Paper by Inga Strümke, Marija Slavkovik and Vince I. Madai: “While the demand for ethical artificial intelligence (AI) systems increases, the number of unethical uses of AI accelerates, even though there is no shortage of ethical guidelines. We argue that a main underlying cause for this is that AI developers face a social dilemma in AI development ethics, preventing the widespread adaptation of ethical best practices. We define the social dilemma for AI development and describe why the current crisis in AI development ethics cannot be solved without relieving AI developers of their social dilemma. We argue that AI development must be professionalised to overcome the social dilemma, and discuss how medicine can be used as a template in this process….(More)”.
The “Onion Model”: A Layered Approach to Documenting How the Third Wave of Open Data Can Provide Societal Value
Blog post by Andrew Zahuranec, Andrew Young and Stefaan Verhulst: “There’s a lot that goes into data-driven decision-making. Behind the datasets, platforms, and analysts is a complex series of processes that inform what kinds of insight data can produce and what kinds of ends it can achieve. These individual processes can be hard to understand when viewed together but, by separating the stages out, we can not only track how data leads to decisions but promote better and more impactful data management.
Earlier this year, The Open Data Policy Lab published the Third Wave of Open Data Toolkit to explore the elements of data re-use. At the center of this toolkit was an abstraction that we call the Open Data Framework. Divided into individual, onion-like layers, the framework shows all the processes that go into capitalizing on data in the third wave, starting with the creation of a dataset through data collaboration, creating insights, and using those insights to produce value.
This blog tries to re-iterate what’s included in each layer of this data “onion model” and demonstrate how organizations can create societal value by making their data available for re-use by other parties….(More)”.
(Successful) Democracies Breed Their Own Support
Paper by Daron Acemoglu et al: “Using large-scale survey data covering more than 110 countries and exploiting within-country variation across cohorts and surveys, we show that individuals with longer exposure to democracy display stronger support for democratic institutions. We bolster these baseline findings using an instrumental-variables strategy exploiting regional democratization waves and focusing on immigrants’ exposure to democracy before migration. In all cases, the timing and nature of the effects are consistent with a causal interpretation. We also establish that democracies breed their own support only when they are successful: all of the effects we estimate work through exposure to democracies that are successful in providing economic growth, peace and political stability, and public goods….(More)”.
What – and who – is a city for?
Essay by Gabriella Gómez-Mont: “…One of the most important lessons of the pandemic is that cities need to go beyond a logic of economics and efficiency, and instead have public purpose and civics at their core. Of course, economically healthy cities are fundamental, but a shift in priorities is necessary. Until recently, it was easy to think that democracy was on an inevitably progressive arch (if slower than some of us wished). But recent events have shown us that the global reality is more complicated than that.
This shows that there is much work to be done in rethinking civic capital, urban commons and public value, plus the role of the state in this. For starters, on an urban acupuncture level: using small-scale interventions to transform the larger urban context; determining what new types of public and civic spaces could be part of the urban repertoire; creating an imaginative symbiosis between physical infrastructure and novel ways of creating social relationships and horizontal ties with different purposes?
If we thought about feminist cities, care cities, playful cities, eco-cities (for example) what new urban forms could we imagine? The built environment can have the capacity to shape community coalitions, to organize social energy in different ways, to become reminders of different urban capacities that support diverse ways of being and belonging, of coming together.
This has historically been the role of places such as libraries, playgrounds, public schools. More recently, we have also seen the creation of food forests, community kitchens, maker spaces. But why has the repertoire of possibilities not been expanded and increased exponentially in recent decades? This is one of the themes I am in the midst of researching (and soon prototyping in several cities such as Helsinki and Da Nang).
In the future, these spaces could be part of a networked civics infrastructure, an infrastructure for the imagination. In the short term, these new types of places to gather could also recognize the importance of community ties. As Noreena Hertz wrote in The Lonely Century: Coming Together in a World that’s Pulling Apart, we should not underestimate the effects of loneliness: social isolation is as bad as smoking 15 cigarettes a day. It is also costing taxpayers billions a year.
This, and the crisis of democracy we are living through, makes a good case for the need to reimagine and expand opportunities for participation in collective life.
Can a city offer its citizens different ways of gathering around shared visions or common questions? How is a society prompted to imagine a life together, to jointly explore alternatives and possibilities that can enhance collective well-being?…(More)”.
Why I’m a proud solutionist
Blog by Jason Crawford: “Debates about technology and progress are often framed in terms of “optimism” vs. “pessimism.” For instance, Steven Pinker, Matt Ridley, Johan Norberg, Max Roser, and the late Hans Rosling have been called the “New Optimists” for their focus on the economic, scientific, and social progress of the last two centuries. Their opponents, such as David Runciman and Jason Hickel, accuse them of being blind to real problems in the world, such as poverty, and to risks of catastrophe, such as nuclear war.
