Report by the World Economic Forum: “Technological change, geoeconomic fragmentation, economic uncertainty, demographic shifts and the green transition – individually and in combination are among the major drivers expected to shape and transform the global labour market by 2030. The Future of Jobs Report 2025 brings together the perspective of over 1,000 leading global employers—collectively representing more than 14 million workers across 22 industry clusters and 55 economies from around the world—to examine how these macrotrends impact jobs and skills, and the workforce transformation strategies employers plan to embark on in response, across the 2025 to 2030 timeframe…(More)”.
In the hands of a few: Disaster recovery committee networks
Paper by Timothy Fraser, Daniel P. Aldrich, Andrew Small and Andrew Littlejohn: “When disaster strikes, urban planners often rely on feedback and guidance from committees of officials, residents, and interest groups when crafting reconstruction policy. Focusing on recovery planning committees after Japan’s 2011 earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear disasters, we compile and analyze a dataset on committee membership patterns across 39 committees with 657 members. Using descriptive statistics and social network analysis, we examine 1) how community representation through membership varied among committees, and 2) in what ways did committees share members, interlinking members from certain interests groups. This study finds that community representation varies considerably among committees, negatively related to the prevalence of experts, bureaucrats, and business interests. Committee membership overlap occurred heavily along geographic boundaries, bridged by engineers and government officials. Engineers and government bureaucrats also tend to be connected to more members of the committee network than community representatives, giving them prized positions to disseminate ideas about best practices in recovery. This study underscores the importance of diversity and community representation in disaster recovery planning to facilitate equal participation, information access, and policy implementation across communities…(More)”.
The Circle of Sharing: How Open Datasets Power AI Innovation
A Sankey diagram developed by AI World and Hugging Face:”… illustrating the flow from top open-source datasets through AI organizations to their derivative models, showcasing the collaborative nature of AI development…(More)”.
Distorted insights from human mobility data
Paper by Riccardo Gallotti, Davide Maniscalco, Marc Barthelemy & Manlio De Domenico: “The description of human mobility is at the core of many fundamental applications ranging from urbanism and transportation to epidemics containment. Data about human movements, once scarce, is now widely available thanks to new sources such as phone call detail records, GPS devices, or Smartphone apps. Nevertheless, it is still common to rely on a single dataset by implicitly assuming that the statistical properties observed are robust regardless of data gathering and processing techniques. Here, we test this assumption on a broad scale by comparing human mobility datasets obtained from 7 different data-sources, tracing 500+ millions individuals in 145 countries. We report wide quantifiable differences in the resulting mobility networks and in the displacement distribution. These variations impact processes taking place on these networks like epidemic spreading. Our results point to the need for disclosing the data processing and, overall, to follow good practices to ensure robust and reproducible results…(More)”
Academic writing is getting harder to read—the humanities most of all
The Economist: “Academics have long been accused of jargon-filled writing that is impossible to understand. A recent cautionary tale was that of Ally Louks, a researcher who set off a social media storm with an innocuous post on X celebrating the completion of her PhD. If it was Ms Louks’s research topic (“olfactory ethics”—the politics of smell) that caught the attention of online critics, it was her verbose thesis abstract that further provoked their ire. In two weeks, the post received more than 21,000 retweets and 100m views.
Although the abuse directed at Ms Louks reeked of misogyny and anti-intellectualism—which she admirably shook off—the reaction was also a backlash against an academic use of language that is removed from normal life. Inaccessible writing is part of the problem. Research has become harder to read, especially in the humanities and social sciences. Though authors may argue that their work is written for expert audiences, much of the general public suspects that some academics use gobbledygook to disguise the fact that they have nothing useful to say. The trend towards more opaque prose hardly allays this suspicion…(More)”.
To Whom Does the World Belong?
Essay by Alexander Hartley: “For an idea of the scale of the prize, it’s worth remembering that 90 percent of recent U.S. economic growth, and 65 percent of the value of its largest 500 companies, is already accounted for by intellectual property. By any estimate, AI will vastly increase the speed and scale at which new intellectual products can be minted. The provision of AI services themselves is estimated to become a trillion-dollar market by 2032, but the value of the intellectual property created by those services—all the drug and technology patents; all the images, films, stories, virtual personalities—will eclipse that sum. It is possible that the products of AI may, within my lifetime, come to represent a substantial portion of all the world’s financial value.
In this light, the question of ownership takes on its true scale, revealing itself as a version of Bertolt Brecht’s famous query: To whom does the world belong?
Questions of AI authorship and ownership can be divided into two broad types. One concerns the vast troves of human-authored material fed into AI models as part of their “training” (the process by which their algorithms “learn” from data). The other concerns ownership of what AIs produce. Call these, respectively, the input and output problems.
So far, attention—and lawsuits—have clustered around the input problem. The basic business model for LLMs relies on the mass appropriation of human-written text, and there simply isn’t anywhere near enough in the public domain. OpenAI hasn’t been very forthcoming about its training data, but GPT-4 was reportedly trained on around thirteen trillion “tokens,” roughly the equivalent of ten trillion words. This text is drawn in large part from online repositories known as “crawls,” which scrape the internet for troves of text from news sites, forums, and other sources. Fully aware that vast data scraping is legally untested—to say the least—developers charged ahead anyway, resigning themselves to litigating the issue in retrospect. Lawyer Peter Schoppert has called the training of LLMs without permission the industry’s “original sin”—to be added, we might say, to the technology’s mind-boggling consumption of energy and water in an overheating planet. (In September, Bloomberg reported that plans for new gas-fired power plants have exploded as energy companies are “racing to meet a surge in demand from power-hungry AI data centers.”)…(More)”.
