artificial intelligence (AI) has been “jolted” by the “broad and unforeseen successes” of one of its component technologies, known as multi-layer neural networks, leading to rapid developments and new applications, according to a new study from the JASON scientific advisory panel.

The JASON panel reviewed the current state of AI research and its potential use by the Department of Defense. See Perspectives on Research in Artificial Intelligence and Artificial General Intelligence Relevant to DoD, JSR-16-Task-003, January 2017….

The JASON report distinguishes between artificial intelligence — referring to the ability of computers to perform particular tasks that humans do with their brains — and artificial general intelligence (AGI) — meaning a human-like ability to pursue long-term goals and exercise purposive behavior.

“Where AI is oriented around specific tasks, AGI seeks general cognitive abilities.” Recent progress in AI has not been matched by comparable advances in AGI. Sentient machines, let alone a revolt of robots against their creators, are still somewhere far over the horizon, and may be permanently in the realm of fiction.

While many existing DoD weapon systems “have some degree of ‘autonomy’ relying on the technologies of AI, they are in no sense a step–not even a small step–towards ‘autonomy’ in the sense of AGI, that is, the ability to set independent goals or intent,” the JASONs said.

“Indeed, the word ‘autonomy’ conflates two quite different meanings, one relating to ‘freedom of will or action’ (like humans, or as in AGI), and the other the much more prosaic ability to act in accordance with a possibly complex rule set based on possibly complex sensor input, as in the word ‘automatic’. In using a terminology like ‘autonomous weapons’, the DoD may, as an unintended consequence, enhance the public’s confusion on this point.”…

This week the Department of Defense announced the demonstration of swarms of “autonomous” micro-drones. “The micro-drones demonstrated advanced swarm behaviors such as collective decision-making, adaptive formation flying, and self-healing,” according to a January 9 news release.

A journalistic account of recent breakthroughs in the use of artificial intelligence for machine translation appeared in the New York Times Magazine last month. See “The Great A.I. Awakening” by Gideon Lewis-Kraus, December 14, 2016…(More)”

Crowdsourcing, Citizen Science, and Data-sharing

Curated on January 11, 2017August 3, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Sapien Labs: “The future of human neuroscience lies in crowdsourcing, citizen science and data sharing but it is not without its minefields.

A recent Scientific American article by Daniel Goodwin, “Why Neuroscience Needs Hackers,” makes the case that neuroscience, like many fields today, is drowning in data, begging for application of advances in computer science like machine learning. Neuroscientists are able to gather realms of neural data, but often without big data mechanisms and frameworks to synthesize them.

The SA article describes the work of Sebastian Seung, a Princeton neuroscientist, who recently mapped the neural connections of the human retina from an “overwhelming mass” of electron microscopy data using state of the art A.I. and massive crowd-sourcing. Seung incorporated the A.I. into a game called “Eyewire” where 1,000s of volunteers scored points while improving the neural map. Although the article’s title emphasizes advanced A.I., Dr. Seung’s experiment points even more to crowdsourcing and open science, avenues for improving research that have suddenly become easy and powerful with today’s internet. Eyewire perhaps epitomizes successful crowdsourcing — using an application that gathers, represents, and analyzes data uniformly according to researchers’ needs.

Crowdsourcing is seductive in its potential but risky for those who aren’t sure how to control it to get what they want. For researchers who don’t want to become hackers themselves, trying to turn the diversity of data produced by a crowd into conclusive results might seem too much of a headache to make it worthwhile. This is probably why the SA article title says we need hackers. The crowd is there but using it depends on innovative software engineering. A lot of researchers could really use software designed to flexibly support a diversity of crowdsourcing, some AI to enable things like crowd validation and big data tools.

The Potential

The SA article also points to Open BCI (brain-computer interface), mentioned here in other posts, as an example of how traditional divisions between institutional and amateur (or “citizen”) science are now crumbling; Open BCI is a community of professional and citizen scientists doing principled research with cheap, portable EEG-headsets producing professional research quality data. In communities of “neuro-hackers,” like NeurotechX, professional researchers, entrepreneurs, and citizen scientists are coming together to develop all kinds of applications, such as “telepathic” machine control, prostheses, and art. Other companies, like Neurosky sell EEG headsets and biosensors for bio-/neuro-feedback training and health-monitoring at consumer affordable pricing. (Read more in Citizen Science and EEG)

Tan Le, whose company Emotiv Lifesciences, also produces portable EEG head-sets, says, in an article in National Geographic, that neuroscience needs “as much data as possible on as many brains as possible” to advance diagnosis of conditions such as epilepsy and Alzheimer’s. Human neuroscience studies have typically consisted of 20 to 50 participants, an incredibly small sampling of a 7 billion strong humanity. For a single lab to collect larger datasets is difficult but with diverse populations across the planet real understanding may require data not even from thousands of brains but millions. With cheap mobile EEG-headsets, open-source software, and online collaboration, the potential for anyone can participate in such data collection is immense; the potential for crowdsourcing unprecedented. There are, however, significant hurdles to overcome….(More)”

Prisoners use VR programme as a rehabilitation tool

Curated on January 11, 2017August 3, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Springwise: “The global prison population currently totals 10.5 million, and while many countries including the UK and US have seen a steady decline in crime rates over the past decade, the rate of reoffending prisoners has increased. About two-thirds of released prisoners in the US are rearrested within three years of release, and about three-quarters of released prisoners were rearrested within five. Virtual Rehab is a new project that seeks to rehabilitate inmates using VR technology.

