AI Globalism and AI Localism: Governing AI at the Local Level for Global Benefit

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Stefaan G. Verhulst: “With the UK Summit in full swing, 2023 will likely be seen as a pivotal year for AI governance, with governments promoting a global governance model: AI Globalism. For it to be relevant, flexible, and effective, any global approach will need to be informed by and complemented with local experimentation and leadership, ensuring local responsiveness: AI Localism.

Even as consumers and businesses extend their use of AI (generative AI in particular), governments are also taking notice. Determined not to be caught on the back foot, as they were with social media, regulators and policymakers around the world are exploring frameworks and institutional structures that could help maximize the benefits while minimizing the potential harms of AI. This week, the UK is hosting a high-profile AI Safety Summit, attended by political and business leaders from around the world, including Kamala Harris and Elon Musk. Similarly, US President Biden recently signed an Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence, which he hailed as a “landmark executive order” to ensure “safety, security, trust, openness, and American leadership.”

Generated with DALL-E

Amid the various policy and regulatory proposals swirling around, there has been a notable emphasis on what we might call AI globalism. The UK summit has explicitly endorsed a global approach to AI safety, with coordination between the US, EU, and China core to its vision of more responsible and safe AI. This global perspective follows similar recent calls for “an AI equivalent of the IPCC” or the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Notably, such calls are emerging both from the private sector and from civil society leaders.

In many ways, a global approach makes sense. Like most technology, AI is transnational in scope, and its governance will require cross-jurisdictional coordination and harmonization. At the same time, we believe that AI globalism should be accompanied by a recognition that some of the most innovative AI initiatives are taking place in cities and municipalities and being regulated at those levels too.

We call it AI localism. In what follows, I outline a vision of a more decentralized approach to AI governance, one that would allow cities and local jurisdictions — including states — to develop and iterate governance frameworks tailored to their specific needs and challenges. This decentralized, local approach would need to take place alongside global efforts. The two would not be mutually exclusive but instead necessarily complementary…(More)”.

Urban Development and the State of Open Data

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Chapter by Stefaan G. Verhulst and Sampriti Saxena: “Nearly 4.4 billion people, or about 55% of the world’s population, lived in cities in 2018. By 2045, this number is anticipated to grow to 6 billion. Such level of growth requires innovative and targeted urban solutions. By more effectively leveraging open data, cities can meet the needs of an ever-growing population in an effective and sustainable manner. This paper updates the previous contribution by Jean-Noé Landry, titled “Open Data and Urban Development” in the 2019 edition of The State of Open Data. It also aims to contribute to a further deepening of the Third Wave of Open Data, which highlights the significance of open data at the subnational level as a more direct and immediate response to the on-the-ground needs of citizens. It considers recent developments in how the use of, and approach to, open data has evolved within an urban development context. It seeks to discuss emerging applications of open data in cities, recent developments in open data infrastructure, governance and policies related to open data, and the future outlook of the role of open data in urbanization…(More)”.

Governing Urban Data for the Public Interest

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by The New Hanse: “…This report represents the culmination of our efforts and offers actionable guidelines for European cities seeking to harness the power of data for the public good.

The key recommendations outlined in the report are:

1. Shift the Paradigm towards Democratic Control of Data: Advocate for a policy that defaults to making urban data accessible, requiring private data holders to share in the public interest.

2. Provide Legal Clarity in a Dynamic Environment: Address legal uncertainties by balancing privacy and confidentiality needs with the public interest in data accessibility, working collaboratively with relevant authorities at national and EU level.

3. Build a Data Commons Repository of Use cases: Streamline data sharing efforts by establishing a standardised use case repository with common technical frameworks, procedures, and contracts.

4. Set up an Urban Data Intermediary for the Public Interest: Institutionalise data sharing, by building urban data intermediaries to address complexities, following principles of public purpose, transparency, and accountability.

5. Learning from the Hamburg Experiment and Scale it across Europe: Embrace experimentation as a vital step, even if outcomes are uncertain, to adapt processes for future innovations. Experiments at the local level can inform policy and scale nationally and across Europe…(More)”.

Evidence-Based Government Is Alive and Well

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Zina Hutton: “A desire to discipline the whimsical rule of despots.” That’s what Gary Banks, a former chairman of Australia’s Productivity Commission, attributed the birth of evidence-based policy to back in the 14th century in a speech from 2009. Evidence-based policymaking isn’t a new style of government, but it’s one with well-known roadblocks that elected officials have been working around in order to implement it more widely.

Evidence-based policymaking relies on evidence — facts, data, expert analysis — to shape aspects of long- and short-term policy decisions. It’s not just about collecting data, but also applying it and experts’ analysis to shape future policy. Whether it’s using school enrollment numbers to justify building a new park in a neighborhood or scientists collaborating on analysis of wastewater to try to “catch” illness spread in a community before it becomes unmanageable, evidence-based policy uses facts to help elected and appointed officials decide what funds and other resources to allocate in their communities.

