Stefaan Verhulst

Axios: “The vast majority of Americans use products that involve AI, but their views of the technology remain overwhelmingly negative, according to a Gallup-Telescope survey published Wednesday.

Why it matters: The rapid advancement of generative AI threatens to have far-reaching consequences for Americans’ everyday lives, including reshaping the job market, impacting elections, and affecting the health care industry.

The big picture: An estimated 99% of Americans used at least one AI-enabled product in the past week, but nearly two-thirds didn’t realize they were doing so, according to the poll’s findings.

• These products included navigation apps, personal virtual assistants, weather forecasting apps, streaming services, shopping websites and social media platforms.
• Ellyn Maese, a senior research consultant at Gallup, told Axios that the disconnect is because there is “a lot of confusion when it comes to what is just a computer program versus what is truly AI and intelligent.”

Zoom in: Despite its prevalent use, Americans’ views of AI remain overwhelmingly bleak, the survey found.

• 72% of those surveyed had a “somewhat” or “very” negative opinion of how AI would impact the spread of false information, while 64% said the same about how it affects social connections.
• The only area where a majority of Americans (61%) had a positive view of AI’s impact was regarding how it might help medical diagnosis and treatment…

State of play: The survey found that 68% of Americans believe the government and businesses equally bear responsibility for addressing the spread of false information related to AI.

• 63% said the same about personal data privacy violations.
• Majorities of those surveyed felt the same about combatting the unauthorized use of individuals’ likenesses (62%) and AI’s impact on job losses (52%).
• In fact, the only area where Americans felt differently was when it came to national security threats; 62% of those surveyed said the government bore primary responsibility for reducing such threats…(More).”

Paper by Linnet Taylor, Siddharth Peter de Souza, Aaron Martin, and Joan López Solano: “The field of data justice has been evolving to take into account the role of data in powering the field of artificial intelligence (AI). In this paper we review the main conceptual bases for governing data and AI: the market-based approach, the personal–non-personal data distinction and strategic sovereignty. We then analyse how these are being operationalised into practical models for governance, including public data trusts, data cooperatives, personal data sovereignty, data collaboratives, data commons approaches and indigenous data sovereignty. We interrogate these models’ potential for just governance based on four benchmarks which we propose as a reformulation of the Data Justice governance agenda identified by Taylor in her 2017 framework. Re-situating data justice at the intersection of data and AI, these benchmarks focus on preserving and strengthening public infrastructures and public goods; inclusiveness; contestability and accountability; and global responsibility. We demonstrate how they can be used to test whether a governance approach will succeed in redistributing power, engaging with public concerns and creating a plural politics of AI…(More)”.

Chapter by Kohei Suzuki: “This chapter explores co-production practices of local governments, focusing on the role of neighborhood associations (NHAs) in Japan. This chapter investigates the overall research question of this book: how to enhance government performance under resource constraints, by focusing on the concept of citizen co-production. Historically, NHAs have played a significant role in supplementing municipal service provisions as co-producers for local governments. Despite the rich history of NHAs and their contributions to public service delivery at the municipal level, theoretical and empirical studies on NHAs and co-production practices remain limited. This chapter aims to address this research gap by exploring the following research questions: What are NHAs from a perspective of citizen co-production? What are the potential contributions of studying NHAs to the broader theory of co-production? What are the future research agendas? The chapter provides an overview of the origin and evolution of the co-production concept. It then examines the main characteristics and activities of NHAs and discusses their roles in supplementing local public service provision. Finally, the chapter proposes potential research agendas to advance studies on co-production using Japan as a case study…(More)”.

Paper by Stefan M. Herzog and Ralph Hertwig: “…Behavioral public policy came to the fore with the introduction of nudging, which aims to steer behavior while maintaining freedom of choice. Responding to critiques of nudging (e.g., that it does not promote agency and relies on benevolent choice architects), other behavioral policy approaches focus on empowering citizens. Here we review boosting, a behavioral policy approach that aims to foster people’s agency, self-control, and ability to make informed decisions. It is grounded in evidence from behavioral science showing that human decision making is not as notoriously flawed as the nudging approach assumes. We argue that addressing the challenges of our time—such as climate change, pandemics, and the threats to liberal democracies and human autonomy posed by digital technologies and choice architectures—calls for fostering capable and engaged citizens as a first line of response to complement slower, systemic approaches…(More)”.

Essay by Nicholas Carr: “…Communication systems are also transportation systems. Each medium carries information from here to there, whether in the form of thoughts and opinions, commands and decrees, or artworks and entertainments.

What Innis saw is that some media are particularly good at transporting information across space, while others are particularly good at transporting it through time. Some are space-biased while others are time-biased. Each medium’s temporal or spatial emphasis stems from its material qualities. Time-biased media tend to be heavy and durable. They last a long time, but they are not easy to move around. Think of a gravestone carved out of granite or marble. Its message can remain legible for centuries, but only those who visit the cemetery are able to read it. Space-biased media tend to be lightweight and portable. They’re easy to carry, but they decay or degrade quickly. Think of a newspaper printed on cheap, thin stock. It can be distributed in the morning to a large, widely dispersed readership, but by evening it’s in the trash.

