Paper by Ashish Makanadar: “The rapid convergence of urbanization and digital technologies is fundamentally reshaping city governance through data-driven systems. This transformation, however, is largely controlled by surveillance capitalist entities, raising profound concerns for democratic values and citizen rights. As private interests extract behavioral data from public spaces without adequate oversight, the principles of transparency and civic participation are increasingly threatened. This erosion of data sovereignty represents a critical juncture in urban development, demanding urgent interdisciplinary attention. This comment proposes a paradigm shift in urban data governance, advocating for the reclamation of data sovereignty to prioritize community interests over corporate profit motives. The paper explores socio-technical pathways to achieve this goal, focusing on grassroots approaches that assert ‘data dignity’ through privacy-enhancing technologies and digital anonymity tools. It argues for the creation of distributed digital commons as viable alternatives to proprietary data silos, thereby democratizing access to and control over urban data. The discussion extends to long-term strategies, examining the potential of blockchain technologies and decentralized autonomous organizations in enabling self-sovereign data economies. These emerging models offer a vision of ‘crypto-cities’ liberated from extractive data practices, fostering environments where residents retain autonomy over their digital footprints. By critically evaluating these approaches, the paper aims to catalyze a reimagining of smart city technologies aligned with principles of equity, shared prosperity, and citizen empowerment. This realignment is essential for preserving democratic values in an increasingly digitized urban landscape…(More)”.
Setting the Standard: Statistical Agencies’ Unique Role in Building Trustworthy AI
Article by Corinna Turbes: “As our national statistical agencies grapple with new challenges posed by artificial intelligence (AI), many agencies face intense pressure to embrace generative AI as a way to reach new audiences and demonstrate technological relevance. However, the rush to implement generative AI applications risks undermining these agencies’ fundamental role as authoritative data sources. Statistical agencies’ foundational mission—producing and disseminating high-quality, authoritative statistical information—requires a more measured approach to AI adoption.
Statistical agencies occupy a unique and vital position in our data ecosystem, entrusted with creating the reliable statistics that form the backbone of policy decisions, economic planning, and social research. The work of these agencies demands exceptional precision, transparency, and methodological rigor. Implementation of generative AI interfaces, while technologically impressive, could inadvertently compromise the very trust and accuracy that make these agencies indispensable.
While public-facing interfaces play a valuable role in democratizing access to statistical information, statistical agencies need not—and often should not—rely on generative AI to be effective in that effort. For statistical agencies, an extractive AI approach – which retrieves and presents existing information from verified databases rather than generating new content – offers a more appropriate path forward. By pulling from verified, structured datasets and providing precise, accurate responses, extractive AI systems can maintain the high standards of accuracy required while making statistical information more accessible to users who may find traditional databases overwhelming. An extractive, rather than generative, approach allows agencies to modernize data delivery while preserving their core mission of providing reliable, verifiable statistical information…(More)”
Revealed: bias found in AI system used to detect UK benefits fraud
Article by Robert Booth: “An artificial intelligence system used by the UK government to detect welfare fraud is showing bias according to people’s age, disability, marital status and nationality, the Guardian can reveal.
An internal assessment of a machine-learning programme used to vet thousands of claims for universal credit payments across England found it incorrectly selected people from some groups more than others when recommending whom to investigate for possible fraud.
The admission was made in documents released under the Freedom of Information Act by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). The “statistically significant outcome disparity” emerged in a “fairness analysis” of the automated system for universal credit advances carried out in February this year.
The emergence of the bias comes after the DWP this summer claimed the AI system “does not present any immediate concerns of discrimination, unfair treatment or detrimental impact on customers”.
This assurance came in part because the final decision on whether a person gets a welfare payment is still made by a human, and officials believe the continued use of the system – which is attempting to help cut an estimated £8bn a year lost in fraud and error – is “reasonable and proportionate”.
But no fairness analysis has yet been undertaken in respect of potential bias centring on race, sex, sexual orientation and religion, or pregnancy, maternity and gender reassignment status, the disclosures reveal.
Campaigners responded by accusing the government of a “hurt first, fix later” policy and called on ministers to be more open about which groups were likely to be wrongly suspected by the algorithm of trying to cheat the system…(More)”.
Predictability, AI, And Judicial Futurism: Why Robots Will Run The Law And Textualists Will Like It
Paper by Jack Kieffaber: “The question isn’t whether machines are going to replace judges and lawyers—they are. The question is whether that’s a good thing. If you’re a textualist, you have to answer yes. But you won’t—which means you’re not a textualist. Sorry.
