Artificial Intelligence: Generative AI’s Environmental and Human Effects

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

GAO Report: “Generative artificial intelligence (AI) could revolutionize entire industries. In the nearer term, it may dramatically increase productivity and transform daily tasks in many sectors. However, both its benefits and risks, including its environmental and human effects, are unknown or unclear.

Generative AI uses significant energy and water resources, but companies are generally not reporting details of these uses. Most estimates of environmental effects of generative AI technologies have focused on quantifying the energy consumed, and carbon emissions associated with generating that energy, required to train the generative AI model. Estimates of water consumption by generative AI are limited. Generative AI is expected to be a driving force for data center demand, but what portion of data center electricity consumption is related to generative AI is unclear. According to the International Energy Agency, U.S. data center electricity consumption was approximately 4 percent of U.S. electricity demand in 2022 and could be 6 percent of demand in 2026.

While generative AI may bring beneficial effects for people, GAO highlights five risks and challenges that could result in negative human effects on society, culture, and people from generative AI (see figure). For example, unsafe systems may produce outputs that compromise safety, such as inaccurate information, undesirable content, or the enabling of malicious behavior. However, definitive statements about these risks and challenges are difficult to make because generative AI is rapidly evolving, and private developers do not disclose some key technical information.

Selected generative artificial antelligence risks and challenges that could result in human effects

GAO identified policy options to consider that could enhance the benefits or address the challenges of environmental and human effects of generative AI. These policy options identify possible actions by policymakers, which include Congress, federal agencies, state and local governments, academic and research institutions, and industry. In addition, policymakers could choose to maintain the status quo, whereby they would not take additional action beyond current efforts. See below for details on the policy options…(More)”.

Guiding the provision of quality policy advice: the 5D model

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Christopher Walker and Sally Washington: “… presents a process model to guide the production of quality policy advice. The work draws on engagement with both public sector practitioners and academics to design a process model for the development of policy advice that works in practice (can be used by policy professionals in their day-to-day work) and aligns with theory (can be taught as part of explaining the dynamics of a wider policy advisory system). The 5D Model defines five key domains of inquiry: understanding Demand, being open to Discovery, undertaking Design, identifying critical Decision points, and shaping advice to enable Delivery. Our goal is a ‘repeatable, scalable’ model for supporting policy practitioners to provide quality advice to decision makers. The model was developed and tested through an extensive process of engagement with senior policy practitioners who noted the heuristic gave structure to practices that determine how policy advice is organized and formulated. Academic colleagues confirmed the utility of the model for explaining and teaching how policy is designed and delivered within the context of a wider policy advisory system (PAS). A unique aspect of this work was the collaboration and shared interest amongst academics and practitioners to define a model that is ‘useful for teaching’ and ‘useful for doing’…(More)”.

Brazil’s AI-powered social security app is wrongly rejecting claims

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Gabriel Daros: “Brazil’s social security institute, known as INSS, added AI to its app in 2018 in an effort to cut red tape and speed up claims. The office, known for its long lines and wait times, had around 2 million pending requests for everything from doctor’s appointments to sick pay to pensions to retirement benefits at the time. While the AI-powered tool has since helped process thousands of basic claims, it has also rejected requests from hundreds of people like de Brito — who live in remote areas and have little digital literacy — for minor errors.

The government is right to digitize its systems to improve efficiency, but that has come at a cost, Edjane Rodrigues, secretary for social policies at the National Confederation of Workers in Agriculture, told Rest of World.

“If the government adopts this kind of service to speed up benefits for the people, this is good. We are not against it,” she said. But, particularly among farm workers, claims can be complex because of the nature of their work, she said, referring to cases that require additional paperwork, such as when a piece of land is owned by one individual but worked by a group of families. “There are many peculiarities in agriculture, and rural workers are being especially harmed” by the app, according to Rodrigues.

“Each automated decision is based on specified legal criteria, ensuring that the standards set by the social security legislation are respected,” a spokesperson for INSS told Rest of World. “Automation does not work in an arbitrary manner. Instead, it follows clear rules and regulations, mirroring the expected standards applied in conventional analysis.”

Governments across Latin America have been introducing AI to improve their processes. Last year, Argentina began using ChatGPT to draft court rulings, a move that officials said helped cut legal costs and reduce processing times. Costa Rica has partnered with Microsoft to launch an AI tool to optimize tax data collection and check for fraud in digital tax receipts. El Salvador recently set up an AI lab to develop tools for government services.

But while some of these efforts have delivered promising results, experts have raised concerns about the risk of officials with little tech know-how applying these tools with no transparency or workarounds…(More)”.

Exit to Open

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Jim Fruchterman and Steve Francis: “What happens when a nonprofit program or an entire organization needs to shut down? The communities being served, and often society as a whole, are the losers. What if it were possible to mitigate some of that damage by sharing valuable intellectual property assets of the closing effort for longer term benefit? Organizations in these tough circumstances must give serious thought to a responsible exit for their intangible assets.

