Paper by Nardine Alnemr: “Algorithms are used to calculate and govern varying aspects of public life for efficient use of the vast data available about citizens. Assuming that algorithms are neutral and efficient in data-based decision making, algorithms are used in areas such as criminal justice and welfare. This has ramifications on the ideal of democratic self-government as algorithmic decisions are made without democratic deliberation, scrutiny or justification. In the book Democracy without Shortcuts, Cristina Lafont argued against “shortcutting” democratic self-government. Lafont’s critique of shortcuts turns to problematise taken-for-granted practices in democracies that bypass citizen inclusion and equality in authoring decisions governing public life. In this article, I extend Lafont’s argument to another shortcut: the algocratic shortcut. The democratic harms attributable to the algocratic shortcut include diminishing the role of voice in politics and reducing opportunities for civic engagement. In this article, I define the algocratic shortcut and discuss the democratic harms of this shortcut, its relation to other shortcuts to democracy and the limitations of using shortcuts to remedy algocratic harms. Finally, I reflect on remedy through “aspirational deliberation”…(More)”.
PeaceTech: Digital Transformation to End War
Book by Christine Bell: “Why are we willing to believe that technology can bring about war… but not peace?
PeaceTech: Digital Transformation to End Wars is the world’s first book dealing with the use of technological innovation to support peace and transition processes. Through an interwoven narrative of personal stories that capture the complexity of real-time peace negotiation, Bell maps the fast-paced developments of PeaceTech, and the ethical and practical challenges involved.
Bell locates PeaceTech within the wider digital revolution that is also transforming the conduct of war. She lays bare the ‘double disruption’ of peace processes, through digital transformation, and through changing conflict patterns that make processes more difficult to mount. Against this backdrop – can digital peacebuilding be a force for good? Or do the risks outweigh the benefits?
PeaceTech provides a 12-Step Manifesto laying out the types of practice and commitment needed for successful use of digital tools to support peace processes. This open access book will be invaluable primer for business tech entrepreneurs, peacebuilders, the tech community, and students of international relations, informatics, comparative politics, ethics and law; and indeed for those simply curious about peace process innovation in the contemporary world…(More)”.
Zero-Problem Philanthropy
Article by Christian Seelos: “…problem-solving approaches often overlook the dynamics of problem supply, the ongoing creation of problems. This is apparent in daily news reports, which indicate that our societies generate both new and old problems at a faster rate than we can ever hope to solve them. Even solutions that “work” can have negative side-effects that then generate new problems. Climate change as an undesirable side-effect of the fantastic innovation of using fossil fuels for energy is an example. The live-saving invention of antibiotics has created mutated bacteria that now resist treatments. Indebted households, violence against poor women, and alcoholism can be the side-effect of providing innovative microfinance solutions that are well intended. These side effects require additional solutions that are often urgent and costly, leading to a never-ending cycle of problems and solutions.
Unfortunately, our blind faith in solutions and the capabilities of new technologies can lead to a careless attitude towards creating problems. We tend to overlook the importance of problems as indicators of deeper issues, instead glorifying the innovators and their solutions. This mindset can be problematic, as it reduces our role as philanthropists to playing catch-up and fails to acknowledge the possibility of fundamental flaws in our approach.
Russell Ackoff, a pioneering systems thinker and organization scholar, famously described the dangers of thinking in terms of problem-solving because “we walk into the future facing the past—we move away from, rather than toward, something. This often results in unforeseen consequences that are more distasteful than the deficiencies removed.” Ackoff highlights our tendency to be reactive rather than proactive in addressing social problems. What would it take to shift from a reactive, past-oriented solution perspective to a proactive philanthropy oriented towards a healthy future that does not create so many problems?…(More)”.