Hypothetical: The year is 2030. AI has far eclipsed the median federal jurist as a textual interpreter. A new country is founded; it’s a democratic republic that uses human legislators to write laws and programs a state-sponsored Large Language Model called “Judge.AI” to apply those laws to facts. The model makes judicial decisions as to conduct on the back end, but can also provide advisory opinions on the front end; if a citizen types in his desired action and hits “enter,” Judge.AI will tell him, ex ante, exactly what it would decide ex post if the citizen were to perform the action and be prosecuted. The primary result is perfect predictability; secondary results include the abolition of case law, the death of common law, and the replacement of all judges—indeed, all lawyers—by a single machine. Don’t fight the hypothetical, assume it works. This article poses the question: Is that a utopia or a dystopia?
If you answer dystopia, you cannot be a textualist. Part I of this article establishes why: Because predictability is textualism’s only lodestar, and Judge.AI is substantially more predictable than any regime operating today. Part II-A dispatches rebuttals premised on positive nuances of the American system; such rebuttals forget that my hypothetical presumes a new nation and take for granted how much of our nation’s founding was premised on mitigating exactly the kinds of human error that Judge.AI would eliminate. And Part II-B dispatches normative rebuttals, which ultimately amount to moral arguments about objective good—which are none of the textualist’s business.
When the dust clears, you have only two choices: You’re a moralist, or you’re a formalist. If you’re the former, you’ll need a complete account of the objective good—which has evaded man for his entire existence. If you’re the latter, you should relish the fast-approaching day when all laws and all lawyers are usurped by a tin box. But you’re going to say you’re something in between. And you’re not…(More)”
AI, huge hacks leave consumers facing a perfect storm of privacy perils
Article by Joseph Menn: “Hackers are using artificial intelligence to mine unprecedented troves of personal information dumped online in the past year, along with unregulated commercial databases, to trick American consumers and even sophisticated professionals into giving up control of bank and corporate accounts.
Armed with sensitive health information, calling records and hundreds of millions of Social Security numbers, criminals and operatives of countries hostile to the United States are crafting emails, voice calls and texts that purport to come from government officials, co-workers or relatives needing help, or familiar financial organizations trying to protect accounts instead of draining them.
“There is so much data out there that can be used for phishing and password resets that it has reduced overall security for everyone, and artificial intelligence has made it much easier to weaponize,” said Ashkan Soltani, executive director of the California Privacy Protection Agency, the only such state-level agency.
The losses reported to the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center nearly tripled from 2020 to 2023, to $12.5 billion, and a number of sensitive breaches this year have only increased internet insecurity. The recently discovered Chinese government hacks of U.S. telecommunications companies AT&T, Verizon and others, for instance, were deemed so serious that government officials are being told not to discuss sensitive matters on the phone, some of those officials said in interviews. A Russian ransomware gang’s breach of Change Healthcare in February captured data on millions of Americans’ medical conditions and treatments, and in August, a small data broker, National Public Data, acknowledged that it had lost control of hundreds of millions of Social Security numbers and addresses now being sold by hackers.
Meanwhile, the capabilities of artificial intelligence are expanding at breakneck speed. “The risks of a growing surveillance industry are only heightened by AI and other forms of predictive decision-making, which are fueled by the vast datasets that data brokers compile,” U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Director Rohit Chopra said in September…(More)”.
Why ‘open’ AI systems are actually closed, and why this matters
Paper by David Gray Widder, Meredith Whittaker & Sarah Myers West: “This paper examines ‘open’ artificial intelligence (AI). Claims about ‘open’ AI often lack precision, frequently eliding scrutiny of substantial industry concentration in large-scale AI development and deployment, and often incorrectly applying understandings of ‘open’ imported from free and open-source software to AI systems. At present, powerful actors are seeking to shape policy using claims that ‘open’ AI is either beneficial to innovation and democracy, on the one hand, or detrimental to safety, on the other. When policy is being shaped, definitions matter. To add clarity to this debate, we examine the basis for claims of openness in AI, and offer a material analysis of what AI is and what ‘openness’ in AI can and cannot provide: examining models, data, labour, frameworks, and computational power. We highlight three main affordances of ‘open’ AI, namely transparency, reusability, and extensibility, and we observe that maximally ‘open’ AI allows some forms of oversight and experimentation on top of existing models. However, we find that openness alone does not perturb the concentration of power in AI. Just as many traditional open-source software projects were co-opted in various ways by large technology companies, we show how rhetoric around ‘open’ AI is frequently wielded in ways that exacerbate rather than reduce concentration of power in the AI sector…(More)”.
