External Researcher Access to Closed Foundation Models

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by Esme Harrington and Dr. Mathias Vermeulen: “…addresses a pressing issue: independent researchers need better conditions for accessing and studying the AI models that big companies have developed. Foundation models — the core technology behind many AI applications — are controlled mainly by a few major players who decide who can study or use them.

What’s the problem with access?

  • Limited access: Companies like OpenAI, Google and others are the gatekeepers. They often restrict access to researchers whose work aligns with their priorities, which means independent, public-interest research can be left out in the cold.
  • High-end costs: Even when access is granted, it often comes with a hefty price tag that smaller or less-funded teams can’t afford.
  • Lack of transparency: These companies don’t always share how their models are updated or moderated, making it nearly impossible for researchers to replicate studies or fully understand the technology.
  • Legal risks: When researchers try to scrutinize these models, they sometimes face legal threats if their work uncovers flaws or vulnerabilities in the AI systems.

The research suggests that companies need to offer more affordable and transparent access to improve AI research. Additionally, governments should provide legal protections for researchers, especially when they are acting in the public interest by investigating potential risks…(More)”.

It is about time! Exploring the clashing timeframes of politics and public policy experiments

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Ringa Raudla, Külli Sarapuu, Johanna Vallistu, and Nastassia Harbuzova: “Although existing studies on experimental policymaking have acknowledged the importance of the political setting in which policy experiments take place, we lack systematic knowledge on how various political dimensions affect experimental policymaking. In this article, we address a specific gap in the existing understanding of the politics of experimentation: how political timeframes influence experimental policymaking. Drawing on theoretical discussions on experimental policymaking, public policy, electoral politics, and mediatization of politics, we outline expectations about how electoral and problem cycles may influence the timing, design, and learning from policy experiments. We argue electoral timeframes are likely to discourage politicians from undertaking large-scale policy experiments and if politicians decide to launch experiments, they prefer shorter designs. The electoral cycle may lead politicians to draw too hasty conclusions or ignore the experiment’s results altogether. We expect problem cycles to shorten politicians’ time horizons further as there is pressure to solve problems quickly. We probe the plausibility of our theoretical expectations using interview data from two different country contexts: Estonia and Finland…(More)“.

Behavioural science: could supermarket loyalty cards nudge us to make healthier choices?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Magda Osman: “Ken Murphy, CEO of the British multinational supermarket chain Tesco, recently said at a conference that Tesco “could use Clubcard data to nudge customers towards healthier choices”.

So how would this work, and do we want it? Our recent study, published in the Scientific Journal of Research and Reviews, provides an answer.

Loyalty schemes have been around as far back as the 1980s, with the introduction of airlines’ frequent flyer programmes.

Advancements in loyalty schemes have been huge, with some even using gamified approaches, such as leaderboards, trophies and treasure hunts, to keep us engaged. The loyalty principle relies on a form of social exchange, namely reciprocity.

The ongoing reciprocal relationship means that we use a good or service regularly because we trust the service provider, we are satisfied with the service, and we deem the rewards we get as reasonable – be they discounts, vouchers or gifts.

In exchange, we accept that, in many cases, loyalty schemes collect data on us. Our purchasing history, often tied to our demographics, generates improvements in the delivery of the service.

If we accept this, then we continue to benefit from reward schemes, such as promotional offers or other discounts. The effectiveness depends not only on making attractive offers to us for things we are interested in purchasing, but also other discounted items that we hadn’t considered buying…(More)”

Ensuring citizens’ assemblies land

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Graham Smith: “…the evidence shows that while the recommendations of assemblies are well considered and could help shape more robust policy, too often they fail to land. Why is this?

The simple answer is that so much time, resources and energy is spent on organising the assembly itself – ensuring the best possible experience for citizens – that the relationship with the local authority and its decision-making processes is neglected.

First, the question asked of the assembly does not always relate to a specific set of decisions about to be made by an authority. Is the relevant policy process open and ready for input? On a number of occasions assemblies have taken place just after a new policy or strategy has been agreed. Disastrous timing.

