The Dangers of AI Nationalism and Beggar-Thy-Neighbour Policies

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Susan Aaronson: “As they attempt to nurture and govern AI, some nations are acting in ways that – with or without direct intent – discriminate among foreign market actors. For example, some governments are excluding foreign firms from access to incentives for high-speed computing, or requiring local content in the AI supply chain, or adopting export controls for the advanced chips that power many types of AI. If policy makers in country X can limit access to the building blocks of AI – whether funds, data or high-speed computing power – it might slow down or limit the AI prowess of its competitors in country Y and/or Z. At the same time, however, such policies could violate international trade norms of non-discrimination. Moreover, if policy makers can shape regulations in ways that benefit local AI competitors, they may also impede the competitiveness of other nations’ AI developers. Such regulatory policies could be discriminatory and breach international trade rules as well as long-standing rules about how nations and firms compete – which, over time, could reduce trust among nations. In this article, the author attempts to illuminate AI nationalism and its consequences by answering four questions:

– What are nations doing to nurture AI capacity within their borders?

– Are some of these actions trade distorting?

 – Are some nations adopting twenty-first century beggar thy neighbour policies?

– What are the implications of such trade-distorting actions?

The author finds that AI nationalist policies appear to help countries with the largest and most established technology firms across multiple levels of the AI value chain. Hence, policy makers’ efforts to dominate these sectors, as example through large investment sums or beggar thy neighbour policies are not a good way to build trust…(More)”.

Balancing Data Sharing and Privacy to Enhance Integrity and Trust in Government Programs

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by National Academy of Public Administration: “Improper payments and fraud cost the federal government hundreds of billions of dollars each year, wasting taxpayer money and eroding public trust. At the same time, agencies are increasingly expected to do more with less. Finding better ways to share data, without compromising privacy, is critical for ensuring program integrity in a resource-constrained environment.

Key Takeaways

  • Data sharing strengthens program integrity and fraud prevention. Agencies and oversight bodies like GAO and OIGs have uncovered large-scale fraud by using shared data.
  • Opportunities exist to streamline and expedite the compliance processes required by privacy laws and reduce systemic barriers to sharing data across federal agencies.
  • Targeted reforms can address these barriers while protecting privacy:
    1. OMB could issue guidance to authorize fraud prevention as a routine use in System of Records Notices.
    2. Congress could enact special authorities or exemptions for data sharing that supports program integrity and fraud prevention.
    3. A centralized data platform could help to drive cultural change and support secure, responsible data sharing…(More)”

Glorious RAGs : A Safer Path to Using AI in the Social Sector

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Blog by Jim Fruchterman: “Social sector leaders ask me all the time for advice on using AI. As someone who started for-profit machine learning (AI) companies in the 1980s, but then pivoted to running nonprofit social enterprises, I’m often the first person from Silicon Valley that many nonprofit leaders have met. I joke that my role is often that of “anti-consultant,” talking leaders out of doing an app, a blockchain (smile) or firing half their staff because of AI. Recently, much of my role has been tamping down the excessive expectations being bandied about for the impact of AI on organizations. However, two years into the latest AI fad wave created by ChatGPT and its LLM (large language model) peers, more and more of the leaders are describing eminently sensible applications of LLMs to their programs. The most frequent of these approaches can be described as variations on “Retrieval-Augmented Generation,” also known as RAG. I am quite enthusiastic about using RAG for social impact, because it addresses a real need and supplies guardrails for using LLMs effectively…(More)”

AI Agents in Global Governance: Digital Representation for Unheard Voices

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book by Eduardo Albrecht: “Governments now routinely use AI-based software to gather information about citizens and determine the level of privacy a person can enjoy, how far they can travel, what public benefits they may receive, and what they can and cannot say publicly. What input do citizens have in how these machines think?

In Political Automation, Eduardo Albrecht explores this question in various domains, including policing, national security, and international peacekeeping. Drawing upon interviews with rights activists, Albrecht examines popular attempts to interact with this novel form of algorithmic governance so far. He then proposes the idea of a Third House, a virtual chamber that legislates exclusively on AI in government decision-making and is based on principles of direct democracy, unlike existing upper and lower houses that are representative. Digital citizens, AI powered replicas of ourselves, would act as our personal emissaries to this Third House. An in-depth look at how political automation impacts the lives of citizens, this book addresses the challenges at the heart of automation in public policy decision-making and offers a way forward…(More)”.

A matter of choice: People and possibilities in the age of AI

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

UNDP Human Development Report 2025: “Artificial intelligence (AI) has broken into a dizzying gallop. While AI feats grab headlines, they privilege technology in a make-believe vacuum, obscuring what really matters: people’s choices.

The choices that people have and can realize, within ever expanding freedoms, are essential to human development, whose goal is for people to live lives they value and have reason to value. A world with AI is flush with choices the exercise of which is both a matter of human development and a means to advance it.

Going forward, development depends less on what AI can do—not on how human-like it is perceived to be—and more on mobilizing people’s imaginations to reshape economies and societies to make the most of it. Instead of trying vainly to predict what will happen, this year’s Human Development Report asks what choices can be made so that new development pathways for all countries dot the horizon, helping everyone have a shot at thriving in a world with AI…(More)”.

