Introducing RegBox: using serious games in regulatory development

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Toolkit by UK Policy Lab: “…enabling policymakers to convene stakeholders and work together to make decisions affecting regulation, using serious games. The toolkit will consist of game patterns for different use cases, a collection of case studies, guidance, and a set of tools to help policymakers to decide which approach to take. Work on RegBox is still in progress but in the spirit of being open and iterative we wanted to share and communicate it early. Our overarching challenge question is:  

How can we provide engaging and participatory tools that help policymakers to develop and test regulations and make effective decisions? …  

Policy Lab has worked on a range of projects that intersect with regulation and we’ve noticed a growing demand for more anticipatory and participatory approaches in this area. Regulators are having to respond to emerging technologies which are disrupting markets and posing new risks to individuals and institutions. Additionally, the government has just launched the Smarter Regulation programme, which is encouraging officials to use regulations only where necessary, and ensure their use is proportionate and future-proof. Because a change in regulation can have significant effects on businesses, organisations, and individuals it is important to understand the potential effects before deciding. We hypothesise that serious games can be used to understand regulatory challenges and stress-test solutions at pace..(More)”.

Representative Bodies in the Age of AI

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by POPVOX: “The report tracks current developments in the U.S. Congress and internationally, while assessing the prospects for future innovations. The report also serves as a primer for those in Congress on AI technologies and methods in an effort to promote responsible use and adoption. POPVOX endorses a considered, step-wise strategy for AI experimentation, underscoring the importance of capacity building, data stewardship, ethical frameworks, and insights gleaned from global precedents of AI in parliamentary functions. This ensures AI solutions are crafted with human discernment and supervision at their core.

Legislatures worldwide are progressively embracing AI tools such as machine learning, natural language processing, and computer vision to refine the precision, efficiency, and, to a small extent, the participatory aspects of their operations. The advent of generative AI platforms, such as ChatGPT, which excel in interpreting and organizing textual data, marks a transformative shift for the legislative process, inherently a task of converting rules into language.

While nations such as Brazil, India, Italy, and Estonia lead with applications ranging from the transcription and translation of parliamentary proceedings to enhanced bill drafting and sophisticated legislative record searches, the U.S. Congress is prudently venturing into the realm of Generative AI. The House and Senate have initiated AI working groups and secured licenses for platforms like ChatGPT. They have also issued guidance on responsible use…(More)”.

Experts in Government

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book by Donald F. Kettl: “From Caligula and the time of ancient Rome to the present, governments have relied on experts to manage public programs. But with that expertise has come power, and that power has long proven difficult to hold accountable. The tension between experts in the bureaucracy and the policy goals of elected officials, however, remains a point of often bitter tension. President Donald Trump labeled these experts as a ‘deep state’ seeking to resist the policies he believed he was elected to pursue—and he developed a policy scheme to make it far easier to fire experts he deemed insufficiently loyal. The age-old battles between expertise and accountability have come to a sharp point, and resolving these tensions requires a fresh look at the rule of law to shape the role of experts in governance…(More)”.

Facts over fiction: Why we must protect evidence-based knowledge if we value democracy

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Ben Feringa and Paul Nurse: “Central to human progress are three interconnected pillars. The first is pursuit of knowledge, a major component of which is the expansion of the frontiers of learning and understanding – something often achieved through science, driven by the innate curiosity of scientists.

The second pillar of progress is the need for stable democracies where people and ideas can mix freely. It is this free exchange of diverse perspectives that fuels the democratic process, ensuring policies are shaped by a multitude of voices and evidence, leading to informed decision-making that benefits all of society.

Such freedom of speech and expression also serves as the bedrock for scientific inquiry, allowing researchers to challenge prevailing notions without fear, fostering discovery, applications and innovation.

The third pillar is a fact-based worldview. While political parties might disagree on policy, for democracy to work well all of them should support and protect a perspective that is grounded in reliable facts, which are needed to generate reliable policies that can drive human progress….(More)”.

Tackling Today’s Data Dichotomy: Unveiling the Paradox of Abundant Supply and Restricted Access in the Quest for Social Equity

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Stefaan Verhulst: “…One of the ironies of this moment, however, is that an era of unprecedented supply is simultaneously an era of constricted access to data. Much of the data we generate is privately “owned,” hidden away in private or public sector silos, or otherwise inaccessible to those who are most likely to benefit from it or generate valuable insights. These restrictions on access are grafted onto existing socioeconomic inequalities, driven by broader patterns of exclusion and marginalization, and also exacerbating them. Critically, restricted or unequal access to data does not only harm individuals: it causes untold public harm by limiting the potential of data to address social ills. It also limits attempts to improve the output of AI both in terms of bias and trustworthiness.

In this paper, we outline two potential approaches that could help address—or at least mitigate—the harms: social licensing and a greater role for data stewards. While not comprehensive solutions, we believe that these represent two of the most promising avenues to introduce greater efficiencies into how data is used (and reused), and thus lead to more targeted, responsive, and responsible policymaking…(page 22-25)”.

Digital Self-Determination

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

New Website and Resource by the International Network on Digital Self Determination: “Digital Self-Determination seeks to empower individuals and communities to decide how their data is managed in ways that benefit themselves and society. Translating this principle into practice requires a multi-faceted examination from diverse perspectives and in distinct contexts.

Our network connects different actors from around the world to consider how to apply Digital Self-Determination in real-life settings to inform both theory and practice.

