Book by Francesca Mazzi and Luciano Floridi: “Artificial intelligence (AI) as a general-purpose technology has great potential for advancing the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). However, the AI×SDGs phenomenon is still in its infancy in terms of diffusion, analysis, and empirical evidence. Moreover, a scalable adoption of AI solutions to advance the achievement of the SDGs requires private and public actors to engage in coordinated actions that have been analysed only partially so far. This volume provides the first overview of the AI×SDGs phenomenon and its related challenges and opportunities. The first part of the book adopts a programmatic approach, discussing AI×SDGs at a theoretical level and from the perspectives of different stakeholders. The second part illustrates existing projects and potential new applications…(More)”.
Spatial data trusts: an emerging governance framework for sharing spatial data
Paper by Nenad Radosevic et al: “Data Trusts are an important emerging approach to enabling the much wider sharing of data from many different sources and for many different purposes, backed by the confidence of clear and unambiguous data governance. Data Trusts combine the technical infrastructure for sharing data with the governance framework of a legal trust. The concept of a data Trust applied specifically to spatial data offers significant opportunities for new and future applications, addressing some longstanding barriers to data sharing, such as location privacy and data sovereignty. This paper introduces and explores the concept of a ‘spatial data Trust’ by identifying and explaining the key functions and characteristics required to underpin a data Trust for spatial data. The work identifies five key features of spatial data Trusts that demand specific attention and connects these features to a history of relevant work in the field, including spatial data infrastructures (SDIs), location privacy, and spatial data quality. The conclusions identify several key strands of research for the future development of this rapidly emerging framework for spatial data sharing…(More)”.
From Fragmentation to Coordination: The Case for an Institutional Mechanism for Cross-Border Data Flows
Report by the World Economic Forum: “Digital transformation of the global economy is bringing markets and people closer. Few conveniences of modern life – from international travel to online shopping to cross-border payments – would exist without the free flow of data.
Yet, impediments to free-flowing data are growing. The “Data Free Flow with Trust (DFFT)” concept is based on the idea that responsible data concerns, such as privacy and security, can be addressed without obstructing international data transfers. Policy-makers, trade negotiators and regulators are actively working on this, and while important progress has been made, an effective and trusted international cooperation mechanism would amplify their progress.
This white paper makes the case for establishing such a mechanism with a permanent secretariat, starting with the Group of Seven (G7) member-countries, and ensuring participation of high-level representatives of multiple stakeholder groups, including the private sector, academia and civil society.
This new institution would go beyond short-term fixes and catalyse long-term thinking to operationalize DFFT…(More)”.
Unlocking the Power of Data Refineries for Social Impact
Essay by Jason Saul & Kriss Deiglmeier: “In 2021, US companies generated $2.77 trillion in profits—the largest ever recorded in history. This is a significant increase since 2000 when corporate profits totaled $786 billion. Social progress, on the other hand, shows a very different picture. From 2000 to 2021, progress on the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals has been anemic, registering less than 10 percent growth over 20 years.
What explains this massive split between the corporate and the social sectors? One explanation could be the role of data. In other words, companies are benefiting from a culture of using data to make decisions. Some refer to this as the “data divide”—the increasing gap between the use of data to maximize profit and the use of data to solve social problems…
Our theory is that there is something more systemic going on. Even if nonprofit practitioners and policy makers had the budget, capacity, and cultural appetite to use data; does the data they need even exist in the form they need it? We submit that the answer to this question is a resounding no. Usable data doesn’t yet exist for the sector because the sector lacks a fully functioning data ecosystem to create, analyze, and use data at the same level of effectiveness as the commercial sector…(More)”.
The Untapped Potential of Computing and Cognition in Tackling Climate Change
Article by Adiba Proma, Robert Wachter and Ehsan Hoque: “Alongside the search for climate-protecting technologies like EVs, more effort needs to be directed to harnessing technology to promote climate-protecting behavior change. This will take focus, leadership, and cooperation among technologists, investors, business executives, educators, and governments. Unfortunately, such focus, leadership, and cooperation have been lacking.
Persuading people to change their lifestyles to benefit the next generations is a significant challenge. We argue that simple changes in how technologies are built and deployed can significantly lower society’s carbon footprint.
While it is challenging to influence human behavior, there are opportunities to offer nudges and just-in-time interventions by tweaking certain aspects of technology. For example, the “Climate Pledge Friendly” tag added to products that meet Amazon’s sustainability standards can help users identify and purchase ecofriendly products while shopping online [3]. Similarly, to help users make more ecofriendly choices while traveling, Google Flights provides information on average carbon dioxide emission for flights and Google Maps tags the “most fuel-efficient” route for vehicles.
Computer scientists can draw on concepts from psychology, moral dilemma, and human cooperation to build technologies that can encourage people to lead ecofriendly lifestyles. Many mobile health applications have been developed to motivate people to exercise, eat a healthy diet, sleep better, and manage chronic diseases. Some apps designed to improve sleep, mental wellbeing, and calorie intake have as many as 200 million active users. The use of apps and other internet tools can be adapted to promote lifestyle changes for climate change. For example, Google Nest rewards users with a “leaf” when they meet an energy goal…(More)”.
Chandler Good Government Index
Report by Chandler Institute of Governance (CIG): “…a polycrisis shines an intense spotlight on a government, and asks many difficult questions of it: How can a government cope with relentless change and uncertainty? How do they learn to maintain stability while adapting effectively? How can they distinguish what are the most important capabilities required, and then assess for themselves their own government’s strengths and weaknesses? The CGGI was built to help answer questions precisely like these.