Think, before you nudge: those who pledge to eco-friendly diets respond more effectively to a nudge
Article (and paper) by Sanchayan Banerjee: “We appreciate the incredible array of global cuisines available to us. Despite the increasing prices, we enjoy a wide variety of food options, including an abundance of meats that our grandparents could only dream of, given their limited access. However, this diverse culinary landscape comes with a price – the current food choices significantly contribute to carbon emissions and conflict with our climate objectives. Therefore, transitioning towards more eco-friendly diets is crucial.
Instead of imposing strict measures or raising costs, researchers have employed subtle “nudges”, those that gently steer individuals toward socially beneficial choices, to reduce meat consumption. These nudges aim to modify how food choices are presented to consumers without imposing choices on them. Nevertheless, expanding the use of these nudges has proven to be a complex task in general, as it sometimes raises ethical concerns about whether people are fully aware of the messages encouraging them to change their behaviour. In the context of diets which are personal, researchers have argued nudging can be ethically dubious. What business do we have in telling people what to eat?
To address these challenges, a novel approach in behavioral science, known as “nudge+”, can empower individuals to reflect on their choices and encourage meaningful shifts towards more environmentally friendly behaviours. A nudge+ is a combination of a nudge with an encouragement to think…(More)”.
From Data to Decision Intelligence: The Potential of Decision Accelerator Labs
Article by Stefaan G. Verhulst: “We live at a moment of perhaps unprecedented global upheaval. From climate change to pandemics, from war to political disharmony, misinformation, and growing social inequality, policy and social change-makers today face not only new challenges but new types of challenges. In our increasingly complex and interconnected world, existing systems and institutions of governance, marked by hierarchical decision-making, are increasingly being replaced by overlapping nodes of multi-sector decision-making.
Data is proving critical to these new forms of decision-making, along with associated (and emerging) phenomena such as advanced analytics, machine learning, and artificial intelligence. Yet while the importance of data intelligence for policymakers is now widely recognized, there remain multiple challenges to operationalizing that insight–i.e., to move from data intelligence to decision intelligence.
In what follows, we explain what we mean by decision intelligence, and discuss why it matters. We then present six obstacles to better decision intelligence–challenges that prevent policymakers and others from translating insights into action. Finally, we end by offering one possible solution to these challenges: the concept of decision accelerator labs, operating on a hub and spoke model, and offering an innovative, interdisciplinary platform to facilitate the development of evidence-based, targeted solutions to public problems and dilemmas…(More)”.
Deliberation is no silver bullet for the ‘problem’ of populism
Article by Kristof Jacobs: “Populists are not satisfied with the way democracy works nowadays. They do not reject liberal democracy outright, but want it to change. Indeed, they feel the political elite is unresponsive. Not surprisingly, then, populist parties thrive in settings where there is widespread feeling that politicians do not listen to the people.
What if… decision-makers gave citizens a voice in the decision-making process? In fact, this is happening across the globe. Democratic innovations, that is: decision-making processes that aim to deepen citizens’ participation and engagement in political decision-making, are ever more popular. They come in many shapes and forms, such as referendums, deliberative mini-publics or participatory budgeting. Deliberative democratic innovations in particular are popular, as is evidenced by the many nation-level citizens’ assemblies on climate change. We have seen such assemblies not only in France, but also in the UK, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, Denmark, Spain and Austria.
Several prominent scholars of deliberation contend that deliberation promotes considered judgment and counteracts populism
Scholars of deliberation are optimistic about the potential of such deliberative events. In one often-cited piece in Science, several prominent scholars of deliberation contend that ‘[d]eliberation promotes considered judgment and counteracts populism’.
But is that optimism warranted? What does the available empirical research tell us? To examine this, one must distinguish between populist citizens and populist parties…(More)”.
Towards a Considered Use of AI Technologies in Government
Report by the Institute on Governance and Think Digital: “… undertook a case study-based research project, where 24 examples of AI technology projects and governance frameworks across a dozen jurisdictions were scanned. The purpose of this report is to provide policymakers and practitioners in government with an overview of controversial deployments of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies in the public sector, and to highlight some of the approaches being taken to govern the responsible use of these technologies in government.