Economic historian Robert Gordon calls himself “the prophet of pessimism.” His book The Rise and Fall of American Growth warned that the days of high economic growth are over for the United States and will not return. Gordon’s opponents include a group he calls the “techno-optimists,” such as Andrew McAfee and Erik Brynjolfsson, who have predicted a growth spurt in productivity from information technology.
It’s tempting to choose sides. But while it can be rational to be optimistic or pessimistic on any specific question, these terms are too imprecise to be adopted as a general intellectual identity. Those who identify as optimists can be too quick to dismiss or downplay the problems of technology, while self-styled technology pessimists or progress skeptics can be too reluctant to believe in solutions.
As we look forward to the post-pandemic recovery, once again we’re being tugged between the optimists, who highlight all the diseases that may soon be beaten through new vaccines, and the pessimists, who warn that humanity will never win the evolutionary arms race against microbes. But this represents a false choice. History provides us with powerful examples of people who were brutally honest in identifying a crisis but were equally active in seeking solutions.
At the end of the 19th century, William Crookes—physicist, chemist, and inventor of the Crookes tube (an early type of vacuum tube)—was the president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. On September 7, 1898, he used the traditional annual address to the association to issue a dire warning.
The British Isles, he said, were at grave risk of running out of food. His reasoning was simple: the population was growing exponentially, but the amount of land under cultivation could not keep pace. The only way to continue to increase production was to improve crop yields. But the limiting factor on yields was the availability of nitrogen fertilizer, and the sources of nitrogen, such as the rock salts of the Chilean desert and the guano deposits of the Peruvian islands, were running out. His argument was detailed and comprehensive, based on figures for wheat production and land availability from every major European country and colony; he apologized in advance for boring his audience with statistics….(More)”.
In Need of Speed: Data can Accelerate Progress Towards Water and Sanitation for All
Article by Joakim Harlin et al: Even before COVID-19, the world was off-track to meet Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 6 – ensuring water and sanitation for all by 2030.
The latest data, which is provided in seven SDG indicators reports published today by the UN-Water Integrated Monitoring Initiative for SDG 6 (IMI-SDG6), show us that 2 billion people worldwide still live without safely managed drinking water and 3.6 billion without safely managed sanitation. In addition, 2.3 billion people lack a basic handwashing facility with soap and water at home. Most wastewater is returned to nature untreated. One in five of the world’s river basins are experiencing rapid changes, such as flooding or drought with increased frequency and intensity, and 80% of wetland ecosystems are already lost….
We can only sustainably manage what we measure, and right now, there are too many gaps in the data, despite unprecedented, heroic levels of reporting during the chaos of the pandemic.
Last year, the IMI-SDG6 combined the efforts of WHO, UNICEF, UN-Habitat, UNEP, FAO, UNECE and UNESCO (as custodian agencies of the various SDG 6 global indicators) to reach out to countries with requests for data: this was our ‘2020 Data Drive.’
COVID-19 caused extreme difficulties for the SDG 6 national focal points in every country, with people forced to work from home with little equipment, few in-person consultations, and many data collection activities cancelled. Under the circumstances, the focal points made a remarkable effort. On average, UN Member States now have data on 8.2 out of 12 indicators (up from 7.0 in 2019), and the number reporting on nine or more indicators increased from 37 in 2019 to 92.
Despite this significant progress, large data gaps remain for some indicators, typically those that rely on in situ monitoring networks, such as water quality and aquifers. For example, many countries base their ambient water quality reporting on relatively few measurements; the poorest 20 countries reported on only 1,000 water bodies in total, whereas the richest 24 reported on nearly 60,000. Addressing these issues is a long-term, capital-intensive effort.
Our country monitoring focal points know better than anyone about the benefits and costs of robust water and sanitation monitoring systems, and the urgent need to establish them. We encourage high-level officials in national ministries to listen to what the focal points have to say. And, as we continue our capacity-building activities in countries, we also call on development partners to support this work. We call on academia, the private sector, and civil society to contribute to the joint effort by bringing their water and sanitation datasets to the table. …(More)”
Decentralisation: a multidisciplinary perspective
Paper by Balázs Bodó, Jaya Klara Brekke, and Jaap-Henk Hoepman:”Decentralisation as a concept is attracting a lot of interest, not least with the rise of decentralised and distributed techno-social systems like Bitcoin, and distributed ledgers more generally. In this paper, we first define decentralisation as it is implemented for technical architectures and then discuss the technical, social, political and economic ideas that drive the development of decentralised, and in particular, distributed systems. We argue that technical efforts towards decentralisation tend to go hand-in-hand with ambitions for rearranging power dynamics. We caution, however, against simplistic understandings of power in relation to the decentralisation-centralisation spectrum, and argue that in practice, decentralisation might very well be served by and produce centralising effects. The paper then goes on to discuss the critical literature that highlights some of the common assumptions and critiques made about decentralisation and the pros and cons of a decentralised approach. Finally, we propose some of the missing parts to current debates about decentralisation, and argue for a more nuanced and grounded approach to the centralisation/decentralisation dichotomy….(More)”.