Why Capabilities Matter for Managing a Polycrisis: This edition of the CGGI annual report offers a special
focus on how the pillars of good government stand together in the face of a polycrisis. Drawing on the 35 capabilities and outcomes indicators of the CGGI we examine in particular depth:
– How Public Institutions Are Better Responding to Crises. We explore how a government’s leaders, civil service and institutions come together to prepare and respond.
– Building Shared Prosperity. How are governments confronting inflation and the costof-living crisis while still creating opportunities for more efficient marketplaces that support trade and sustain good jobs? We dive into a few ways.
– Strong Nations Are Healthy and Inclusive. We spotlight how governments are building more
inclusive communities and resilient health systems…(More)”.
DMA: rules for digital gatekeepers to ensure open markets start to apply
Press Release: “The EU Digital Markets Act (DMA) applies from today. Now that the DMA applies, potential gatekeepers that meet the quantitative thresholds established have until 3 July to notify their core platform services to the Commission. ..
The DMA aims to ensure contestable and fair markets in the digital sector. It defines gatekeepers as those large online platforms that provide an important gateway between business users and consumers, whose position can grant them the power to act as a private rule maker, and thus create a bottleneck in the digital economy. To address these issues, the DMA defines a series of specific obligations that gatekeepers will need to respect, including prohibiting them from engaging in certain behaviours in a list of do’s and don’ts. More information is available in the dedicated Q&A…(More)”.
Financing the Common Good
Article by Mariana Mazzucato: “…The international monetary system which emerged in the aftermath of World War II undoubtedly represented an important innovation. But its structure is no longer fit for purpose. The challenges we face today—from climate change to public-health crises—are complex, interrelated and global in nature. Our financial institutions must reflect this reality.
Because the financial system echoes the logic of the entire economic system, this will require a more fundamental change: we must broaden the economic thinking that has long underpinned institutional mandates. To shape the markets of the future, maximising public value in the process, we must embrace an entirely new economics.
Most economic thinking today assigns the state and multilateral actors responsibility for removing barriers to economic activity, de-risking trade and finance and levelling the playing-field for business. As a result, governments and international lenders tinker around the edges of markets, rather than doing what is actually needed—deliberately shaping the economic and financial system to advance the common good…(More)”.
Air-Pollution Knowledge Is Power
Article by Chana R. Schoenberger: “What happens when people in countries where the government offers little pollution monitoring learn that the air quality is dangerous? A new study details how the US Embassy in Beijing began to monitor the Chinese capital’s air-pollution levels and tweet about them in 2008. The program later extended to other US embassies in cities around the world. The practice led to a measurable decline in air pollution in those cities, few of which had local pollution monitoring before, the researchers found.
The paper’s authors, Akshaya Jha, an assistant professor of economics and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University, and Andrea La Nauze, a lecturer at the School of Economics at the University of Queensland, used satellite data to compare pollution levels, measured annually. The researchers found that the level of air pollution went down after the local US embassy began tweeting pollution numbers from monitoring equipment that diplomatic personnel had installed.
The embassy program yielded a drop in fine-particulate concentration levels of 2 to 4 micrograms per square meter, leading to a decline in premature mortality worth $127 million for the median city in 2019. “Our findings point to the substantial benefits of improving the availability and salience of air-quality information in low- and middle-income countries,” Jha and La Nauze write.
News coverage of the US government’s Beijing pollution monitoring sparked the researchers’ interest, La Nauze says. At the time, American diplomats were quoted saying that the embassy’s tweets led to marked changes in pollution levels in Beijing. When the researchers learned that the US State Department had extended the program to embassies around the world, they thought there might be a way to evaluate the diplomats’ claims empirically.
A problem the researchers confronted was how to quantify the impact of measuring something that had never been measured before…(More)” – See also: US Embassy Air-Quality Tweets Led to Global Health Benefits
What Was the Fact?
Essay by Jon Askonas: “…Centuries ago, our society buried profound differences of conscience, ideas, and faith, and in their place erected facts, which did not seem to rise or fall on pesky political and philosophical questions. But the power of facts is now waning, not because we don’t have enough of them but because we have so many. What is replacing the old hegemony of facts is not a better and more authoritative form of knowledge but a digital deluge that leaves us once again drifting apart.
As the old divisions come back into force, our institutions are haplessly trying to neutralize them. This project is hopeless — and so we must find another way. Learning to live together in truth even when the fact has lost its power is perhaps the most serious moral challenge of the twenty-first century…
Our understanding of what it means to know something about the world has comprehensively changed multiple times in history. It is very hard to get one’s mind fully around this.
In flux are not only the categories of knowable things, but also the kinds of things worth knowing and the limits of what is knowable. What one civilization finds intensely interesting — the horoscope of one’s birth, one’s weight in kilograms — another might find bizarre and nonsensical. How natural our way of knowing the world feels to us, and how difficult it is to grasp another language of knowledge, is something that Jorge Luis Borges tried to convey in an essay where he describes the Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge, a fictional Chinese encyclopedia that divides animals into “(a) those that belong to the Emperor, (b) embalmed ones, (c) those that are trained, … (f) fabulous ones,” and the real-life Bibliographic Institute of Brussels, which created an internationally standardized decimal classification system that divided the universe into 1,000 categories, including 261: The Church; 263: The Sabbath; 267: Associations. Y. M. C. A., etc.; and 298: Mormonism…(More)”.