Paper by Milton L. Mueller: “What we now lump under the unitary label “artificial intelligence” is not a single technology, but a highly varied set of machine learning applications enabled and supported by a globally ubiquitous system of distributed computing. The paper introduces a 4 part conceptual framework for analyzing the structure of that system, which it labels the digital ecosystem. What we now call “AI” is then shown to be a general functionality of distributed computing. “AI” has been present in primitive forms from the origins of digital computing in the 1950s. Three short case studies show that large-scale machine learning applications have been present in the digital ecosystem ever since the rise of the Internet. and provoked the same public policy concerns that we now associate with “AI.” The governance problems of “AI” are really caused by the development of this digital ecosystem, not by LLMs or other recent applications of machine learning. The paper then examines five recent proposals to “govern AI” and maps them to the constituent elements of the digital ecosystem model. This mapping shows that real-world attempts to assert governance authority over AI capabilities requires systemic control of all four elements of the digital ecosystem: data, computing power, networks and software. “Governing AI,” in other words, means total control of distributed computing. A better alternative is to focus governance and regulation upon specific applications of machine learning. An application-specific approach to governance allows for a more decentralized, freer and more effective method of solving policy conflicts…(More)”
Network architecture for global AI policy
Article by Cameron F. Kerry, Joshua P. Meltzer, Andrea Renda, and Andrew W. Wyckoff: “We see efforts to consolidate international AI governance as premature and ill-suited to respond to the immense, complex, novel, challenges of governing advanced AI, and the current diverse and decentralized efforts as beneficial and the best fit for this complex and rapidly developing technology.
Exploring the vast terra incognita of AI, realizing its opportunities, and managing its risks requires governance that can adapt and respond rapidly to AI risks as they emerge, develop deep understanding of the technology and its implications, and mobilize diverse resources and initiatives to address the growing global demand for access to AI. No one government or body will have the capacity to take on these challenges without building multiple coalitions and working closely with experts and institutions in industry, philanthropy, civil society, and the academy.
A distributed network of networks can more effectively address the challenges and opportunities of AI governance than a centralized system. Like the architecture of the interconnected information technology systems on which AI depends, such a decentralized system can bring to bear redundancy, resiliency, and diversity by channeling the functions of AI governance toward the most timely and effective pathways in iterative and diversified processes, providing agility against setbacks or failures at any single point. These multiple centers of effort can harness the benefit of network effects and parallel processing.
We explore this model of distributed and iterative AI governance below…(More)”.
Empowering open data sharing for social good: a privacy-aware approach
Paper by Tânia Carvalho et al: “The Covid-19 pandemic has affected the world at multiple levels. Data sharing was pivotal for advancing research to understand the underlying causes and implement effective containment strategies. In response, many countries have facilitated access to daily cases to support research initiatives, fostering collaboration between organisations and making such data available to the public through open data platforms. Despite the several advantages of data sharing, one of the major concerns before releasing health data is its impact on individuals’ privacy. Such a sharing process should adhere to state-of-the-art methods in Data Protection by Design and by Default. In this paper, we use a Covid-19 data set from Portugal’s second-largest hospital to show how it is feasible to ensure data privacy while improving the quality and maintaining the utility of the data. Our goal is to demonstrate how knowledge exchange in multidisciplinary teams of healthcare practitioners, data privacy, and data science experts is crucial to co-developing strategies that ensure high utility in de-identified data…(More).”
Call to make tech firms report data centre energy use as AI booms
Article by Sandra Laville: “Tech companies should be required by law to report the energy and water consumption for their data centres, as the boom in AI risks causing irreparable damage to the environment, experts have said.
AI is growing at a rate unparalleled by other energy systems, bringing heightened environmental risk, a report by the National Engineering Policy Centre (NEPC) said.
The report calls for the UK government to make tech companies submit mandatory reports on their energy and water consumption and carbon emissions in order to set conditions in which data centres are designed to use fewer vital resources…(More)”.
