Boston Isn’t Afraid of Generative AI

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Beth Simone Noveck: “After ChatGPT burst on the scene last November, some government officials raced to prohibit its use. Italy banned the chatbot. New York City, Los Angeles Unified, Seattle, and Baltimore School Districts either banned or blocked access to generative AI tools, fearing that ChatGPT, Bard, and other content generation sites could tempt students to cheat on assignments, induce rampant plagiarism, and impede critical thinking. This week, US Congress heard testimony from Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, and AI researcher Gary Marcus as it weighed whether and how to regulate the technology.

In a rapid about-face, however, a few governments are now embracing a less fearful and more hands-on approach to AI. New York City Schools chancellor David Banks announced yesterday that NYC is reversing its ban because “the knee jerk fear and risk overlooked the potential of generative AI to support students and teachers, as well as the reality that our students are participating in and will work in a world where understanding generative AI is crucial.” And yesterday, City of Boston chief information officer Santiago Garces sent guidelines to every city official encouraging them to start using generative AI “to understand their potential.” The city also turned on use of Google Bard as part of the City of Boston’s enterprise-wide use of Google Workspace so that all public servants have access.

The “responsible experimentation approach” adopted in Boston—the first policy of its kind in the US—could, if used as a blueprint, revolutionize the public sector’s use of AI across the country and cause a sea change in how governments at every level approach AI. By promoting greater exploration of how AI can be used to improve government effectiveness and efficiency, and by focusing on how to use AI for governance instead of only how to govern AI, the Boston approach might help to reduce alarmism and focus attention on how to use AI for social good…(More)”.

Can Mobility of Care Be Identified From Transit Fare Card Data? A Case Study In Washington D.C.

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Daniela Shuman, et al: “Studies in the literature have found significant differences in travel behavior by gender on public transit that are largely attributable to household and care responsibilities falling disproportionately on women. While the majority of studies have relied on survey and qualitative data to assess “mobility of care”, we propose a novel data-driven workflow utilizing transit fare card transactions, name-based gender inference, and geospatial analysis to identify mobility of care trip making. We find that the share of women travelers trip-chaining in the direct vicinity of mobility of care places of interest is 10% – 15% higher than men….(More)”.

City data ecosystems between theory and practice: A qualitative exploratory study in seven European cities

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Giovanni Liva, Marina Micheli, Sven Schade, Alexander Kotsev, Matteo Gori and Cristiano Codagnone: “The exponential growth of data collection opens possibilities for analyzing data to address political and societal challenges. Still, European cities are not utilizing the potential of data generated by its citizens, industries, academia, and public authorities for their public service mission. The reasons are complex and relate to an intertwined set of organizational, technological, and legal barriers, although good practices exist that could be scaled, sustained, and further developed. The article contributes to research on data-driven innovation in the public sector comparing high-level expectations on data ecosystems with actual practices of data sharing and innovation at the local and regional level. Our approach consists in triangulating the analysis of in-depth interviews with representatives of the local administrations with documents obtained from the cities. The interviews investigated the experiences and perspectives of local administrations regarding establishing a local or regional data ecosystem. The article examines experiences and obstacles to data sharing within seven administrations investigating what currently prevents the establishment of data ecosystems. The findings are summarized along three main lines. First, the limited involvement of private sector organizations as actors in local data ecosystems through emerging forms of data sharing. Second, the concern over technological aspects and the lack of attention on social or organizational issues. Third, a conceptual decision to apply a centralized and not a federated digital infrastructure…(More)”.

The 2023 State of UserCentriCities

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by UserCentricities: “Did you know that Rotterdam employs 25 service designers and a user-interface lab? That the property tax payment in Bratislava is reviewed and improved every year? That Ghent automatically offers school benefits to families in need, using data held by different levels of administration? That Madrid processed 70% of registrations in digital form in 2022, up from 23% in 2019? That Kyiv, despite the challenges of war, has continuously updated its city app adding new services daily for citizens in need, such as a map of bomb shelters and heating points? Based on data gathered from the UserCentriCities Dashboard, UserCentriCities launches The 2023 State of UserCentriCities: How Cities and Regions are Delivering Effective Services by Putting Citizens’ Needs at the Centre, an analysis of the performance of European cities and regions against 41 indicators inspired by The 2017 Tallinn Declaration on eGovernment.…(More)”.

Democracy and the Life of Cities

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by the Chicago Council of Global Affairs: “In a world facing what some call a “democratic recession,” cities are getting a reputation as a supposed exception. On the geopolitical level, they have stood up against rising authoritarian and populist leadership in North America and Europe. At times, they have skirted around democratic gridlock and polarization at the national level to confront problems such as climate change, coordinating through city-to-city networks.

This role for cities—as global defenders of democracy—has also garnered interest from national governments wary of the rise of China and Russia, including the United States. But what is it about cities that makes them unique democratic actors? Do they, can they, and should they fit the role projected onto them as global democratic bulwarks? What does local urban action really mean for democracy globally?

This essay collection, published with the German Marshall Fund of the United States, approaches these questions with perspectives from leading urbanists, policymakers, academics, and political leaders in North America, Europe, and Africa. The essays consider cities not merely as places in which democratic action took place, but as the “independent variable,” whose unique spatial, social, and political features make it a powerful and creative generator of democratic practices—and, alternatively, a variable which can also make democracy difficult to realize.

