Book edited by Daniel Muia, and Rhonda Phillips: “This book discusses how aspects of connectedness, resilience and empowerment are intertwined in community development processes. It explicitly brings together these elements in the context of community development and well-being, helping foster an understanding of how each influences the other. With chapters contributed by scholars from around the globe, this volume provides insights into how these elements of community influence and support the quality of life of communities. While several of the chapters address the foundational and theoretical bases of community development as well as community well-being, others address topical and emergent areas of interest in community development practice and scholarship. Underscoring the chapters is an awareness of the importance of the community spirit, which is the voice and agency of people coming together to encourage social transformation. A key element of the book is also to help foster change for the better in communities. This book is of interest to researchers and professionals working in the area of community engagement and development, particularly those in resource-poor countries…(More)”.
Catastrophic Incentives: Why Our Approaches to Disasters Keep Falling Short
Book by Jeff Schlegelmilch and Ellen Carlin: “Societies are vulnerable to any number of potential disasters: earthquakes, hurricanes, infectious diseases, terrorist attacks, and many others. Even though the dangers are often clear, there is a persistent pattern of inadequate preparation and a failure to learn from experience. Before disasters, institutions pay insufficient attention to risk; in the aftermath, even when the lack of preparation led to a flawed response, the focus shifts to patching holes instead of addressing the underlying problems.
Examining twenty years of disasters from 9/11 to COVID-19, Jeff Schlegelmilch and Ellen Carlin show how flawed incentive structures make the world more vulnerable when catastrophe strikes. They explore how governments, the private sector, nonprofits, and academia behave before, during, and after crises, arguing that standard operational and business models have produced dysfunction. Catastrophic Incentives reveals troubling patterns about what does and does not matter to the institutions that are responsible for dealing with disasters. The short-termism of electoral politics and corporate decision making, the funding structure of nonprofits, and the institutional dynamics shaping academic research have all contributed to a failure to build resilience.
Offering a comprehensive and incisive look at disaster governance, Catastrophic Incentives provides timely recommendations for reimagining systems and institutions so that they are better equipped to manage twenty-first-century threats…(More)”.
Anticipating the Future: Shifting Paradigms
Blog by Sara Marcucci and Stefaan Verhulst: “…Migration is a dynamic phenomenon influenced by a variety of factors. As migration policies strive to keep pace with an ever-changing landscape, anticipating trends becomes increasingly pertinent. Traditionally, in the realm of anticipatory methods, a clear demarcation existed between foresight and forecast.
- Forecast predominantly relies on quantitative techniques to predict future trends, utilizing historical data, mathematical models, and statistical analyses to provide numerical predictions applicable to the short-to-medium term, seeking to facilitate expedited policy making, resource allocation, and logistical planning.
- Foresight methodologies conventionally leaned on qualitative insights to explore future possibilities, employing expert judgment, scenario planning, and holistic exploration to envision potential future scenarios. This qualitative approach has been characterized by a more long-term perspective, which seeks to explore a spectrum of potential futures in the long run.
More recently, this once-clear distinction between quantitative forecasting and qualitative foresight has begun to blur. New methodologies that embrace a mixed-method approach are emerging, challenging traditional paradigms and offering new pathways for understanding complex phenomena. Despite the evolution and the growing interest in these novel approaches, there currently exists no comprehensive taxonomy to guide practitioners in selecting the most appropriate method for their given objective. Moreover, due to the state-of-the-art, there is a need for primers delving into these modern methodologies, filling a gap in knowledge and resources that practitioners can leverage to enhance their forecasting and foresight endeavors…(More)”.
Citizens’ Assemblies Are Upgrading Democracy: Fair Algorithms Are Part of the Program
Article by Ariel Procaccia: “…Taken together, these assemblies have demonstrated an impressive capacity to uncover the will of the people and build consensus.
The effectiveness of citizens’ assemblies isn’t surprising. Have you ever noticed how politicians grow a spine the moment they decide not to run for reelection? Well, a citizens’ assembly is a bit like a legislature whose members make a pact barring them from seeking another term in office. The randomly selected members are not beholden to party machinations or outside interests; they are free to speak their mind and vote their conscience.
What’s more, unlike elected bodies, these assemblies are chosen to mirror the population, a property that political theorists refer to as descriptive representation. For example, a typical citizens’ assembly has a roughly equal number of men and women (some also ensure nonbinary participation), whereas the average proportion of seats held by women in national parliaments worldwide was 26 percent in 2021—a marked increase from 12 percent in 1997 but still far from gender balance. Descriptive representation, in turn, lends legitimacy to the assembly: citizens seem to find decisions more acceptable when they are made by people like themselves.
As attractive as descriptive representation is, there are practical obstacles to realizing it while adhering to the principle of random selection. Overcoming these hurdles has been a passion of mine for the past few years. Using tools from mathematics and computer science, my collaborators and I developed an algorithm for the selection of citizens’ assemblies that many practitioners around the world are using. Its story provides a glimpse into the future of democracy—and it begins a long time ago…(More)”.
What if We Could All Control A.I.?
