Commission launches public consultation on the rules for researchers to access online platform data under the Digital Services Act

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Press Release: “Today, the Commission launched a public consultation on the draft delegated act on access to online platform data for vetted researchers under the Digital Services Act (DSA).

text Digital Services Act inside a white triangle against a blue background

With the Digital Services Act, researchers will for the first time have access to data to study systemic risks and to assess online platforms’ risk mitigation measures in the EU. It will allow the research community to play a vital role in scrutinising and safeguarding the online environment.

The draft delegated act clarifies the procedures on how researchers can access Very Large Operating Platforms’ and Search Engines’ data. It also sets out rules on data formats and data documentation requirements. Lastly, it establishes the DSA data access portal, a one-stop-shop for researchers, data providers, and DSCs to exchange information on data access requests. The consultation follows a first call for evidence.

The consultation will run until 26 November 2024. After gathering public feedback, the Commission plans to adopt the rules in the first quarter of 2025…(More)”.

Proactive Mapping to Manage Disaster

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Andrew Mambondiyani: “..In March 2019, Cyclone Idai ravaged Zimbabwe, killing hundreds of people and leaving a trail of destruction. The Global INFORM Risk Index data shows that Zimbabwe is highly vulnerable to extreme climate-related events like floods, cyclones, and droughts, which in turn destroy infrastructure, displace people, and result in loss of lives and livelihoods.

Severe weather events like Idai have exposed the shortcomings of Zimbabwe’s traditional disaster-management system, which was devised to respond to environmental disasters by providing relief and rehabilitation of infrastructure and communities. After Idai, a team of climate-change researchers from three Zimbabwean universities and the local NGO DanChurchAid (DCA) concluded that the nation must adopt a more proactive approach by establishing an early-warning system to better prepare for and thereby prevent significant damage and death from such disasters.

In response to these findings, the Open Mapping Hub—Eastern and Southern Africa (ESA Hub)—launched a program in 2022 to develop an anticipatory-response approach in Zimbabwe. The ESA Hub is a regional NGO based in Kenya created by the Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team (HOT), an international nonprofit that uses open-mapping technology to reduce environmental disaster risk. One of HOT’s four global hubs and its first in Africa, the ESA Hub was created in 2021 to facilitate the aggregation, utilization, and dissemination of high-quality open-mapping data across 23 countries in Eastern and Southern Africa. Open-source expert Monica Nthiga leads the hub’s team of 13 experts in mapping, open data, and digital content. The team collaborates with community-based organizations, humanitarian organizations, governments, and UN agencies to meet their specific mapping needs to best anticipate future climate-related disasters.

“The ESA Hub’s [anticipatory-response] project demonstrates how preemptive mapping can enhance disaster preparedness and resilience planning,” says Wilson Munyaradzi, disaster-services manager at the ESA Hub.

Open-mapping tools and workflows enable the hub to collect geospatial data to be stored, edited, and reviewed for quality assurance prior to being shared with its partners. “Geospatial data has the potential to identify key features of the landscape that can help plan and prepare before disasters occur so that mitigation methods are put in place to protect lives and livelihoods,” Munyaradzi says…(More)”.

The Emerging Age of AI Diplomacy

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Sam Winter-Levy: “In a vast conference room, below chandeliers and flashing lights, dozens of dancers waved fluorescent bars in an intricately choreographed routine. Green Matrix code rained down in the background on a screen that displayed skyscrapers soaring from a desert landscape. The world was witnessing the emergence of “a sublime and transcendent entity,” a narrator declared: artificial intelligence. As if to highlight AI’s transformative potential, a digital avatar—Artificial Superintelligence One—approached a young boy and together they began to sing John Lennon’s “Imagine.” The audience applauded enthusiastically. With that, the final day dawned on what one government minister in attendance described as the “world’s largest AI thought leadership event.”

This surreal display took place not in Palo Alto or Menlo Park but in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, at the third edition of the city’s Global AI Summit, in September of this year. In a cavernous exhibition center next to the Ritz Carlton, where Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman imprisoned hundreds of wealthy Saudis on charges of corruption in 2017,robots poured tea and mixed drinks. Officials in ankle-length white robes hailed Saudi Arabia’s progress on AI. American and Chinese technology companies pitched their products and announced memorandums of understanding with the government. Attendantsdistributed stickers that declared, “Data is the new oil.”

For Saudi Arabia and its neighbor, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), AI plays an increasingly central role in their attempts to transform their oil wealth into new economic models before the world transitions away from fossil fuels. For American AI companies, hungry for capital and energy, the two Gulf states and their sovereign wealth funds are tantalizing partners. And some policymakers in Washington see a once-in-a-generation opportunity to promise access to American computing power in a bid to lure the Gulf states away from China and deepen an anti-Iranian coalition in the Middle East….The two Gulf states’ interest in AI is not new, but it has intensified in recent months. Saudi Arabia plans to create a $40 billion fund to invest in AI and has set up Silicon Valley–inspired startup accelerators to entice coders to Riyadh. In 2019, the UAE launched the world’s first university dedicated to AI, and since 2021, the number of AI workers in the country has quadrupled, according to government figures. The UAE has also released a series of open-source large language models that it claims rival those of Google and Meta, and earlier this year it launched an investment firm focused on AI and semiconductors that could surpass $100 billion in assets under management…(More)”.