Our main objectives are the following:

  • Inform policy development;
  • Accelerate the creation of new DSD processes and technologies;
  • Estabilish new professions that can help implement DSD (such as data stewards);
  • Contribute to the regulatory and policy debate;
  • Raise awareness and build bridges between the public and private sector and data subjects…(More)”.

Debate and Decide: Innovative Participatory Governance in South Australia 2010–2018

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Matt D. Ryan: “This article provides an account of how innovative participatory governance unfolded in South Australia between 2010 and 2018. In doing so it explores how an ‘interactive’ political leadership style, which scholarship argues is needed in contemporary democracy, played out in practice. Under the leadership of Premier Jay Weatherill this approach to governing, known as ‘debate and decide’, became regarded as one of the most successful examples of democratic innovation globally. Using an archival and media method of analysis the article finds evidence of the successful application of an interactive political leadership style, but one that was so woven into competitive politics that it was abandoned after a change in government in March 2018. To help sustain interactive political leadership styles the article argues for research into how a broader base of politicians perceives the benefits and risks of innovative participatory governance. It also argues for a focus on developing politicians’ collaborative leadership capabilities. However, the article concludes by asking: if political competition is built into our system of government, are we be better off leveraging it, rather than resisting it, in the pursuit of democratic reform?…(More)”.

In shaping AI policy, stories about social impacts are just as important as expert information

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Blog by Daniel S. Schiff and Kaylyn Jackson Schiff: “Will artificial intelligence (AI) save the world or destroy it? Will it lead to the end of manual labor and an era of leisure and luxury, or to more surveillance and job insecurity? Is it the start of a revolution in innovation that will transform the economy for the better? Or does it represent a novel threat to human rights?

Irrespective of what turns out to be the truth, what our key policymakers believe about these questions matters. It will shape how they think about the underlying problems that AI policy is aiming to address, and which solutions are appropriate to do so. …In late 2021, we ran a study to better understand the impact of policy narratives on the behavior of policymakers. We focused on US state legislators,…

In our analysis, we found something surprising. We measured whether legislators were more likely to engage with a message featuring a narrative or featuring expert information, which we assessed by seeing if they clicked on a given fact sheet/story or clicked to register for or attended the webinar.

Despite the importance attached to technical expertise in AI circles, we found that narratives were at least as persuasive as expert information. Receiving a narrative emphasizing, say, growing competition between the US and China, or the faulty arrest of Robert Williams due to facial recognition, led to a 30 percent increase in legislator engagement compared to legislators who only received basic information about the civil society organization. These narratives were just as effective as more neutral, fact-based information about AI with accompanying fact sheets…(More)”

The New Digital Dark Age

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Gina Neff: “For researchers, social media has always represented greater access to data, more democratic involvement in knowledge production, and great transparency about social behavior. Getting a sense of what was happening—especially during political crises, major media events, or natural disasters—was as easy as looking around a platform like Twitter or Facebook. In 2024, however, that will no longer be possible.

In 2024, we will face a grim digital dark age, as social media platforms transition away from the logic of Web 2.0 and toward one dictated by AI-generated content. Companies have rushed to incorporate large language models (LLMs) into online services, complete with hallucinations (inaccurate, unjustified responses) and mistakes, which have further fractured our trust in online information.

Another aspect of this new digital dark age comes from not being able to see what others are doing. Twitter once pulsed with publicly readable sentiment of its users. Social researchers loved Twitter data, relying on it because it provided a ready, reasonable approximation of how a significant slice of internet users behaved. However, Elon Musk has now priced researchers out of Twitter data after recently announcing that it was ending free access to the platform’s API. This made it difficult, if not impossible, to obtain data needed for research on topics such as public health, natural disaster response, political campaigning, and economic activity. It was a harsh reminder that the modern internet has never been free or democratic, but instead walled and controlled.

Closer cooperation with platform companies is not the answer. X, for instance, has filed a suit against independent researchers who pointed out the rise in hate speech on the platform. Recently, it has also been revealed that researchers who used Facebook and Instagram’s data to study the platforms’ role in the US 2020 elections had been granted “independence by permission” by Meta. This means that the company chooses which projects to share its data with and, while the research may be independent, Meta also controls what types of questions are asked and who asks them…(More)”.

What It Takes to Build Democratic Institutions

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Daron Acemoglu: “Chile’s failure to draft a new constitution that enjoys widespread support from voters is the predictable result of allowing partisans and ideologues to lead the process. Democratic institutions are built by delivering what ordinary voters expect and demand from government, as the history of Nordic social democracy shows…

There are plenty of good models around to help both developing and industrialized countries build better democratic institutions. But with its abortive attempts to draft a new constitution, Chile is offering a lesson in what to avoid.

Though it is one of the richest countries in Latin America, Chile is still suffering from the legacy of General Augusto Pinochet’s brutal dictatorship and historic inequalities. The country has made some progress in building democratic institutions since the 1988 plebiscite that began the transition from authoritarianism, and education and social programs have reduced income inequality. But major problems remain. There are deep inequalities not just in income, but also in access to government services, high-quality educational resources, and labor-market opportunities. Moreover, Chile still has the constitution that Pinochet imposed in 1980.

Yet while it seems natural to start anew, Chile has gone about it the wrong way. Following a 2020 referendum that showed overwhelming support for drafting a new constitution, it entrusted the process to a convention of elected delegates. But only 43% of voters turned out for the 2021 election to fill the convention, and many of the candidates were from far-left circles with strong ideological commitments to draft a constitution that would crack down on business and establish myriad new rights for different communities. When the resulting document was put to a vote, 62% of Chileans rejected it…(More)”