Kevin Roose at The New York Times: “One of the fiercest debates in Silicon Valley right now is about who should control A.I., and who should make the rules that powerful artificial intelligence systems must follow.
Should A.I. be governed by a handful of companies that try their best to make their systems as safe and harmless as possible? Should regulators and politicians step in and build their own guardrails? Or should A.I. models be made open-source and given away freely, so users and developers can choose their own rules?
A new experiment by Anthropic, the maker of the chatbot Claude, offers a quirky middle path: What if an A.I. company let a group of ordinary citizens write some rules, and trained a chatbot to follow them?
The experiment, known as “Collective Constitutional A.I.,” builds on Anthropic’s earlier work on Constitutional A.I., a way of training large language models that relies on a written set of principles. It is meant to give a chatbot clear instructions for how to handle sensitive requests, what topics are off-limits and how to act in line with human values.
If Collective Constitutional A.I. works — and Anthropic’s researchers believe there are signs that it might — it could inspire other experiments in A.I. governance, and give A.I. companies more ideas for how to invite outsiders to take part in their rule-making processes.
That would be a good thing. Right now, the rules for powerful A.I. systems are set by a tiny group of industry insiders, who decide how their models should behave based on some combination of their personal ethics, commercial incentives and external pressure. There are no checks on that power, and there is no way for ordinary users to weigh in.
Opening up A.I. governance could increase society’s comfort with these tools, and give regulators more confidence that they’re being skillfully steered. It could also prevent some of the problems of the social media boom of the 2010s, when a handful of Silicon Valley titans ended up controlling vast swaths of online speech.
In a nutshell, Constitutional A.I. works by using a written set of rules (a “constitution”) to police the behavior of an A.I. model. The first version of Claude’s constitution borrowed rules from other authoritative documents, including the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Apple’s terms of service…(More)”.
Narrative Corruptions
Review by Mike St. Thomas: “…The world outside academia has grown preoccupied with narrative recently. Despite the rise of Big Data (or perhaps because of it), we are more keenly aware of how we use stories to explain what happens in the world, wield political power, and understand ourselves. And we are discovering that these stories can be used for good or ill. From the resurgence of nationalism on the right to the rise of identity politics on the left, the stories we tell about ourselves matter a great deal. As marketing guru Annette Simmons puts it, “Whoever tells the best story wins.” The result has been, in part, the current polarization in American life. An obvious example is the persistence of the false narrative of a stolen election, but at a deeper level, more than ever we now seem inclined—conditioned, even—to judge everything with an up or down vote.
Brooks is less than thrilled about these developments. “It was as if a fledgling I had nourished had become a predator devouring reality in the name of story,” he writes at the outset of Seduced by Story, in a clear attempt to distance himself from what he sees as the abuses of narrative in the years since Reading for the Plot was published. Though his lament contains a strain of academic pearl-clutching, Brooks’s concern is warranted. A narrative is, by nature, a hermeneutic circle—the elements of a plot gaining significance through their relation to each other—and its ever-closing loop threatening to blind its audience to the real.
Though in his new book Brooks does not back down from the claims of his old, he argues that while stories may be unavoidable, they need to be examined and critiqued constantly. A banal thesis, perhaps, but still true. After a preliminary chapter that addresses corporate storytelling and the removal of Confederate monuments, he revisits terrain covered in Reading for the Plot by examining how narratives work, using examples from Victorian-era novelists such as Honoré de Balzac, Henry James, Marcel Proust, and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
Within Seduced by Story are the seeds of a more trenchant claim about the ultimate purpose of storytelling—and about how our narratives have become corrupted. Brooks recalls a musical advertising slogan from his youth: “If you’ve got the time / We’ve got the beer. Miller Beer.” Jingles like this were pithy, memorable, and quite effective at communicating a quality of the product, or, more likely, at appealing to a specific emotion of the listener…(More)”.
Who owns data about you?
Article by Wendy Wong: “The ascendancy of artificial intelligence hinges on vast data accrued from our daily activities. In turn, data train advanced algorithms, fuelled by massive amounts of computing power. Together, they form the critical trio driving AI’s capabilities. Because of its human sources, data raise an important question: who owns data, and how do the data add up when they’re about our mundane, routine choices?
It often helps to think through modern problems with historical anecdotes. The case of Henrietta Lacks, a Black woman living in Baltimore stricken with cervical cancer, and her everlasting cells, has become well-known because of Rebecca Skloot’s book, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks,and a movie starring Oprah Winfrey. Unbeknownst to her, Lacks’s medical team removed her cancer cells and sent them to a lab to see if they would grow. While Lacks died of cancer in 1951, her cells didn’t. They kept going, in petri dishes in labs, all the way through to the present day.
The unprecedented persistence of Lacks’s cells led to the creation of the HeLa cell line. Her cells underpin various medical technologies, from in-vitro fertilization to polio and COVID-19 vaccines, generating immense wealth for pharmaceutical companies. HeLa is a co-creation. Without Lacks or scientific motivation, there would be no HeLa.