Can AI review the scientific literature — and figure out what it all means?
Article by Helen Pearson: “When Sam Rodriques was a neurobiology graduate student, he was struck by a fundamental limitation of science. Even if researchers had already produced all the information needed to understand a human cell or a brain, “I’m not sure we would know it”, he says, “because no human has the ability to understand or read all the literature and get a comprehensive view.”
Five years later, Rodriques says he is closer to solving that problem using artificial intelligence (AI). In September, he and his team at the US start-up FutureHouse announced that an AI-based system they had built could, within minutes, produce syntheses of scientific knowledge that were more accurate than Wikipedia pages1. The team promptly generated Wikipedia-style entries on around 17,000 human genes, most of which previously lacked a detailed page.How AI-powered science search engines can speed up your research
Rodriques is not the only one turning to AI to help synthesize science. For decades, scholars have been trying to accelerate the onerous task of compiling bodies of research into reviews. “They’re too long, they’re incredibly intensive and they’re often out of date by the time they’re written,” says Iain Marshall, who studies research synthesis at King’s College London. The explosion of interest in large language models (LLMs), the generative-AI programs that underlie tools such as ChatGPT, is prompting fresh excitement about automating the task…(More)”.
AI adoption in the public sector
Two studies from the Joint Research Centre: “…delve into the factors that influence the adoption of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in public sector organisations.
A first report analyses a survey conducted among 574 public managers across seven EU countries, identifying what are currently the main drivers of AI adoption and providing 3 key recommendations to practitioners.
Strong expertise and various organisational factors emerge as key contributors for AI adoptions, and a second study sheds light on the essential competences and governance practices required for the effective adoption and usage of AI in the public sector across Europe…
The study finds that AI adoption is no longer a promise for public administration, but a reality, particularly in service delivery and internal operations and to a lesser extent in policy decision-making. It also highlights the importance of organisational factors such as leadership support, innovative culture, clear AI strategy, and in-house expertise in fostering AI adoption. Anticipated citizen needs are also identified as a key external factor driving AI adoption.
Based on these findings, the report offers three policy recommendations. First, it suggests paying attention to AI and digitalisation in leadership programmes, organisational development and strategy building. Second, it recommends broadening in-house expertise on AI, which should include not only technical expertise, but also expertise on ethics, governance, and law. Third, the report advises monitoring (for instance through focus groups and surveys) and exchanging on citizen needs and levels of readiness for digital improvements in government service delivery…(More)”.
AI Investment Potential Index: Mapping Global Opportunities for Sustainable Development
Paper by AFD: “…examines the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) investment to drive sustainable development across diverse national contexts. By evaluating critical factors, including AI readiness, social inclusion, human capital, and macroeconomic conditions, we construct a nuanced and comprehensive analysis of the global AI landscape. Employing advanced statistical techniques and machine learning algorithms, we identify nations with significant untapped potential for AI investment.
We introduce the AI Investment Potential Index (AIIPI), a novel instrument designed to guide financial institutions, development banks, and governments in making informed, strategic AI investment decisions. The AIIPI synthesizes metrics of AI readiness with socio-economic indicators to identify and highlight opportunities for fostering inclusive and sustainable growth. The methodological novelty lies in the weight selection process, which combines statistical modeling and also an entropy-based weighting approach. Furthermore, we provide detailed policy implications to support stakeholders in making targeted investments aimed at reducing disparities and advancing equitable technological development…(More)”.
NegotiateAI
About: “The NegotiateAI app is designed to streamline access to critical information on the UN Plastic Treaty Negotiations to develop a legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including the marine environment. It offers a comprehensive, centralized database of documents submitted by member countries available here, along with an extensive collection of supporting resources, including reports, research papers, and policy briefs. You can find more information about the NegotiateAI project on our website…The Interactive Treaty Assistant simplifies the search and analysis of documents by INC members, enabling negotiators and other interested parties to quickly pinpoint crucial information. With an intuitive interface, The Interactive Treaty Assistant supports treaty-specific queries and provides direct links to relevant documents for deeper research…(More)”.