The new politics of AI
Report by the IPPR: AI is fundamentally different from other technologies – it is set to unleash a vast number of highly sophisticated ‘artificial agents’ into the economy. AI systems that can take actions and make decisions are not just tools – they are actors. This can be a good thing. But it requires a novel type of policymaking and politics. Merely accelerating AI deployment and hoping it will deliver public value will likely be insufficient.
In this briefing, we outline how the summit constitutes the first event of a new era of AI policymaking that links AI policy to delivering public value. We argue that AI needs to be directed towards societies’ goals, via ‘mission-based policies’….(More)”.
Data Stewardship Decoded: Mapping Its Diverse Manifestations and Emerging Relevance at a time of AI
Paper by Stefaan Verhulst: “Data stewardship has become a critical component of modern data governance, especially with the growing use of artificial intelligence (AI). Despite its increasing importance, the concept of data stewardship remains ambiguous and varies in its application. This paper explores four distinct manifestations of data stewardship to clarify its emerging position in the data governance landscape. These manifestations include a) data stewardship as a set of competencies and skills, b) a function or role within organizations, c) an intermediary organization facilitating collaborations, and d) a set of guiding principles.
The paper subsequently outlines the core competencies required for effective data stewardship, explains the distinction between data stewards and Chief Data Officers (CDOs), and details the intermediary role of stewards in bridging gaps between data holders and external stakeholders. It also explores key principles aligned with the FAIR framework (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) and introduces the emerging principle of AI readiness to ensure data meets the ethical and technical requirements of AI systems.
The paper emphasizes the importance of data stewardship in enhancing data collaboration, fostering public value, and managing data reuse responsibly, particularly in the era of AI. It concludes by identifying challenges and opportunities for advancing data stewardship, including the need for standardized definitions, capacity building efforts, and the creation of a professional association for data stewardship…(More)”
Enhancing Access to and Sharing of Data in the Age of Artificial Intelligence
OECD Report: “Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming economies and societies, but its full potential is hindered by poor access to quality data and models. Based on comprehensive country examples, the OECD report “Enhancing Access to and Sharing of Data in the Age of AI” highlights how governments can enhance access to and sharing of data and certain AI models, while ensuring privacy and other rights and interests such as intellectual property rights. It highlights the OECD Recommendation on Enhancing Access to and Sharing of Data, which provides principles to balance openness while ensuring effective legal, technical and organisational safeguards. This policy brief highlights the key findings of the report and their relevance for stakeholders seeking to promote trustworthy AI through better policies for data and AI models that drive trust, investment, innovation, and well-being….(More)”
Cities, health, and the big data revolution
Blog by Harvard Public Health: “Cities influence our health in unexpected ways. From sidewalks to crosswalks, the built environment affects how much we move, impacting our risk for diseases like obesity and diabetes. A recent New York City study underscores that focusing solely on infrastructure, without understanding how people use it, can lead to ineffective interventions. Researchers analyzed over two million Google Street View images, combining them with health and demographic data to reveal these dynamics. Harvard Public Health spoke with Rumi Chunara, director of New York University’s Center for Health Data Science and lead author of the study.
Why study this topic?
We’re seeing an explosion of new data sources, like street-view imagery, being used to make decisions. But there’s often a disconnect—people using these tools don’t always have the public health knowledge to interpret the data correctly. We wanted to highlight the importance of combining data science and domain expertise to ensure interventions are accurate and impactful.
What did you find?
We discovered that the relationship between built environment features and health outcomes isn’t straightforward. It’s not just about having sidewalks; it’s about how often people are using them. Improving physical activity levels in a community could have a far greater impact on health outcomes than simply adding more infrastructure.
It also revealed the importance of understanding the local context. For instance, Google Street View data sometimes misclassifies sidewalks, particularly near highways or bridges, leading to inaccurate conclusions. Relying solely on this data, without accounting for these nuances, could result in less effective interventions…(More)”.