This does not mean assemblies should only be run when they are tied to a particular decision-making process. Sometimes it is important to open up a policy area with a broad question. And sometimes it makes sense to empower citizens to set the agenda and focus on the issues they find most compelling

The second element is the failure of authorities to prepare to receive recommendations from citizens.

One story is where the first a public official knew about an assembly was when its recommendations landed on their desk. They were not received in the best spirit.

Too often assemblies are commissioned by enthusiastic politicians and public officials who have not done the necessary work to ensure their colleagues are willing to give a considered response to the citizens’ recommendations. Too often an assembly will be organised by a department or ministry where the results require others in the authority to respond – but those other politicians and officials feel no connection to the process.

And too often, an assembly ends, and it is not clear who within the public authority has the responsibility to take the recommendations forward to ensure they are given a fair hearing across the authority.

For citizens’ assemblies to be effective requires political and administrative work well beyond just organising the assembly. If this is not done, it is not only a waste of resources, but it can do serious damage to democracy and trust as those citizens who have invested their time and energy into the process become disillusioned.

Those authorities where citizens’ assemblies have had meaningful impacts are those that have not only invested in the assembly, but also into preparing the authority to receive the recommendations. Often this has meant continuing support and resourcing for assembly members after the process. They are the best advocates for their work…(More)”


Asserting the public interest in health data: On the ethics of data governance for biobanks and insurers

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Kathryne Metcalf and Jathan Sadowski : “Recent reporting has revealed that the UK Biobank (UKB)—a large, publicly-funded research database containing highly-sensitive health records of over half a million participants—has shared its data with private insurance companies seeking to develop actuarial AI systems for analyzing risk and predicting health. While news reports have characterized this as a significant breach of public trust, the UKB contends that insurance research is “in the public interest,” and that all research participants are adequately protected from the possibility of insurance discrimination via data de-identification. Here, we contest both of these claims. Insurers use population data to identify novel categories of risk, which become fodder in the production of black-boxed actuarial algorithms. The deployment of these algorithms, as we argue, has the potential to increase inequality in health and decrease access to insurance. Importantly, these types of harms are not limited just to UKB participants: instead, they are likely to proliferate unevenly across various populations within global insurance markets via practices of profiling and sorting based on the synthesis of multiple data sources, alongside advances in data analysis capabilities, over space/time. This necessitates a significantly expanded understanding of the publics who must be involved in biobank governance and data-sharing decisions involving insurers…(More)”.

Harnessing digital footprint data for population health: a discussion on collaboration, challenges and opportunities in the UK

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Romana Burgess et al: “Digital footprint data are inspiring a new era in population health and well-being research. Linking these novel data with other datasets is critical for future research wishing to use these data for the public good. In order to succeed, successful collaboration among industry, academics and policy-makers is vital. Therefore, we discuss the benefits and obstacles for these stakeholder groups in using digital footprint data for research in the UK. We advocate for policy-makers’ inclusion in research efforts, stress the exceptional potential of digital footprint research to impact policy-making and explore the role of industry as data providers, with a focus on shared value, commercial sensitivity, resource requirements and streamlined processes. We underscore the importance of multidisciplinary approaches, consumer trust and ethical considerations in navigating methodological challenges and further call for increased public engagement to enhance societal acceptability. Finally, we discuss how to overcome methodological challenges, such as reproducibility and sharing of learnings, in future collaborations. By adopting a multiperspective approach to outlining the challenges of working with digital footprint data, our contribution helps to ensure that future research can navigate these challenges effectively while remaining reproducible, ethical and impactful…(More)”

Building Power, Safety, and Trust in Virtual Communities

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book edited by Dina Darwish: “Virtual communities are a new frontier in the digital landscape. While these spaces are only in their infancy, it will not be long before they become a part of much of the population’s daily life. Before that becomes the case, it is important that we instill guidelines and parameters to ensure that those interacting with these digital spaces feel safe within them and are able to use them to their fullest capacity.