Virtual Rehab’s interactive tool includes education on a broad range of themes, from family violence and sexual offences to psychological challenges including mental & emotional disorders. The programme works by placing the prisoner into interactive role play scenarios which reverse the aggressor / victim roles, propelling the prisoner into the skin of an assaulted person with the aim of developing empathy. The programme also includes formal education and vocational job training, developing professional skills to help ex-offenders thrive in the real world. …

Virtual reality has already had an impact in various areas related to rehabilitation, including in the treatment of conditions such as PTSD and anxiety. At Springwise, we recently covered two programmes (a glove and an online platform) that use online gaming to support the recovery of patients….(More)”

Rule by the lowest common denominator? It’s baked into democracy’s design

Curated on January 10, 2017August 3, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Firmin DeBrabander in The Conversation: “The Trump victory, and the general disaster for Democrats this year, was the victory of ignorance, critics moan.

Writing in Foreign Policy, Georgetown’s Jason Brennan called it “the dance of the dunces” and wrote that “Trump owes his victory to the uninformed.”…

For liberals, Trump’s victory was the triumph of prejudice, bigotry and forces allied against truth and expertise in politics, science and culture at large. Trump brandishes unconcern for traditional political wisdom and protocol – much less facts – like a badge of honor, and his admirers roar with glee. His now famous rallies, the chastened media report, are often scary, sometimes giving way to violence, sometimes threatening to spark broader recriminations and social mayhem. This is a glimpse of how tyrants rise to power, some political minds worry; this is how tyrants enlist the support of rabid masses, and get them to do their bidding.

For the contemporary French philosopher Jacques Rancière, however, the Trump victory provides a useful reminder of the essential nature of democracy – a reminder of what precisely makes it vibrant. And liable to lapse into tyranny at once….

Democracy is rule by the rabble, in Plato’s view. It is the rule by the lowest common denominator. In a democracy, passions are inflamed and proliferate. Certain individuals may take advantage of and channel the storm of ignorance, Plato feared, and consolidate power out of a desire to serve their own interests.

As Rancière explains, there is a “scandal of democracy” for Plato: The best and the high born “must bow before the law of chance” and submit to the rule of the inexpert, the commoner, who knows little about politics or much else.

Merit ought to decide who rules, in Plato’s account. But democracy consigns such logic to the dustbin. The rabble may decide they want to be ruled by one of their own – and electoral conditions may favor them. Democracy makes it possible that someone who has no business ruling lands at the top. His rule may prove treacherous, and risk dooming the state. But, Rancière argues, this is a risk democracies must take. Without it, they lack legitimacy….

Rancière maintains people more happily suffer authority ascribed by chance than authority consigned by birth, merit or expertise. Liberals may be surprised about this last point. According to Rancière, expertise is no reliable, lasting or secure basis for authority. In fact, expertise soon loses authority, and with it, the legitimacy of the state. Why?…(More)”

Public Sector Entrepreneurship and the Integration of Innovative Business Models

Curated on January 10, 2017August 3, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

Book edited by Mateusz Lewandowski and Barbara Kożuch: “While private, for-profit businesses have typically been the most experienced with entrepreneurship, the study of public sector business models is coming to the forefront of entrepreneurial discussions. This shift has allowed researchers and practitioners to expand on their knowledge of positive business choices and paved the way for more profitable business empires.

Public Sector Entrepreneurship and the Integration of Innovative Business Models is a comprehensive source of academic research that discusses the latest entrepreneurial strategies, achievements, and challenges in public sector contexts. Highlighting relevant topics such as public management, crowdsourcing, municipal cooperation, and public sector marketing, this is an ideal resource for managers, practitioners, researchers, and professionals interested in learning more about public sector business ideals, and how these models are shaping positive entrepreneurial communities around the world….(More)”

Towards a sociology of institutional transparency: openness, deception, and the problem of public trust

Curated on January 10, 2017August 3, 2018 by Stefaan Verhulst

S. Moore in Sociology: “Transparency has become the watchword of twenty-first century liberal democracies. It refers to a project of ‘opening up’ the state by providing online access to public sector data. This article puts forward a sociological critique of the transparency agenda and the purported relationship between institutional openness and public trust. Drawing upon Simmel’s (1906) work, the article argues that open government initiatives routinely prize visibility over intelligibility and ignore the communicative basis of trust. The result is a non-reciprocal form of openness that obscures more than it reveals. In making this point, the article suggests that transparency embodies the ethos of a now-discredited mode of ‘instrumental politics’, reliant on the idea that the state constitutes a ‘domain of plain public facts’ (Ezrahi, 2004: 106). The article examines how alternative mechanisms for achieving government openness might better respond to the distinctive needs of citizens living in late modern societies….(More)”.