When combinations of humans and AI are useful: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Michelle Vaccaro, Abdullah Almaatouq & Thomas Malone: “Inspired by the increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) to augment humans, researchers have studied human–AI systems involving different tasks, systems and populations. Despite such a large body of work, we lack a broad conceptual understanding of when combinations of humans and AI are better than either alone. Here we addressed this question by conducting a preregistered systematic review and meta-analysis of 106 experimental studies reporting 370 effect sizes. We searched an interdisciplinary set of databases (the Association for Computing Machinery Digital Library, the Web of Science and the Association for Information Systems eLibrary) for studies published between 1 January 2020 and 30 June 2023. Each study was required to include an original human-participants experiment that evaluated the performance of humans alone, AI alone and human–AI combinations. First, we found that, on average, human–AI combinations performed significantly worse than the best of humans or AI alone (Hedges’ g = −0.23; 95% confidence interval, −0.39 to −0.07). Second, we found performance losses in tasks that involved making decisions and significantly greater gains in tasks that involved creating content. Finally, when humans outperformed AI alone, we found performance gains in the combination, but when AI outperformed humans alone, we found losses. Limitations of the evidence assessed here include possible publication bias and variations in the study designs analysed. Overall, these findings highlight the heterogeneity of the effects of human–AI collaboration and point to promising avenues for improving human–AI systems…(More)”.

Make it make sense: the challenge of data analysis in global deliberation

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Blog by Iñaki Goñi: “From climate change to emerging technologies to economic justice to space, global and transnational deliberation is on the rise. Global deliberative processes aim to bring citizen-centred governance to issues that no single nation can resolve alone. Running deliberative processes at this scale poses a unique set of challenges. How to select participants, make the forums accountable, impactful, fairly designed, and aware of power imbalances, are all crucial and open questions….

Massifying participation will be key to invigorating global deliberation. Assemblies will have a better chance of being seen as legitimate, fair, and publicly supported if they involve thousands or even millions of diverse participants. This raises an operational challenge: how to systematise political ideas from many people across the globe.

In a centralised global assembly, anything from 50 to 500 citizens from various countries engage in a single deliberation and produce recommendations or political actions by crossing languages and cultures. In a distributed assembly, multiple gatherings are convened locally that share a common but flexible methodology, allowing participants to discuss a common issue applied both to local and global contexts. Either way, a global deliberation process demands the organisation and synthesis of possibly thousands of ideas from diverse languages and cultures around the world.

How could we ever make sense of all that data to systematise citizens’ ideas and recommendations? Most people turn their heads to computational methods to help reduce complexity and identify patterns. First up, one technique for analysing text amounts to little more than simple counting, through which we can produce something like a frequency table or a wordcloud…(More)”.

Nature-rich nations push for biodata payout

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Lee Harris: “Before the current generation of weight-loss drugs, there was hoodia, a cactus that grows in southern Africa’s Kalahari Desert, and which members of the region’s San tribe have long used to stave off hunger. UK-based Phytopharm licensed the active ingredient in the cactus in 1996, and made numerous attempts to commercialise weight-loss products derived from it.

The company won licensing deals with Pfizer and Unilever, but drew outrage from campaigners who argued that the country was ripping off indigenous groups that had made the discovery. Indignation grew after the chief executive said it could not compensate local tribes because “the people who discovered the plant have disappeared”. (They had not).

This is just one example of companies using biological resources discovered in other countries for financial gain. The UN has attempted to set fairer terms with treaties such as the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity, which deals with the sharing of genetic resources. But this approach has been seen by many developing countries as unsatisfactory. And earlier tools governing trade in plants and microbes may become less useful as biological data is now frequently transmitted in the form of so-called digital sequence information — the genetic code derived from those physical resources.

Now, the UN is working on a fund to pay stewards of biodiversity — notably communities in lower-income countries — for discoveries made with genetic data from their ecosystems. The mechanism was established in 2022 as part of the Conference of Parties to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, a sister process to the climate “COP” initiative. But the question of how it will be governed and funded will be on the table at the October COP16 summit in Cali, Colombia.

If such a fund comes to fruition — a big “if” — it could raise billions for biodiversity goals. The sectors that depend on this genetic data — notably, pharmaceuticals, biotech and agribusiness — generate revenues exceeding $1tn annually, and African countries plan to push for these sectors to contribute 1 per cent of all global retail sales to the fund, according to Bloomberg.

There’s reason to temper expectations, however. Such a fund would lack the power to compel national governments or industries to pay up. Instead, the strategy is focused around raising ambition — and public pressure — for key industries to make voluntary contributions…(More)”.

The New Artificial Intelligentsia

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Essay by Ruha Benjamin: “In the Fall of 2016, I gave a talk at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton titled “Are Robots Racist?” Headlines such as “Can Computers Be Racist? The Human-Like Bias of Algorithms,” “Artificial Intelligence’s White Guy Problem,” and “Is an Algorithm Any Less Racist Than a Human?” had captured my attention in the months before. What better venue to discuss the growing concerns about emerging technologies, I thought, than an institution established during the early rise of fascism in Europe, which once housed intellectual giants like J. Robert Oppenheimer and Albert Einstein, and prides itself on “protecting and promoting independent inquiry.”