Because every society organizes and sustains itself through acts of communication, the material biases of media do more than determine how long messages last or how far they reach. They play an important role in shaping a society’s size, form, and character — and ultimately its fate. As the sociologist Andrew Wernick explained in a 1999 essay on Innis, “The portability of media influences the extent, and the durability of media the longevity, of empires, institutions, and cultures.”

In societies where time-biased media are dominant, the emphasis is on tradition and ritual, on maintaining continuity with the past. People are held together by shared beliefs, often religious or mythologic, passed down through generations. Elders are venerated, and power typically resides in a theocracy or monarchy. Because the society lacks the means to transfer knowledge and exert influence across a broad territory, it tends to remain small and insular. If it grows, it does so in a decentralized fashion, through the establishment of self-contained settlements that hold the same traditions and beliefs…(More)”

Paper by Cristina Legido-Quigley et al: “Contemporary healthcare is undergoing a transition, shifting from a population-based approach to personalized medicine on an individual level. In October 2023, the European Partnership for Personalized Medicine was officially launched to communicate the benefits of this approach to citizens and healthcare systems in member countries. The main debate revolves around the inconsistency in regulatory changes within personal data access and its potential commercialization. Moreover, the lack of unified consensus within European Union (EU) countries is leading to problems with data sharing to progress personalized medicine. Here we discuss the integration of biological data with personal information on a European scale for the advancement of personalized medicine, raising legal considerations of data protection under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)…(More)”.

A Global Voices Report: “…Framing AI systems as intelligent is further complicated and intertwined with neighboring narratives. In the US, AI narratives often revolve around opposing themes such as hope and fear, often bridging two strong emotions: existential fears and economic aspirations. In either case, they propose that the technology is powerful. These narratives contribute to the hype surrounding AI tools and their potential impact on society. Some examples include:

• An “AI arms race” between the United States and other global powers, particularly China.
• AI is a driver of economic growth and a transformative agent reshaping society.
• AI is a threat to labor.
• AI as a tool for good to benefit society.
• AI is an inevitable force that requires urgent regulation.
• If you don’t use AI, you will fall behind.
• AI is a democratizing force, lowering barriers to entry globally.

Many of these framings often present AI as an unstoppable and accelerating force. While this narrative can generate excitement and investment in AI research, it can also contribute to a sense of technological determinism and a lack of critical engagement with the consequences of widespread AI adoption. Counter-narratives are many and expand on the motifs of surveillance, erosions of trust, bias, job impacts, exploitation of labor, high-risk uses, the concentration of power, and environmental impacts, among others.

These narrative frames, combined with the metaphorical language and imagery used to describe AI, contribute to the confusion and lack of public knowledge about the technology. By positioning AI as a transformative, inevitable, and necessary tool for national success, these narratives can shape public opinion and policy decisions, often in ways that prioritize rapid adoption and commercialization…(More)”

Article by Megan Mattes and Joanna Massie: “Although one-off democratic innovations like citizens’ assemblies are excellent approaches for tackling a big issue, more embedded types of innovations could be a powerful tool for maintaining an ongoing connection between public interest and political decision-making.

Innovative approaches to maintaining an ongoing, meaningful connection between people and policymakers are underway. In New Westminster, B.C., a standing citizen body called the Community Advisory Assembly has been convened since January 2024 to January 2025.

These citizen advisers are selected through random sampling to ensure the assembly’s demographic makeup is aligned with the overall population.

Over the last year, members have both given input on policy ideas initiated by New Westminster city council and initiated conversations on their own policy priorities. Notes from these discussions are passed on to council and city staff to consider their incorporation into policymaking.

The question is whether the project will live beyond its pilot.

Another similar and hopeful democratic innovation, the City of Toronto’s Planning Review Panel, ran for two terms before it was cancelled. In contrast, both the Paris city council and the state government of Ostbelgien (East Belgium) have convened permanent citizen advisory bodies to work alongside elected officials.

While public opinion is only one ingredient in government decision-making, ensuring democratic innovations are a standard component of policymaking could go a long way to enshrining public dialogue as a valuable governance tool.

Whether through annual participatory budgeting exercises or a standing citizen advisory body, democratic innovations can make public priorities a key focus of policy and restore government accountability to citizens…(More)”.

Report by the Observatory on Information and Democracy: “This inaugural meta-analysis provides a critical assessment of the role of information ecosystems in the Global North and Global Majority World, focusing on their relationship with information integrity (the quality of public discourse), the fairness of political processes, the protection of media freedoms, and the resilience of public institutions.

The report addresses three thematic areas with a cross-cutting theme of mis- and disinformation:

• Media, Politics and Trust;
• Artificial Intelligence, Information Ecosystems and Democracy;
• and Data Governance and Democracy.

The analysis is based mainly on academic publications supplemented by reports and other materials from different disciplines and regions (1,664 citations selected among a total corpus of over +2700 resources aggregated). The report showcases what we can learn from landmark research on often intractable challenges posed by rapid changes in information and communication spaces…(More)”.

US Department of Commerce: “…This guidance provides actionable guidelines and best practices for publishing open data optimized for generative AI systems. While it is designed for use by the Department of Commerce and its bureaus, this guidance has been made publicly available to benefit open data publishers globally…(More)”. See also: A Fourth Wave of Open Data? Exploring the Spectrum of Scenarios for Open Data and Generative AI