Problems with evidence-based governing have been around for years. They range from a lack of communication between the people designing the policy and its related programs and the people implementing them, to the way that local government struggles to recruit and maintain employees. Resource allocation also shapes the decisions some cities make when it comes to seeking out and using data. This can be seen in the way larger cities, with access to proportionately larger budgets, research from state universities within city limits and a larger workforce, have had more success with evidence-based policymaking.
“The largest cities have more personnel, more expertise, more capacity, whether that’s for collecting administrative data and monitoring it, whether that’s doing open data portals, or dashboards, or whether that’s doing things like policy analysis or program evaluation,” says Karen Mossberger, the Frank and June Sackton Professor in the School of Public Affairs at Arizona State University. “It takes expert personnel, it takes people within government with the skills and the capacity, it takes time.”

Roadblocks aside, state and local governments are finding innovative ways to collaborate with one another on data-focused projects and policy, seeking ways to make up for the problems that impacted early efforts at evidence-based governance. More state and local governments now recruit data experts at every level to collect, analyze and explain the data generated by residents, aided by advances in technology and increased access to researchers…(More)”.

NYC Releases Plan to Embrace AI, and Regulate It

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Sarah Holder: “New York City Mayor Eric Adams unveiled a plan for adopting and regulating artificial intelligence on Monday, highlighting the technology’s potential to “improve services and processes across our government” while acknowledging the risks.

The city also announced it is piloting an AI chatbot to answer questions about opening or operating a business through its website MyCity Business.

NYC agencies have reported using more than 30 tools that fit the city’s definition of algorithmic technology, including to match students with public schools, to track foodborne illness outbreaks and to analyze crime patterns. As the technology gets more advanced, and the implications of algorithmic bias, misinformation and privacy concerns become more apparent, the city plans to set policy around new and existing applications…

New York’s strategy, developed by the Office of Technology and Innovation with the input of city agency representatives and outside technology policy experts, doesn’t itself establish any rules and regulations around AI, but lays out a timeline and blueprint for creating them. It emphasizes the need for education and buy-in both from New York constituents and city employees. Within the next year, the city plans to start to hold listening sessions with the public, and brief city agencies on how and why to use AI in their daily operations. The city has also given itself a year to start work on piloting new AI tools, and two to create standards for AI contracts….

Stefaan Verhulst, a research professor at New York University and the co-founder of The GovLab, says that especially during a budget crunch, leaning on AI offers cities opportunities to make evidence-based decisions quickly and with fewer resources. Among the potential use cases he cited are identifying areas most in need of affordable housing, and responding to public health emergencies with data…(More) (Full plan)”.

Understanding the policy impact of Citizens’ Assemblies: a dispatch from Gdansk

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Adela Gąsiorowska: “Whilst Citizens’ Assemblies are spreading in practice, significant doubts remain about the extent to which they and similar processes actually influence public policies. My research investigates Poland’s first Citizens’ Assemblies, finding that although on the surface, they seemed to achieve a high level of policy impact, a closer look reveals a less clear-cut picture, and reasons to be cautious about the claims we can make about them.

The Gdansk Citizens Assemblies in 2016-17 were the first Citizens’ Assemblies organised in Poland and they led to popularisation of this participatory tool in other Polish cities. After Gdansk, nine more Citizens’ Assemblies were organised in seven different Polish municipalities. The Gdansk Assemblies are an interesting case study to analyse policy impact for two reasons. Firstly, sufficient time has elapsed to allow us to track the implementation of policy recommendations. Secondly, the president of the city claimed that the recommendations would be treated as binding.

Such a declaration could suggest that policy impact of the Gdansk Assemblies would be stronger than in case of other, non-binding assemblies. However, my research suggests that the general impact of these processes was in fact, limited for several reasons. In particular, not all their recommendations influenced public policies to the same extent, and the process was perceived by some of its participants as a tool for legitimating the decisions made by public officials…(More)”.

Five types of urban digital twins

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Blog by Darrel Ronald: “The definition for urban digital twins is too vague — so it is important to create a clearer picture of the types of urban digital twins that are available. Not all digital twins are the same and each one comes with features and capabilities, strengths and weakness, as well as appropriate and inappropriate use cases….

Darrel Ronald
Urban Twin taxonomy, Source: Darrel Ronald, Spatiomatics

As shown in my proposed Urban Digital Twin Taxonomy above, I propose that we classify these products first based on their Main Functionality (the Use Case), then based on their Technology Platform. I highlight some of main products within the different categories and their product scope. Next, I detail the different types of twins and offer some brief strengths and weaknesses for each type. This taxonomy could apply to other industries such as architecture or manufacturing, but it is specifically applied to cities and urban development projects.