My initial remarks focused on how emerging technologies reflect and reproduce social inequities, using specific examples of what some termed “algorithmic discrimination” and “machine bias.” A lively discussion ensued. The most memorable exchange was with a mathematician who politely acknowledged the importance of the issues I raised but then assured me that “as AI advances, it will eventually show us how to address these problems.” Struck by his earnest faith in technology as a force for good, I wanted to sputter, “But what about those already being harmed by the deployment of experimental AI in healthcare, education, criminal justice, and more—are they expected to wait for a mythical future where sentient systems act as sage stewards of humanity?”

Fast-forward almost 10 years, and we are living in the imagination of AI evangelists racing to build artificial general intelligence (AGI), even as they warn of its potential to destroy us. This gospel of love and fear insists on “aligning” AI with human values to rein in these digital deities. OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT, echoed the sentiment of my IAS colleague: “We are improving our AI systems’ ability to learn from human feedback and to assist humans at evaluating AI. Our goal is to build a sufficiently aligned AI system that can help us solve all other alignment problems.” They envision a time when, eventually, “our AI systems can take over more and more of our alignment work and ultimately conceive, implement, study, and develop better alignment techniques than we have now. They will work together with humans to ensure that their own successors are more aligned with humans.” For many, this is not reassuring…(More)”.

The Critical Role of Questions in Building Resilient Democracies

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Stefaan G. Verhulst, Hannah Chafetz, and Alex Fischer: “Asking questions in new and participatory ways can complement advancements in data science and AI while enabling more inclusive and more adaptive democracies…

Yet a crisis, as the saying goes, always contains kernels of opportunity. Buried within our current dilemma—indeed, within one of the underlying causes of it—is a potential solution. Democracies are resilient and adaptive, not static. And importantly, data and artificial intelligence (AI), if implemented responsibly, can contribute to making them more resilient. Technologies such as AI-supported digital public squares and crowd-sourcing are examples of how generative AI and large language models can improve community connectivity, societal health, and public services. Communities can leverage these tools for democratic participation and democratizing information. Through this period of technological transition, policy makers and communities are imagining how digital technologies can better engage our collective intelligence…

Achieving this requires new tools and approaches, specifically the collective process of asking better questions.

Formulated inclusively, questions help establish shared priorities and impart focus, efficiency, and equity to public policy. For instance, school systems can identify indicators and patterns of experiences, such as low attendance rates, that signal a student is at risk of not completing school. However, they rarely ask the positive outlier question of what enables some at-risk students to overcome challenges and finish school. Is it a good teacher relationship, an after-school program, the support of a family member, or a combination of these and other factors? Asking outlier (and orphan, or overlooked and neglected) questions can help refocus programs and guide policies toward areas with the highest potential for impact.

Not asking the right questions can also have adverse effects. For example, many city governments have not asked whether and how people of different genders, in different age groups, or with different physical mobility needs experience local public transportation systems. Creating the necessary infrastructure for people with a variety of needs to travel safely and efficiently increases health and well-being. Questions like whether sidewalks are big enough for strollers and whether there is sufficient public transport near schools can help spotlight areas for improvement, and show where age- or gender-disaggregated data is needed most…(More)”.

G7 Toolkit for Artificial Intelligence in the Public Sector

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Toolkit by OECD: “…a comprehensive guide designed to help policymakers and public sector leaders translate principles for safe, secure, and trustworthy Artificial Intelligence (AI) into actionable policies. AI can help improve the efficiency of internal operations, the effectiveness of policymaking, the responsiveness of public services, and overall transparency and accountability. Recognising both the opportunities and risks posed by AI, this toolkit provides practical insights, shares good practices for the use of AI in and by the public sector, integrates ethical considerations, and provides an overview of G7 trends. It further showcases public sector AI use cases, detailing their benefits, as well as the implementation challenges faced by G7 members, together with the emerging policy responses to guide and coordinate the development, deployment, and use of AI in the public sector. The toolkit finally highlights key stages and factors characterising the journey of public sector AI solutions…(More)”

Contractual Freedom and Fairness in EU Data Sharing Agreements

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Thomas Margoni and Alain M. Strowel: “This chapter analyzes the evolving landscape of EU data-sharing agreements, particularly focusing on the balance between contractual freedom and fairness in the context of non-personal data. The discussion highlights the complexities introduced by recent EU legislation, such as the Data Act, Data Governance Act, and Open Data Directive, which collectively aim to regulate data markets and enhance data sharing. The chapter emphasizes how these laws impose obligations that limit contractual freedom to ensure fairness, particularly in business-to-business (B2B) and Internet of Things (IoT) data transactions. It also explores the tension between private ordering and public governance, suggesting that the EU’s approach marks a shift from property-based models to governance-based models in data regulation. This chapter underscores the significant impact these regulations will have on data contracts and the broader EU data economy…(More)”.