The case raises questions about consent and ownership. That her descendants recently settled a lawsuit against Thermo Fisher Scientific, a pharmaceutical company that monetized products made from HeLa cells, echoes the continuing discourse surrounding data ownership and rights. Until the settlement, just one co-creator was reaping all the financial benefits of that creation.
The Lacks family’s legal battle centred on a human-rights claim. Their situation was rooted in the impact of Lacks’s cells on medical science and the intertwined racial inequalities that lead to disparate medical outcomes. Since Lacks’s death, the family had struggled while biotech companies profited.
These “tissue issues” often don’t favour the individuals providing the cells or body parts. The U.S. Supreme Court case Moore v. Regents of the University of California deemed body parts as “garbage” once separated from the individual. The ruling highlights a harsh legal reality: Individuals don’t necessarily retain rights of parts of their body, financial or otherwise. Another federal case, Washington University v. Catalona, invalidated ownership claims based upon the “feeling” it belongs to the person it came from.
We can liken this characterization of body parts to how we often think about data taken from people. When we call data “detritus” or “exhaust,” we dehumanize the thoughts, behaviours and choices that generate those data. Do we really want to say that data, once created, is a resource for others’ exploitation?…(More)”.
PeaceTech: Digital Transformation to End War
Book by Christine Bell: “Why are we willing to believe that technology can bring about war… but not peace?
PeaceTech: Digital Transformation to End Wars is the world’s first book dealing with the use of technological innovation to support peace and transition processes. Through an interwoven narrative of personal stories that capture the complexity of real-time peace negotiation, Bell maps the fast-paced developments of PeaceTech, and the ethical and practical challenges involved.
Bell locates PeaceTech within the wider digital revolution that is also transforming the conduct of war. She lays bare the ‘double disruption’ of peace processes, through digital transformation, and through changing conflict patterns that make processes more difficult to mount. Against this backdrop – can digital peacebuilding be a force for good? Or do the risks outweigh the benefits?
PeaceTech provides a 12-Step Manifesto laying out the types of practice and commitment needed for successful use of digital tools to support peace processes. This open access book will be invaluable primer for business tech entrepreneurs, peacebuilders, the tech community, and students of international relations, informatics, comparative politics, ethics and law; and indeed for those simply curious about peace process innovation in the contemporary world…(More)”.
When is a Decision Automated? A Taxonomy for a Fundamental Rights Analysis
Paper by Francesca Palmiotto: “This paper addresses the pressing issues surrounding the use of automated systems in public decision-making, with a specific focus on the field of migration, asylum, and mobility. Drawing on empirical research conducted for the AFAR project, the paper examines the potential and limitations of the General Data Protection Regulation and the proposed Artificial Intelligence Act in effectively addressing the challenges posed by automated decision making (ADM). The paper argues that the current legal definitions and categorizations of ADM fail to capture the complexity and diversity of real-life applications, where automated systems assist human decision-makers rather than replace them entirely. This discrepancy between the legal framework and practical implementation highlights the need for a fundamental rights approach to legal protection in the automation age. To bridge the gap between ADM in law and practice, the paper proposes a taxonomy that provides theoretical clarity and enables a comprehensive understanding of ADM in public decision-making. This taxonomy not only enhances our understanding of ADM but also identifies the fundamental rights at stake for individuals and the sector-specific legislation applicable to ADM. The paper finally calls for empirical observations and input from experts in other areas of public law to enrich and refine the proposed taxonomy, thus ensuring clearer conceptual frameworks to safeguard individuals in our increasingly algorithmic society…(More)”.
Zero-Problem Philanthropy
Article by Christian Seelos: “…problem-solving approaches often overlook the dynamics of problem supply, the ongoing creation of problems. This is apparent in daily news reports, which indicate that our societies generate both new and old problems at a faster rate than we can ever hope to solve them. Even solutions that “work” can have negative side-effects that then generate new problems. Climate change as an undesirable side-effect of the fantastic innovation of using fossil fuels for energy is an example. The live-saving invention of antibiotics has created mutated bacteria that now resist treatments. Indebted households, violence against poor women, and alcoholism can be the side-effect of providing innovative microfinance solutions that are well intended. These side effects require additional solutions that are often urgent and costly, leading to a never-ending cycle of problems and solutions.
Unfortunately, our blind faith in solutions and the capabilities of new technologies can lead to a careless attitude towards creating problems. We tend to overlook the importance of problems as indicators of deeper issues, instead glorifying the innovators and their solutions. This mindset can be problematic, as it reduces our role as philanthropists to playing catch-up and fails to acknowledge the possibility of fundamental flaws in our approach.
Russell Ackoff, a pioneering systems thinker and organization scholar, famously described the dangers of thinking in terms of problem-solving because “we walk into the future facing the past—we move away from, rather than toward, something. This often results in unforeseen consequences that are more distasteful than the deficiencies removed.” Ackoff highlights our tendency to be reactive rather than proactive in addressing social problems. What would it take to shift from a reactive, past-oriented solution perspective to a proactive philanthropy oriented towards a healthy future that does not create so many problems?…(More)”.