Building Power, Safety, and Trust in Virtual Communities examines how online groups help people learn and change the way they think. In this book, different people with different academic backgrounds, methods, and personal experience with virtual groups look at this question. Case studies are included to help exemplify these findings. Together, these chapters discuss how virtual communities are built in ways that thinkers, researchers, and practitioners can understand…(More)”.

Artificial intelligence (AI) in action: A preliminary review of AI use for democracy support

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Policy paper by Grahm Tuohy-Gaydos: “…provides a working definition of AI for Westminster Foundation for Democracy (WFD) and the broader democracy support sector. It then provides a preliminary review of how AI is being used to enhance democratic practices worldwide, focusing on several themes including: accountability and transparency, elections, environmental democracy, inclusion, openness and participation, and women’s political leadership. The paper also highlights potential risks and areas of development in the future. Finally, the paper shares five recommendations for WFD and democracy support organisations to consider advancing their ‘digital democracy’ agenda. This policy paper also offers additional information regarding AI classification and other resources for identifying good practice and innovative solutions. Its findings may be relevant to WFD staff members, international development practitioners, civil society organisations, and persons interested in using emerging technologies within governmental settings…(More)”.

What roles can democracy labs play in co-creating democratic innovations for sustainability?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Inês Campos et al: “This perspective essay proposes Democracy Labs as new processes for developing democratic innovations that help tackle complex socio-ecological challenges within an increasingly unequal and polarised society, against the backdrop of democratic backsliding. Next to the current socio-ecological crisis, rapid technological innovations present both opportunities and challenges for democracy and call for democratic innovations. These innovations (e.g., mini-publics, collaborative governance and e-participation) offer alternative mechanisms for democratic participation and new forms of active citizenship, as well as new feedback mechanisms between citizens and traditional institutions of representative democracy. This essay thus introduces Democracy Labs, as citizen-centred processes for co-creating democratic innovations to inspire future transdisciplinary research and practice for a more inclusive and sustainable democracy. The approach is illustrated with examples from a Democracy Lab in Lisbon, reflecting on requirements for recruiting participants, the relevance of combining sensitising, reflection and ideation stages, and the importance of careful communication and facilitation processes guiding participants through co-creation activities…(More)”

Germany’s botched data revamp leaves economists ‘flying blind’

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Olaf Storbeck: “Germany’s statistical office has suspended some of its most important indicators after botching a data update, leaving citizens and economists in the dark at a time when the country is trying to boost flagging growth.

In a nation once famed for its punctuality and reliability, even its notoriously diligent beancounters have become part of a growing perception that “nothing works any more” as Germans moan about delayed trains, derelict roads and bridges, and widespread staff shortages.

“There used to be certain aspects in life that you could just rely on, and the fact that official statistics are published on time was one of them — not any more,” said Jörg Krämer, chief economist of Commerzbank, adding that the suspended data was also closely watched by monetary policymakers and investors.

Since May the Federal Statistical Office (Destatis) has not updated time-series data for retail and wholesale sales, as well as revenue from the services sector, hospitality, car dealers and garages.

These indicators, which are published monthly and adjusted for seasonal changes, are a key component of GDP and crucial for assessing consumer demand in the EU’s largest economy.

Private consumption accounted for 52.7 per cent of German output in 2023. Retail sales made up 28 per cent of private consumption but shrank 3.4 per cent from a year earlier. Overall GDP declined 0.3 per cent last year, Destatis said.

The Wiesbaden-based authority, which was established in 1948, said the outages had been caused by IT issues and a complex methodological change in EU business statistics in a bid to boost accuracy.

Destatis has been working on the project since the EU directive in 2019, and the deadline for implementing the changes is December.

But a series of glitches, data issues and IT delays meant Destatis has been unable to publish retail sales and other services data for four months.

A key complication is that the revenues of companies that operate in both services and manufacturing will now be reported differently for each sector. In the past, all revenue was treated as either services or manufacturing, depending on which unit was bigger…(More)”