Charting the AI for Good Landscape – A New Look

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Perry Hewitt and Jake Porway: “More than 50% of nonprofits report that their organization uses generative AI in day-to-day operations. We’ve also seen an explosion of AI tools and investments. 10% of all the AI companies that exist in the US were founded in 2022, and that number has likely grown in subsequent years.  With investors funneling over $300B into AI and machine learning startups, it’s unlikely this trend will reverse any time soon.

Not surprisingly, the conversation about Artificial Intelligence (AI) is now everywhere, spanning from commercial uses such as virtual assistants and consumer AI to public goods, like AI-driven drug discovery and chatbots for education. The dizzying amount of new AI programs and initiatives – over 5000 new tools listed in 2023 on AI directories like TheresAnAI alone – can make the AI landscape challenging to navigate in general, much less for social impact. Luckily, four years ago, we surveyed the Data and AI for Good landscape and mapped out distinct families of initiatives based on their core goals. Today, we are revisiting that landscape to help folks get a handle on the AI for Good landscape today and to reflect on how the field has expanded, diversified, and matured…(More)”.

Macron announces citizens’ convention on school schedules, a move met with skepticism

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Violaine Morin: “The French president wants to restructure how schoolchildren’s time is managed, tackling a highly sensitive issue. Teachers’ unions called it a diversion. The plan had been rumored quietly for some time, but it is now official: President Emmanuel Macron announced on Friday, May 2, speaking to Le Parisien, the launch of a citizens’ convention on “the time of children” and “the organization of the day for children aged 3 to 18.”

“It seems necessary to me to ensure that the organization of our pupils’ days is more conducive to their development and learning, and that a balance is found to also facilitate family life,” said Macron, adding that he hoped for “numerous agreements among all those affected […], parents, the educational and extracurricular community, local authorities and even tourism professionals.”

The format of citizens’ conventions involves a randomly selected panel of French citizens meeting with stakeholders, as was the case for the two previous conventions on climate and end-of-life care. The convention could start in early June and last into the fall, as Le Parisien first reported, information also confirmed to Le Monde by the Elysée Palace. Its organization will be entrusted to the Economic, Social and Environmental Council (CESE), an advisory body in which unions, employers and nonprofits are represented.The prime minister’s office confirmed to Le Monde that a letter with instructions had been sent to the CESE…(More)”

The RRI Citizen Review Panel: a public engagement method for supporting responsible territorial policymaking

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Maya Vestergaard Bidstrup et al: “Responsible Territorial Policymaking incorporates the main principles of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) into the policymaking process, making it well-suited for guiding the development of sustainable and resilient territorial policies that prioritise societal needs. As a cornerstone in RRI, public engagement plays a central role in this process, underscoring the importance of involving all societal actors to align outcomes with the needs, expectations, and values of society. In the absence of existing methods to gather sufficiently and effectively the citizens’ review of multiple policies at a territorial level, the RRI Citizen Review Panel is a new public engagement method developed to facilitate citizens’ review and validation of territorial policies. By using RRI as an analytical framework, this paper examines whether the RRI Citizen Review Panel can support Responsible Territorial Policymaking, not only by incorporating citizens’ perspectives into territorial policymaking, but also by making policies more responsible. The paper demonstrates that in the review of territorial policies, citizens are adding elements of RRI to a wide range of policies within different policy areas, contributing to making policies more responsible. Consequently, the RRI Citizen Review Panel emerges as a valuable tool for policymakers, enabling them to gather citizen perspectives and imbue policies with a heightened sense of responsibility…(More)”.

Playing for science: Designing science games

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Claudio M Radaelli: “How can science have more impact on policy decisions? The P-Cube Project has approached this question by creating five pedagogical computer games based on missions given to a policy entrepreneur (the player) advocating for science-informed policy decisions. The player explores simplified strategies for policy change rooted in a small number of variables, thus making it possible to learn without a prior background in political science or public administration. The games evolved from the intuition that, instead of making additional efforts to explain science to decision-makers, we should directly empower would-be scientists (our primary audience for the games), post-graduates in public policy and administration, and activists for science. The two design principles of the games revolve around learning about how policy decisions are made (a learning-about-content principle) and reflection. Indeed, the presence of science in the policy process raises ethical and normative decisions, especially when we consider controversial strategies like civil disobedience and alliances with industry. To be on the side of science does not mean to be outside society and politics. I show the motivation, principles, scripts and pilots of the science games, reflecting on how they can be used and for what reasons…(More)”

Smart Cities:Technologies and Policy Options to Enhance Services and Transparency

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

GAO Report: “Cities across the nation are using “smart city” technologies like traffic cameras and gunshot detectors to improve public services. In this technology assessment, we looked at their use in transportation and law enforcement.

Experts and city officials reported multiple benefits. For example, Houston uses cameras and Bluetooth sensors to measure traffic flow and adjust signal timing. Other cities use license plate readers to find stolen vehicles.

But the technologies can be costly and the benefits unclear. The data they collect may be sold, raising privacy and civil liberties concerns. We offer three policy options to address such challenges…(More)”.