If cities live up to their billing as global democratic bulwarks, it likely won’t be at the behest of powerful national governments seeking a geopolitical edge. Instead, they can do so on the basis of the potholes filled, the garbage collected, and the injustices rectified. And, ultimately, by remaking democracy in their image…(More)”.

Data Sharing Between Public and Private Sectors: When Local Governments Seek Information from the Sharing Economy.

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by the Centre for Information Policy Leadership: “…addresses the growing trend of localities requesting (and sometimes mandating) that data collected by the private sector be shared with the localities themselves. Such requests are generally not in the context of law enforcement or national security matters, but rather are part of an effort to further the public interest or promote a public good.

To the extent such requests are overly broad or not specifically tailored to the stated public interest, CIPL believes that the public sector’s adoption of accountability measures—which CIPL has repeatedly promoted for the private sector—can advance responsible data sharing practices between the two sectors. It can also strengthen the public’s confidence in data-driven initiatives that seek to improve their communities…(More)”.

Future-proofing the city: A human rights-based approach to governing algorithmic, biometric and smart city technologies

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Introduction to Special Issue by Alina Wernick, and Anna Artyushina: “While the GDPR and other EU laws seek to mitigate a range of potential harms associated with smart cities, the compliance with and enforceability of these regulations remain an issue. In addition, these proposed regulations do not sufficiently address the collective harms associated with the deployment of biometric technologies and artificial intelligence. Another relevant question is whether the initiatives put forward to secure fundamental human rights in the digital realm account for the issues brought on by the deployment of technologies in city spaces. In this special issue, we employ the smart city notion as a point of connection for interdisciplinary research on the human rights implications of the algorithmic, biometric and smart city technologies and the policy responses to them. The articles included in the special issue analyse the latest European regulations as well as soft law, and the policy frameworks that are currently at work in the regions where the GDPR does not apply…(More)”.

Slow-governance in smart cities: An empirical study of smart intersection implementation in four US college towns

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Madelyn Rose Sanfilippo and Brett Frischmann: “Cities cannot adopt supposedly smart technological systems and protect human rights without developing appropriate data governance, because technologies are not value-neutral. This paper proposes a deliberative, slow-governance approach to smart tech in cities. Inspired by the Governing Knowledge Commons (GKC) framework and past case studies, we empirically analyse the adoption of smart intersection technologies in four US college towns to evaluate and extend knowledge commons governance approaches to address human rights concerns. Our proposal consists of a set of questions that should guide community decision-making, extending the GKC framework via an incorporation of human-rights impact assessments and a consideration of capabilities approaches to human rights. We argue that such a deliberative, slow-governance approach enables adaptation to local norms and more appropriate community governance of smart tech in cities. By asking and answering key questions throughout smart city planning, procurement, implementation and management processes, cities can respect human rights, interests and expectations…(More)”.

Can Cities Be the Source of Scalable Innovations?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Christof Brandtner: “Systems change to address complex problems, including climate change, is hard to achieve. What little optimism remains to tackle such complex challenges is mostly placed in supranational schemes, such as the COP climate change conferences, or transformational national policy, such as the Green New Deal in the US. Solutions of grand design regularly disappoint, however, because of their high costs, the challenges of translating big plans to local needs, and ongoing disagreement and polarization about what works and what is detrimental.

There is hope on the skyline though. Urban innovation ecosystems can provide an alternative to grand schemes, and cities’ social sectors provide a source of ongoing innovation. Companies like Sidewalk Labs, a subsidiary of Alphabet that develops technologies for sustainable urban design, are transforming business as usual to solve complex urban problems. Social enterprises such as car-sharing programs are changing the nature of urban transportation and providing alternative options to individual car ownership. Through its iconic mobile showers, the San Francisco nonprofit LavaMae has found new ways to serve the homeless in the absence of more radical reforms of affordable housing. And the US Green Building Council (USGBC), an intermediary promoting energy-efficient construction, developed guidelines and rating systems for sustainable cities and neighborhoods.

Promising ideas are in ample supply, but the crucial question is: How can social innovators scale such innovations so that their local impact adds up to big solutions?…(More)”.

An agenda for advancing trusted data collaboration in cities

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by Hannah Chafetz, Sampriti Saxena, Adrienne Schmoeker, Stefaan G. Verhulst, & Andrew J. Zahuranec: “… Joined by experts across several domains including smart cities, the law, and data ecosystem, this effort was focused on developing solutions that could improve the design of Data Sharing Agreements…we assessed what is needed to implement each aspect of our Contractual Wheel of Data Collaboration–a tool developed as a part of the Contracts for Data Collaborations initiative that seeks to capture the elements involved in data collaborations and Data Sharing Agreements.

In what follows, we provide key suggestions from this Action Lab…

  1. The Elements of Principled Negotiations: Those seeking to develop a Data Sharing Agreement often struggle to work with collaborators or agree to common ends. There is a need for a common resource that Data Stewards can use to initiate a principled negotiation process. To address this need, we would identify the principles to inform negotiations and the elements that could help achieve those principles. For example, participants voiced a need for fairness, transparency, and reciprocity principles. These principles could be supported by having a shared language or outlining the minimum legal documents required for each party. The final product would be a checklist or visualization of principles and their associated elements.
  2. Data Responsibility Principles by Design: …
  3. Readiness Matrix: …
  4. A Decision Provenance Approach for Data Collaboration: ..
  5. The Contractual Wheel of Data Collaboration 2.0…
  6. A Repository of Legal Drafting Technologies:…(More)”.