Perspectives on Digital Humanism
Open Access Book edited by Hannes Werthner, Erich Prem, Edward A. Lee, and Carlo Ghezzi: “Digital Humanism is young; it has evolved from an unease about the consequences of a digitized world for human beings, into an internationally connected community that aims at developing concepts to provide a positive and constructive response. Following up on several successful workshops and a lecture series that bring together authorities of the various disciplines, this book is our latest contribution to the ongoing international discussions and developments. We have compiled a collection of 46 articles from experts with different disciplinary and institutional backgrounds, who provide their view on the interplay of human and machine.
Please note our open access publishing strategy for this book to enable widespread circulation and accessibility. This means that you can make use of the content freely, as long as you ensure appropriate referencing. At the same time, the book is also published in printed and online versions by Springer….(More)”.
Looking Under the Hood of AI’s Dubious Models
Essay by Ethan Edwards: “In 2018, McKinsey Global Institute released “Notes from the AI Frontier,” a report that seeks to predict the economic impact of artificial intelligence. Looming over the report is how the changing nature of work might transform society and pose challenges for policymakers. The good news is that the experts at McKinsey think that automation will create more jobs than it eliminates, but obviously it’s not a simple question. And the answer they give rests on sophisticated econometric models that include a variety of qualifications and estimates. Such models are necessarily simplified, and even reductionistic, but are they useful? And for whom?
Without a doubt, when it comes to predictive modeling, the center of the action in our society—and the industry through which intense entrepreneurial energy and venture capital flows—is artificial intelligence itself. AI, of course, is nothing new. A subdiscipline dedicated to mimicking human capacities in sensing, language, and thought, it’s nearly as old as computer science itself. But for the last ten years or so the promise and the hype of AI have only accelerated. The most impressive results have come from something called “neural nets,” which has used linear algebra to mimic some of the biological structures of our brain cells and has been combined with far better hardware developed for video games. In only a few years, neural nets have revolutionized image processing, language processing, audio analysis, and media recommendation. The hype is that they can do far more.
If we are—as many promoters assert—close to AIs that can do everything a human knowledge worker can and more, that is obviously a disruptive, even revolutionary, prospect. It’s also a claim that has turned on the spigot of investment capital. And that’s one reason it’s difficult to know the true potential of the industry. Talking about AI is a winning formula for startups, researchers, and anyone who wants funding, enough that the term AI gets used for more than just neural nets and is now a label for computer-based automation in general. Older methods that have nothing to do with the new boom have been rebranded under AI. Think tanks and universities are hosting seminars on the impact of AI on fields on which it has so far had no impact. Some startups who have built their company’s future profitability on the promise of their AI systems have actually had to hire low-wage humans to act like the hoped-for intelligences for customers and investors while they wait for the technology to catch up. Such hype produces a funhouse mirror effect that distorts the potential and therefore the value of firms and all but guarantees that some startups will squander valuable resources with broken (or empty) promises. But as long as some companies do keep their promises it’s gamble that many investors are still willing to take….(More)”.
Four Internets: Data, Geopolitics, and the Governance of Cyberspace
Book by Kieron O’Hara and Wendy Hall: “The book describes the Internet, and how Internet governance prevents it fragmenting into a ‘Splinternet’. Four opposing ideologies about how data flows around the network have become prominent because they are (a) implemented by technical standards, and (b) backed by influential geopolitical entities. Each of these specifies an ‘Internet’, described in relation to its implementation by a specific geopolitical entity. The four Internets of the title are: the Silicon Valley Open Internet, developed by pioneers of the Internet in the 1960s, based on principles of openness and efficient dataflow; the Brussels Bourgeois Internet, exemplified by the European Union, with a focus on human rights and legal administration; the DC Commercial Internet, exemplified by the Washington establishment and its focus on property rights and market solutions; and the Beijing Paternal Internet, exemplified by the Chinese government’s control of Internet content. These Internets have to coexist if the Internet as a whole is to remain connected. The book also considers the weaponization of the hacking ethic as the Moscow Spoiler model, exemplified by Russia’s campaigns of misinformation at scale; this is not a vision of the Internet, but is parasitic on the others. Each of these ideologies is illustrated by a specific policy question. Potential future directions of Internet development are considered, including the policy directions that India might take, and the development of technologies such as artificial intelligence, smart cities, the Internet of Things, and social machines. A conclusion speculates on potential future Internets that may emerge alongside those described….(More)”.