Two environmental scans make up the majority of the report. The first scan presents relevant use cases of public sector applications of AI technologies and automation, with special attention given to controversial projects and program/policy failures. The second scan surveys existing governance frameworks employed by international organizations and governments around the world. Each scan is then analyzed to determine common themes across use cases and governance frameworks respectively. The final section of the report provides risk considerations related to the use of AI by public sector institutions across use cases…(More)”.
The Dead Internet To Come
Essay by Robert Mariani: “On an ordinary morning, you cradle a steaming cup of coffee while scrolling through your social media feeds. You’re in your happy place, engaging with the thoughts and creations of countless individuals at your leisure.
But something feels off. There’s no proof, but your instincts are sure of it. For a while now, the microcelebrities on Twitter have been engaging with you more than they should be, more than they were a few months ago. You’ve noticed patterns in conversations that are beyond your conscious mind’s power to decipher; there’s a rhythm to trends and replies that did not exist before.
A vague dread grips you. Why is everything a little bit different now? The smallest details are wrong. Your favorite posters have vanished from all platforms. There haven’t been any new memes for some time, only recycled iterations of old ones. Influencers are coordinated in their talking points like puppets being pulled by the same strings. Your favorite niche YouTuber has only recently been posting new content with any regularity. Is this a message? Is this what schizophrenia is like?
Dread gives way to the cold stab of terrible certainty as it hits you: they aren’t people. They’re bots. The Internet is all bots. Under your nose, the Internet of real people has gradually shifted into a digital world of shadow puppets. They look like people, they act like people, but there are no people left. Well, there’s you and maybe a few others, but you can’t tell the difference, because the bots wear a million masks. You might be alone, and have been for a while. It’s a horror worse than blindness: the certainty that your vision is clear but there is no genuine world to be seen.
This is the world of the Internet after about 2016 — at least according to the Dead Internet Theory, whose defining description appeared in an online forum in 2021.The theory suggests a conspiracy to gaslight the entire world by replacing the user-powered Internet with an empty, AI-powered one populated by bot impostors. It explains why all the cool people get banned, why Internet culture has become so stale, why the top influencers are the worst ones, and why discourse cycles seem so mechanically uniform. The perpetrators are the usual suspects: the U.S. government trying to control public opinion and corporations trying to get us to buy more stuff…(More)”.
Ranking Nations. The Value of Indicators and Indices?
Book by Stephen Morse: “This engaging book assesses the statistical need for using particular ranking systems to compare the status of nations. With an overarching focus on human development, environmental performance and corruption, it carefully maps out some of the main processes associated with the ranking of countries.
Centrally, Stephen Morse explores challenges associated with using index-based rankings for countries. Examining international ranking systems such as the Human Development Index and Corruption Perception Index, the book considers what they tell us about the world and whether there may be alternatives to these ranking techniques. It provides an important contemporary view on ranking systems by analysing not only how they are reported by traditional sources of media, but also by social media.
Ranking Nations will be a significant read for economics, development studies and human geography researchers and academics. Its accessible written style will also benefit policy actors and decision makers that make use of index-based rankings…(More)”.
Technology Foresight for Public Funding of Innovation: Methods and Best Practices
JRC Paper: “In times of growing uncertainties and complexities, anticipatory thinking is essential for policymakers. Technology foresight explores the longer-term futures of Science, Technology and Innovation. It can be used as a tool to create effective policy responses, including in technology and innovation policies, and to shape technological change. In this report we present six anticipatory and technology foresight methods that can contribute to anticipatory intelligence in terms of public funding of innovation: the Delphi survey, genius forecasting, technology roadmapping, large language models used in foresight, horizon scanning and scenario planning. Each chapter provides a brief overview of the method with case studies and recommendations. The insights from this report show that only by combining different anticipatory viewpoints and approaches to spotting, understanding and shaping emergent technologies, can public funders such as the European Innovation Council improve their proactive approaches to supporting ground-breaking technologies. In this way, they will help innovation ecosystems to develop…(More)”.