Collaborative Intelligence
Book edited by Mira Lane and Arathi Sethumadhavan: “…The book delves deeply into the dynamic interplay between theory and practice, shedding light on the transformative potential and complexities of AI. For practitioners deeply immersed in the world of AI, Lane and Sethumadhavan offer firsthand accounts and insights from technologists, academics, and thought leaders, as well as a series of compelling case studies, ranging from AI’s impact on artistry to its role in addressing societal challenges like modern slavery and wildlife conservation.
As the global AI market burgeons, this book enables collaboration, knowledge sharing, and interdisciplinary dialogue. It caters not only to the practitioners shaping the AI landscape but also to policymakers striving to navigate the intricate relationship between humans and machines, as well as academics. Divided into two parts, the first half of the book offers readers a comprehensive understanding of AI’s historical context, its influence on power dynamics, human-AI interaction, and the critical role of audits in governing AI systems. The second half unfolds a series of eight case studies, unraveling AI’s impact on fields as varied as healthcare, vehicular safety, conservation, human rights, and the metaverse. Each chapter in this book paints a vivid picture of AI’s triumphs and challenges, providing a panoramic view of how it is reshaping our world…(More)”
Trust but Verify: A Guide to Conducting Due Diligence When Leveraging Non-Traditional Data in the Public Interest
New Report by Sara Marcucci, Andrew J. Zahuranec, and Stefaan Verhulst: “In an increasingly data-driven world, organizations across sectors are recognizing the potential of non-traditional data—data generated from sources outside conventional databases, such as social media, satellite imagery, and mobile usage—to provide insights into societal trends and challenges. When harnessed thoughtfully, this data can improve decision-making and bolster public interest projects in areas as varied as disaster response, healthcare, and environmental protection. However, with these new data streams come heightened ethical, legal, and operational risks that organizations need to manage responsibly. That’s where due diligence comes in, helping to ensure that data initiatives are beneficial and ethical.
The report, Trust but Verify: A Guide to Conducting Due Diligence When Leveraging Non-Traditional Data in the Public Interest, co-authored by Sara Marcucci, Andrew J. Zahuranec, and Stefaan Verhulst, offers a comprehensive framework to guide organizations in responsible data partnerships. Whether you’re a public agency or a private enterprise, this report provides a six-step process to ensure due diligence and maintain accountability, integrity, and trust in data initiatives…(More) (Blog)”.
Beyond checking a box: how a social licence can help communities benefit from data reuse and AI
Article by Stefaan Verhulst and Peter Addo: “In theory, consent offers a mechanism to reduce power imbalances. In reality, existing consent mechanisms are limited and, in many respects, archaic, based on binary distinctions – typically presented in check-the-box forms that most websites use to ask you to register for marketing e-mails – that fail to appreciate the nuance and context-sensitive nature of data reuse. Consent today generally means individual consent, a notion that overlooks the broader needs of communities and groups.
While we understand the need to safeguard information about an individual such as, say, their health status, this information can help address or even prevent societal health crises. Individualised notions of consent fail to consider the potential public good of reusing individual data responsibly. This makes them particularly problematic in societies that have more collective orientations, where prioritising individual choices could disrupt the social fabric.
The notion of a social licence, which has its roots in the 1990s within the extractive industries, refers to the collective acceptance of an activity, such as data reuse, based on its perceived alignment with community values and interests. Social licences go beyond the priorities of individuals and help balance the risks of data misuse and missed use (for example, the risks of violating privacy vs. neglecting to use private data for public good). Social licences permit a broader notion of consent that is dynamic, multifaceted and context-sensitive.
Policymakers, citizens, health providers, think tanks, interest groups and private industry must accept the concept of a social licence before it can be established. The goal for all stakeholders is to establish widespread consensus on community norms and an acceptable balance of social risk and opportunity.
Community engagement can create a consensus-based foundation for preferences and expectations concerning data reuse. Engagement could take place via dedicated “data assemblies” or community deliberations about data reuse for particular purposes under particular conditions. The process would need to involve voices as representative as possible of the different parties involved, and include those that are traditionally marginalised or silenced…(More)”.
Global Trends in Government Innovation 2024
OECD Report: “Governments worldwide are transforming public services through innovative approaches that place people at the center of design and delivery. This report analyses nearly 800 case studies from 83 countries and identifies five critical trends in government innovation that are reshaping public services. First, governments are working with users and stakeholders to co-design solutions and anticipate future needs to create flexible, responsive, resilient and sustainable public services. Second, governments are investing in scalable digital infrastructure, experimenting with emergent technologies (such as automation, AI and modular code), and expanding innovative and digital skills to make public services more efficient. Third, governments are making public services more personalised and proactive to better meet people’s needs and expectations and reduce psychological costs and administrative frictions, ensuring they are more accessible, inclusive and empowering, especially for persons and groups in vulnerable and disadvantaged circumstances. Fourth, governments are drawing on traditional and non-traditional data sources to guide public service design and execution. They are also increasingly using experimentation to navigate highly complex and unpredictable environments. Finally, governments are reframing public services as opportunities and channels for citizens to exercise their civic engagement and hold governments accountable for upholding democratic values such as openness and inclusion…(More)”.