At the present moment of unparalleled disruption, the entire nonprofit sector is rethinking everything: language to describe their work, funding sources, partnerships, and even their continued existence. Nonprofit programs and entire charities will be closing, or being merged out of existence. Difficult choices are being made. Who will fill the role of witness and archivist to preserve the knowledge of these organizations, their writings, media, software, and data, for those who carry on, either now or in the future?

We believe leaders in these tough days should consider a model we’re calling Exit to Open (E2O) and related exit concepts to safeguard these assets going forward…

Exit to Open (E2O) exploits three elements:

  1. We are in an era where the cost of digital preservation is low; storing a few more bytes for a long time is cheap.
  2. It’s far more effective for an organization’s staff to isolate and archive critical content than an outsider with limited knowledge attempting to do so later.
  3. These resources are of greatest use if there is a human available to interpret them, and a deliberate archival process allows for the identification of these potential interpreters…(More)”.

Hundreds of scholars say U.S. is swiftly heading toward authoritarianism

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Frank Langfitt: “A survey of more than 500 political scientists finds that the vast majority think the United States is moving swiftly from liberal democracy toward some form of authoritarianism.

In the benchmark survey, known as Bright Line Watch, U.S.-based professors rate the performance of American democracy on a scale from zero (complete dictatorship) to 100 (perfect democracy). After President Trump’s election in November, scholars gave American democracy a rating of 67. Several weeks into Trump’s second term, that figure plummeted to 55.

“That’s a precipitous drop,” says John Carey, a professor of government at Dartmouth and co-director of Bright Line Watch. “There’s certainly consensus: We’re moving in the wrong direction.”…Not all political scientists view Trump with alarm, but many like Carey who focus on democracy and authoritarianism are deeply troubled by Trump’s attempts to expand executive power over his first several months in office.

“We’ve slid into some form of authoritarianism,” says Steven Levitsky, a professor of government at Harvard, and co-author of How Democracies Die. “It is relatively mild compared to some others. It is certainly reversible, but we are no longer living in a liberal democracy.”…Kim Lane Scheppele, a Princeton sociologist who has spent years tracking Hungary, is also deeply concerned: “We are on a very fast slide into what’s called competitive authoritarianism.”

When these scholars use the term “authoritarianism,” they aren’t talking about a system like China’s, a one-party state with no meaningful elections. Instead, they are referring to something called “competitive authoritarianism,” the kind scholars say they see in countries such as Hungary and Turkey.

In a competitive authoritarian system, a leader comes to power democratically and then erodes the system of checks and balances. Typically, the executive fills the civil service and key appointments — including the prosecutor’s office and judiciary — with loyalists. He or she then attacks the media, universities and nongovernmental organizations to blunt public criticism and tilt the electoral playing field in the ruling party’s favor…(More)”.

How to Survive the A.I. Revolution

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Essay by John Cassidy: “It isn’t clear where the term “Luddite” originated. Some accounts trace it to Ned Ludd, a textile worker who reportedly smashed a knitting frame in 1779. Others suggest that it may derive from folk memories of King Ludeca, a ninth-century Anglo-Saxon monarch who died in battle. Whatever the source, many machine breakers identified “General Ludd” as their leader. A couple of weeks after the Rawfolds attack, William Horsfall, another mill owner, was shot dead. A letter sent after Horsfall’s assassination—which hailed “the avenging of the death of the two brave youths who fell at the siege of Rawfolds”—began “By Order of General Ludd.”

The British government, at war with Napoleon, regarded the Luddites as Jacobin insurrectionists and responded with brutal suppression. But this reaction stemmed from a fundamental misinterpretation. Far from being revolutionary, Luddism was a defensive response to the industrial capitalism that was threatening skilled workers’ livelihoods. The Luddites weren’t mindless opponents of technology but had a clear logic to their actions—an essentially conservative one. Since they had no political representation—until 1867, the British voting franchise excluded the vast majority—they concluded that violent protest was their only option. “The burning of Factorys or setting fire to the property of People we know is not right, but Starvation forces Nature to do that which he would not,” one Yorkshire cropper wrote. “We have tried every effort to live by Pawning our Cloaths and Chattles, so we are now on the brink for the last struggle.”

As alarm about artificial intelligence has gone global, so has a fascination with the Luddites. The British podcast “The Ned Ludd Radio Hour” describes itself as “your weekly dose of tech skepticism, cynicism, and absurdism.” Kindred themes are explored in the podcast “This Machine Kills,” co-hosted by the social theorist Jathan Sadowski, whose new book, “The Mechanic and the Luddite,” argues that the fetishization of A.I. and other digital technologies obscures their role in disciplining labor and reinforcing a profit-driven system. “Luddites want technology—the future—to work for all of us,” he told the Guardian.The technology journalist Brian Merchant makes a similar case in “Blood in the Machine: The Origins of the Rebellion Against Big Tech” (2023). Blending a vivid account of the original Luddites with an indictment of contemporary tech giants like Amazon and Uber, Merchant portrays the current wave of automation as part of a centuries-long struggle over labor and power. “Working people are staring down entrepreneurs, tech monopolies, and venture capital firms that are hunting for new forms of labor-saving tech—be it AI, robotics, or software automation—to replace them,” Merchant writes. “They are again faced with losing their jobs to the machine.”..(More)”.

