Paper by Eric Martínez, Francis Mollica and Edward Gibson: “Whereas principles of communicative efficiency and legal doctrine dictate that laws be comprehensible to the common world, empirical evidence suggests legal documents are largely incomprehensible to lawyers and laypeople alike. Here, a corpus analysis (n = 59) million words) first replicated and extended prior work revealing laws to contain strikingly higher rates of complex syntactic structures relative to six baseline genres of English. Next, two preregistered text generation experiments (n = 286) tested two leading hypotheses regarding how these complex structures enter into legal documents in the first place. In line with the magic spell hypothesis, we found people tasked with writing official laws wrote in a more convoluted manner than when tasked with writing unofficial legal texts of equivalent conceptual complexity. Contrary to the copy-and-edit hypothesis, we did not find evidence that people editing a legal document wrote in a more convoluted manner than when writing the same document from scratch. From a cognitive perspective, these results suggest law to be a rare exception to the general tendency in human language toward communicative efficiency. In particular, these findings indicate law’s complexity to be derived from its performativity, whereby low-frequency structures may be inserted to signal law’s authoritative, world-state-altering nature, at the cost of increased processing demands on readers. From a law and policy perspective, these results suggest that the tension between the ubiquity and impenetrability of the law is not an inherent one, and that laws can be simplified without a loss or distortion of communicative content…(More)”.
Policy Fit for the Future
Primer by the Australian Government: “The Futures Primer is part of the “Policy Fit for the Future” project, building Australian Public Service capability to use futures techniques in policymaking through horizon scanning, visioning and scenario planning. These tools help anticipate and navigate future risks and opportunities.
The tools and advice can be adapted to any policy challenge, and reflect the views of global experts in futures and strategic foresight, both within and outside the APS…The Futures Primer offers a range of flexible tools and advice that can be adapted to any policy challenge. It reflects the views of global experts in futures and strategic foresight, both within and outside the APS…(More)”.
Regulating the Direction of Innovation
Paper by Joshua S. Gans: “This paper examines the regulation of technological innovation direction under uncertainty about potential harms. We develop a model with two competing technological paths and analyze various regulatory interventions. Our findings show that market forces tend to inefficiently concentrate research on leading paths. We demonstrate that ex post regulatory instruments, particularly liability regimes, outperform ex ante restrictions in most scenarios. The optimal regulatory approach depends critically on the magnitude of potential harm relative to technological benefits. Our analysis reveals subtle insurance motives in resource allocation across research paths, challenging common intuitions about diversification. These insights have important implications for regulating emerging technologies like artificial intelligence, suggesting the need for flexible, adaptive regulatory frameworks…(More)”.
Governments Empower Citizens by Promoting Digital Rights
Article by Julia Edinger: “The rapid rise of digital services and smart city technology has elevated concerns about privacy in the digital age and government’s role, even as cities from California to Texas take steps to make constituents aware of their digital rights.
Earlier this month, Long Beach, Calif., launched an improved version of its Digital Rights Platform, which shows constituents their data privacy and digital rights and information about how the city uses technologies while protecting digital rights.
“People’s digital rights are no different from their human or civil rights, except that they’re applied to how they interact with digital technologies — when you’re online, you’re still entitled to every right you enjoy offline,” said Will Greenberg, staff technologist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), in a written statement. The nonprofit organization defends civil liberties in the digital world.
Long Beach’s platform initially launched several years ago, to mitigate privacy concerns that came out of the 2020 launch of a smart city initiative, according to Long Beach CIO Lea Eriksen. When that initiative debuted, the Department of Innovation and Technology requested the City Council approve a set of data privacy guidelines to ensure digital rights would be protected, setting the stage for the initial platform launch. Its 2021 beta version has now been enhanced to offer information on 22 city technology uses, up from two, and an enhanced feedback module enabling continued engagement and platform improvements…(More)”.
Harnessing Technology for Inclusive Prosperity
Book edited by Brahima Sangafowa Coulibaly and Zia Qureshi: “Transformative new technologies are reshaping economies and societies. But as they create new opportunities, they also pose new challenges, not least of which is rising inequality. Increased disparities and related anxieties are stoking societal discontent and political ferment. Harnessing technological transformation in ways that foster its benefits, contain risks, and build inclusive prosperity is a major public policy challenge of our time and one that motivates this book.
In what ways are the new technologies altering markets, business models, work, and, in turn, economic growth and income distribution? How are they affecting inequality within advanced and emerging economies and the prospects for economic convergence between them? What are the implications for public policy? What new thinking and adaptations are needed to realign institutions and policies, at national and global levels, with the new dynamics of the digital era?
This book addresses these questions. It seeks to promote ideas and actions to manage digital transformation and the latest advances in artificial intelligence with foresight and purpose to shape a more prosperous and inclusive future…(More)”
Is peer review failing its peer review?
Article by First Principles: “Ivan Oransky doesn’t sugar-coat his answer when asked about the state of academic peer review: “Things are pretty bad.”
As a distinguished journalist in residence at New York University and co-founder of Retraction Watch – a site that chronicles the growing number of papers being retracted from academic journals – Oransky is better positioned than just about anyone to make such a blunt assessment.
He elaborates further, citing a range of factors contributing to the current state of affairs. These include the publish-or-perish mentality, chatbot ghostwriting, predatory journals, plagiarism, an overload of papers, a shortage of reviewers, and weak incentives to attract and retain reviewers.
“Things are pretty bad and they have been bad for some time because the incentives are completely misaligned,” Oranksy told FirstPrinciples in a call from his NYU office.
Things are so bad that a new world record was set in 2023: more than 10,000 research papers were retracted from academic journals. In a troubling development, 19 journals closed after being inundated by a barrage of fake research from so-called “paper mills” that churn out the scientific equivalent of clickbait, and one scientist holds the current record of 213 retractions to his name.