The main functionalities can be grouped by:

  • Modelling Twin
  • Computational Twin
  • Scenario Twin
  • Operational Twin
  • Experiential Twin

The technology platforms can be grouped by:

  • Computer Aided Design (CAD)
  • Web GIS
  • Geographic Information System (GIS)
  • Gaming…(More)”.

Citizens’ Assemblies in Los Angeles Could Be The Art Of The Possible

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Susana F. Molina: “At the end of his career, the physician and playwright Wayne Liebman has painstakingly entered a strategic race to advocate for citizens’ assemblies – “throwing spaghetti to the wall, and waiting to see what sticks. If something sticks, it’s where I go” as he describes it. His frequent use of metaphors filled a spirited conversation over Zoom last week.

Liebman hadn’t been an activist to his core – the last time he was that active was during the anti-war movement – but the 2016 election left him with no other choice, he says. He retired from medicine and became a full-time activist. Nothing that he had anticipated. 

He began to get involved, in a partisan way, to help regain some political power, at least, in Congress. But, in the midst of the storming of the US capitol, “as I felt like I had thrown a ladder at the castle wall,” he continues, “what I realized is that I have thrown it to the wrong wall.” Liebman’s deep exposure to elections and politicians made him realize that he couldn’t trust the system anymore, “in fact it was the system that had gotten us to the point where we were at,” he says.

According to RepresentUs, America’s leading anti-corruption organization, only 4% of Americans currently have a great deal of confidence in Congress. Significantly, a growing number of democracy advocate organizations are sprouting out around the country to fix, what they call, a broken political system. “Unfortunately what they mean by that, is to try to fix how elections work,” says Liebman. “But this is like lipstick on a pig.” Australia has already instituted all kinds of reforms and still Australians are completely dissatisfied with how politicians run their country.

Liebman started to read about direct democracy, citizens’ assemblies and lottery selected panels. While in representative democracies like in the US people vote for representatives who execute policies and laws, direct democracy models allocate more power to people because they include citizens’ recommendations into the policy-making decision process.

“I quickly became a convert,” he admits. In 2020 Liebman founded the nonpartisan nonprofit organization Public Access Democracy in Los Angeles to educate the public about democratic lotteries and advocate for the implementation of citizens’ assemblies. Currently, one minute at the microphone at an open City Council Meeting depicts a bizarre moment in a bleak democracy landscape. Introducing citizens’ assemblies — where a randomly selected group of citizens hears expert evidence then deliberates — would boost participation on difficult issues and solutions that people have already embraced voluntarily and have built consensus…(More)”.

Centers of Progress: 40 Cities That Changed the World

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book by Chelsea Follett: “Where does progress happen? The story of civilization is the story of the city. It is cities that have created and defined the modern world by acting as the sites of pivotal advances in culture, politics, science, technology, and more. There is no question that certain places, at certain times in history, have contributed disproportionately toward making the world a better place. This book tells the story of forty of those places.

In Centers of Progress: 40 Cities That Changed the World, Chelsea Follett examines a diverse group of cities, ranging from ancient Athens to Song‐​era Hangzhou. But some common themes stand out: most cities reach their creative peak during periods of peace; most centers of progress also thrive during times of social, intellectual, and economic freedom, as well as openness to intercultural exchange and trade; and centers of progress tend to be highly populated. Because, in every city, it is ultimately the people who live there who drive progress forward―if given the freedom to do so.

Identifying common factors―such as relative peace, freedom, and multitudes―among the places that have produced history’s greatest achievements is one way to learn what causes progress. Change is a constant, but progress is not. Understanding what makes a place fertile ground for progress may help to sow the seeds of future innovations.

Moreover, their story is our story. City air provides the wind in the sails of the modern world. Come journey through these pages to some of history’s greatest centers of progress…(More)”.

Artificial intelligence in local governments: perceptions of city managers on prospects, constraints and choices

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Tan Yigitcanlar, Duzgun Agdas & Kenan Degirmenci: “Highly sophisticated capabilities of artificial intelligence (AI) have skyrocketed its popularity across many industry sectors globally. The public sector is one of these. Many cities around the world are trying to position themselves as leaders of urban innovation through the development and deployment of AI systems. Likewise, increasing numbers of local government agencies are attempting to utilise AI technologies in their operations to deliver policy and generate efficiencies in highly uncertain and complex urban environments. While the popularity of AI is on the rise in urban policy circles, there is limited understanding and lack of empirical studies on the city manager perceptions concerning urban AI systems. Bridging this gap is the rationale of this study. The methodological approach adopted in this study is twofold. First, the study collects data through semi-structured interviews with city managers from Australia and the US. Then, the study analyses the data using the summative content analysis technique with two data analysis software. The analysis identifies the following themes and generates insights into local government services: AI adoption areas, cautionary areas, challenges, effects, impacts, knowledge basis, plans, preparedness, roadblocks, technologies, deployment timeframes, and usefulness. The study findings inform city managers in their efforts to deploy AI in their local government operations, and offer directions for prospective research…(More)”.