Deliberative Approaches to Inclusive Governance

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Series edited by Taylor Owen and Sequoia Kim: “Democracy has undergone profound changes over the past decade, shaped by rapid technological, social, and political transformations. Across the globe, citizens are demanding more meaningful and sustained engagement in governance—especially around emerging technologies like artificial intelligence (AI), which increasingly shape the contours of public life.

From world-leading experts in deliberative democracy, civic technology, and AI governance we introduce a seven-part essay series exploring how deliberative democratic processes like citizen’s assemblies and civic tech can strengthen AI governance…(More)”.

Open with care: transparency and data sharing in civically engaged research

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Ankushi Mitra: “Research transparency and data access are considered increasingly important for advancing research credibility, cumulative learning, and discovery. However, debates persist about how to define and achieve these goals across diverse forms of inquiry. This article intervenes in these debates, arguing that the participants and communities with whom scholars work are active stakeholders in science, and thus have a range of rights, interests, and researcher obligations to them in the practice of transparency and openness. Drawing on civically engaged research and related approaches that advocate for subjects of inquiry to more actively shape its process and share in its benefits, I outline a broader vision of research openness not only as a matter of peer scrutiny among scholars or a top-down exercise in compliance, but rather as a space for engaging and maximizing opportunities for all stakeholders in research. Accordingly, this article provides an ethical and practical framework for broadening transparency, accessibility, and data-sharing and benefit-sharing in research. It promotes movement beyond open science to a more inclusive and socially responsive science anchored in a larger ethical commitment: that the pursuit of knowledge be accountable and its benefits made accessible to the citizens and communities who make it possible…(More)”.

Who Owns Science?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Lisa Margonelli: “Only a few months into 2025, the scientific enterprise is reeling from a series of shocks—mass firings of the scientific workforce across federal agencies, cuts to federal research budgets, threats to indirect costs for university research, proposals to tax endowments, termination of federal science advisory committees, and research funds to prominent universities held hostage over political conditions. Amid all this, the public has not shown much outrage at—or even interest in—the dismantling of the national research project that they’ve been bankrolling for the past 75 years.

Some evidence of a disconnect from the scientific establishment was visible in confirmation hearings of administration appointees. During his Senate nomination hearing to head the department of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. promised a reorientation of research from infectious disease toward chronic conditions, along with “radical transparency” to rebuild trust in science. While his fans applauded, he insisted that he was not anti-vaccine, declaring, “I am pro-safety.”

But lack of public reaction to funding cuts need not be pinned on distrust of science; it could simply be that few citizens see the $200-billion-per-year, envy-of-the-world scientific enterprise as their own. On March 15, Alabama meteorologist James Spann took to Facebook to narrate the approach of 16 tornadoes in the state, taking note that people didn’t seem to care about the president’s threat to close the National Weather Service. “People say, ‘Well, if they shut it down, I’ll just use my app,’” Spann told Inside Climate News. “Well, where do you think the information on your app comes from? It comes from computer model output that’s run by the National Weather Service.” The public has paid for those models for generations, but only a die-hard weather nerd can find the acronyms for the weather models that signal that investment on these apps…(More)”.

UAE set to use AI to write laws in world first

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Chloe Cornish: “The United Arab Emirates aims to use AI to help write new legislation and review and amend existing laws, in the Gulf state’s most radical attempt to harness a technology into which it has poured billions.

The plan for what state media called “AI-driven regulation” goes further than anything seen elsewhere, AI researchers said, while noting that details were scant. Other governments are trying to use AI to become more efficient, from summarising bills to improving public service delivery, but not to actively suggest changes to current laws by crunching government and legal data.

“This new legislative system, powered by artificial intelligence, will change how we create laws, making the process faster and more precise,” said Sheikh Mohammad bin Rashid Al Maktoum, the Dubai ruler and UAE vice-president, quoted by state media.

Ministers last week approved the creation of a new cabinet unit, the Regulatory Intelligence Office, to oversee the legislative AI push. 

Rony Medaglia, a professor at Copenhagen Business School, said the UAE appeared to have an “underlying ambition to basically turn AI into some sort of co-legislator”, and described the plan as “very bold”.

Abu Dhabi has bet heavily on AI and last year opened a dedicated investment vehicle, MGX, which has backed a $30bn BlackRock AI-infrastructure fund among other investments. MGX has also added an AI observer to its own board.

The UAE plans to use AI to track how laws affect the country’s population and economy by creating a massive database of federal and local laws, together with public sector data such as court judgments and government services.

The AI will “regularly suggest updates to our legislation,” Sheikh Mohammad said, according to state media. The government expects AI to speed up lawmaking by 70 per cent, according to the cabinet meeting readout…(More)”