“The numbers don’t lie: Scientific publishing has a problem, and it’s getting worse,” Oransky and Retraction Watch co-founder Adam Marcus wrote in a recent opinion piece for The Washington Post. “Vigilance against fraudulent or defective research has always been necessary, but in recent years the sheer amount of suspect material has threatened to overwhelm publishers.”..(More)”.
Illuminating ‘the ugly side of science’: fresh incentives for reporting negative results
Article by Rachel Brazil: “Editor-in-chief Sarahanne Field describes herself and her team at the Journal of Trial & Error as wanting to highlight the “ugly side of science — the parts of the process that have gone wrong”.
She clarifies that the editorial board of the journal, which launched in 2020, isn’t interested in papers in which “you did a shitty study and you found nothing. We’re interested in stuff that was done methodologically soundly, but still yielded a result that was unexpected.” These types of result — which do not prove a hypothesis or could yield unexplained outcomes — often simply go unpublished, explains Field, who is also an open-science researcher at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands. Along with Stefan Gaillard, one of the journal’s founders, she hopes to change that.
Calls for researchers to publish failed studies are not new. The ‘file-drawer problem’ — the stacks of unpublished, negative results that most researchers accumulate — was first described in 1979 by psychologist Robert Rosenthal. He argued that this leads to publication bias in the scientific record: the gap of missing unsuccessful results leads to overemphasis on the positive results that do get published…(More)”.
Rethinking Dual-Use Technology
Article by Artur Kluz and Stefaan Verhulst: “A new concept of “triple use” — where technology serves commercial, defense, and peacebuilding purposes — may offer a breakthrough solution for founders, investors and society to explore….
As a result of the resurgence of geopolitical tensions, the debate about the applications of dual-use technology is intensifying. The core issue founders, tech entrepreneurs, venture capitalists (VCs), and limited partner investors (LPs) are examining is whether commercial technologies should increasingly be re-used for military purposes. Traditionally, the majority of investors (including limited partners) have prohibited dual-use tech in their agreements. However, the rapidly growing dual-use market, with its substantial addressable size and growth potential, is compelling all stakeholders to reconsider this stance. The pressure for innovations, capital returns and Return On Investment (ROI) is driving the need for a solution.
These discussions are fraught with moral complexity, but they also present an opportunity to rethink the dual-use paradigm and foster investment in technologies aimed at supporting peace. A new concept of “triple use”— where technology serves commercial, defense, and peacebuilding purposes — may offer an innovative and more positive avenue for founders, investors and society to explore. This additional re-use, which remains in an incipient state, is increasingly being referred to as PeaceTech. By integrating terms dedicated to PeaceTech in new and existing investment and LP agreements, tech companies, founders and venture capital investors can be also required to apply their technology for peacebuilding purposes. This approach can expand the applications of emerging technologies to also include conflict prevention, reconstruction or any humanitarian aspects.
However, current efforts to use technologies for peacebuilding are impeded by various obstacles, including a lack of awareness within the tech sector and among investors, limited commercial interest, disparities in technical capacity, privacy concerns, international relations and political complexities. In the below we examine some of these challenges, while also exploring certain avenues for overcoming them — including approaching technologies for peace as a “triple use” application. We will especially try to identify examples of how tech companies, tech entrepreneurs, accelerators, and tech investors including VCs and LPs can commercially benefit and support “triple use” technologies. Ultimately, we argue, the vast potential — largely untapped — of “triple use” technologies calls for a new wave of tech ecosystem transformation and public and private investments as well as the development of a new field of research…(More)”.
Policy fit for the future: the Australian Government Futures primer
Primer by Will Hartigan and Arthur Horobin: “Futures is a systematic exploration of probable, possible and preferable future developments to inform present-day policy, strategy and decision-making. It uses multiple plausible scenarios of the future to anticipate and make sense of disruptive change. It is also known as strategic foresight...
This primer provides an overview of Futures methodologies and their practical application to policy development and advice. It is a first step for policy teams and officers interested in Futures: providing you with a range of flexible tools, ideas and advice you can adapt to your own policy challenges and environments.
This primer was developed by the Policy Projects and Taskforce Office in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. We have drawn on expertise from inside and outside of government –including through our project partners, the Futures Hub at the National Security College in the Australian National University.
This primer has been written by policy officers, for policy officers –with a focus on practical and tested approaches that can support you to create policy fit for the future…(More)”.
Automating public services
Report by Anna Dent: “…Public bodies, under financial stress and looking for effective solutions, are at risk of jumping on the automation bandwagon without critically assessing whether it’s actually appropriate for their needs, and whether the potential benefits outweigh the risks. To realise the benefits of automation and minimise problems for communities and public bodies themselves, a clear-eyed approach which really gets to grips with the risks is needed.
The temptation to introduce automation to tackle complex social challenges is strong; they are often deep-rooted and expensive to deal with, and can have life-long implications for individuals and communities. But precisely because of their complex nature they are not the best fit for rules-based automated processes, which may fail to deliver what they set out to achieve.
Bias is increasingly recognised as a critical challenge with automation in the public sector. Bias can be introduced through training data, and can occur when automated tools are disproportionately used on a particular community. In either case, the effectiveness of the tool or process is undermined, and citizens are at risk of discrimination, unfair targeting and exclusion from services.
Automated tools and processes rely on huge amounts of data; in public services this will often mean personal information and data about us and our lives which we may or may not feel comfortable being used. Balancing everyone’s right to privacy with the desire for efficiency and better outcomes is rarely straightforward, and if done badly can lead to a breakdown in trust…(More)”.