Tech tycoons have got the economics of AI wrong
The Economist: “…The Jevons paradox—the idea that efficiency leads to more use of a resource, not less—has in recent days provided comfort to Silicon Valley titans worried about the impact of DeepSeek, the maker of a cheap and efficient Chinese chatbot, which threatens the more powerful but energy-guzzling American varieties. Satya Nadella, the boss of Microsoft, posted on X, a social-media platform, that “Jevons paradox strikes again! As AI gets more efficient and accessible, we will see its use skyrocket, turning it into a commodity we just can’t get enough of,” along with a link to the Wikipedia page for the economic principle. Under this logic, DeepSeek’s progress will mean more demand for data centres, Nvidia chips and even the nuclear reactors that the hyperscalers were, prior to the unveiling of DeepSeek, paying to restart. Nothing to worry about if the price falls, Microsoft can make it up on volume.
The logic, however self-serving, has a ring of truth to it. Jevons’s paradox is real and observable in a range of other markets. Consider the example of lighting. William Nordhaus, a Nobel-prizewinning economist, has calculated that a Babylonian oil lamp, powered by sesame oil, produced about 0.06 lumens of light per watt of energy. That compares with up to 110 lumens for a modern light-emitting diode. The world has not responded to this dramatic improvement in energy efficiency by enjoying the same amount of light as a Babylonian at lower cost. Instead, it has banished darkness completely, whether through more bedroom lamps than could have been imagined in ancient Mesopotamia or the Las Vegas sphere, which provides passersby with the chance to see a 112-metre-tall incandescent emoji. Urban light is now so cheap and so abundant that many consider it to be a pollutant.
Likewise, more efficient chatbots could mean that AI finds new uses (some no doubt similarly obnoxious). The ability of DeepSeek’s model to perform about as well as more compute-hungry American AI shows that data centres are more productive than previously thought, rather than less. Expect, the logic goes, more investment in data centres and so on than you did before.
Although this idea should provide tech tycoons with some solace, they still ought to worry. The Jevons paradox is a form of a broader phenomenon known as “rebound effects”. These are typically not large enough to fully offset savings from improved efficiency….Basing the bull case for AI on the Jevons paradox is, therefore, a bet not on the efficiency of the technology but on the level of demand. If adoption is being held back by price then efficiency gains will indeed lead to greater use. If technological progress raises expectations rather than reduces costs, as is typical in health care, then chatbots will make up an ever larger proportion of spending. At the moment, that looks unlikely. America’s Census Bureau finds that only 5% of American firms currently use AI and 7% have plans to adopt it in the future. Many others find the tech difficult to use or irrelevant to their line of business…(More)”.
Unlocking AI’s potential for the public sector
Article by Ruth Kelly: “…Government needs to work on its digital foundations. The extent of legacy IT systems across government is huge. Many were designed and built for a previous business era, and still rely on paper-based processes. Historic neglect and a lack of asset maintenance has added to the difficulty. Because many systems are not compatible, sharing data across systems requires manual extraction which is risky and costly. All this adds to problems with data quality. Government suffers from data which is incomplete, inconsistent, inaccessible, difficult to process and not easily shareable. A lack of common data models, both between and within government departments, makes it difficult and costly to combine different sources of data, and significant manual effort is required to make data usable. Some departments have told us that they spend 60% to 80% of their time on cleaning data when carrying out analysis.
Why is this an issue for AI? Large volumes of good-quality data are important for training, testing and deploying AI models. Poor data leads to poor outcomes, especially where it involves personal data. Access to good-quality data was identified as a barrier to implementing AI by 62% of the 87 government bodies responding to our survey. Simple productivity improvements that provide integration with routine administration (for example summarising documents) is already possible, but integration with big, established legacy IT is a whole other long-term endeavour. Layering new technology on top of existing systems, and reusing poor-quality and aging data, carries the risk of magnifying problems and further embedding reliance on legacy systems…(More)”