The Future is Coded: How AI is Rewriting the Rules of Decision Theaters


Essay by Mark Esposito and David De Cremer: “…These advances are not happening in isolation on engineers’ laptops; they are increasingly playing out in “decision theaters” – specialized environments (physical or virtual) designed for interactive, collaborative problem-solving. A decision theater is typically a space equipped with high-resolution displays, simulation engines, and data visualization tools where stakeholders can convene to explore complex scenarios. Originally pioneered at institutions like Arizona State University, the concept of a decision theater has gained traction as a way to bring together diverse expertise – economists, scientists, community leaders, government officials, and now AI systems – under one roof. By visualizing possible futures (say, the spread of a wildfire or the regional impact of an economic policy) in an engaging, shared format, these theaters make foresight a participatory exercise rather than an academic one. In the age of generative AI, decision theaters are evolving into hubs for human-AI collaboration. Picture a scenario where city officials are debating a climate adaptation policy. Inside a decision theater, an AI model might project several climate futures for the city (varying rainfall, extreme heat incidents, flood patterns) on large screens. Stakeholders can literally see the potential impacts on maps and graphs. They can then ask the AI to adjust assumptions – “What if we add more green infrastructure in this district?” – and within seconds, watch a new projection unfold. This real-time interaction allows for an iterative dialogue between human ideas and AI-generated outcomes. Participants can inject local knowledge or voice community values, and the AI will incorporate that input to revise the scenario. The true power of generative AI in a decision theater lies in this collaboration.

Such interactive environments enhance learning and consensus-building. When stakeholders jointly witness how certain choices lead to undesirable futures (for instance, a policy leading to water shortages in a simulation), it can galvanize agreement on preventative action. Moreover, the theater setup encourages asking “What if?” in a safe sandbox, including ethically fraught questions. Because the visualizations make outcomes concrete, they naturally prompt ethical deliberation: If one scenario shows economic growth but high social inequality, is that future acceptable? If not, how can we tweak inputs to produce a more equitable outcome? In this way, decision theaters embed ethical and social considerations into high-tech planning, ensuring that the focus isn’t just on what is likely or profitable but on what is desirable for communities. This participatory approach helps balance technological possibilities with human values and cultural sensitivities. It’s one thing for an AI to suggest an optimal solution on paper; it’s another to have community representatives in the room, engaging with that suggestion and shaping it to fit local norms and needs.

Equally important, decision theaters democratize foresight. They open up complex decision-making processes to diverse stakeholders, not just technical experts. City planners, elected officials, citizens’ groups, and subject matter specialists can all contribute in real time, aided by AI. This inclusive model guards against the risk of AI becoming an opaque oracle controlled by a few. Instead, the AI’s insights are put on display for all to scrutinize and question. By doing so, the process builds trust in the tools and the decisions that come out of them. When people see that an AI’s recommendation emerged from transparent, interactive exploration – rather than a mysterious black box – they may be more likely to trust and accept the outcome. As one policy observer noted, it’s essential to bring ideas from across sectors and disciplines into these AI-assisted discussions so that solutions “work for people, not just companies.” If designed well, decision theaters operationalize that principle…(More)”.

Deliberative Approaches to Inclusive Governance


Series edited by Taylor Owen and Sequoia Kim: “Democracy has undergone profound changes over the past decade, shaped by rapid technological, social, and political transformations. Across the globe, citizens are demanding more meaningful and sustained engagement in governance—especially around emerging technologies like artificial intelligence (AI), which increasingly shape the contours of public life.

From world-leading experts in deliberative democracy, civic technology, and AI governance we introduce a seven-part essay series exploring how deliberative democratic processes like citizen’s assemblies and civic tech can strengthen AI governance…(More)”.

Spaces for Deliberation


Report by Gustav Kjær Vad Nielsen & James MacDonald-Nelson: “As citizens’ assemblies and other forms of citizen deliberation are increasingly implemented in many parts of the world, it is becoming more relevant to explore and question the role of the physical spaces in which these processes take place.

This paper builds on existing literature that considers the relationships between space and democracy. In the literature, this relationship has been studied with a focus on the architecture of parliament buildings, and on the role of urban public spaces and architecture for political culture, both largely within the context of representative democracy and with little or no attention given to spaces for facilitated citizen deliberation. With very limited considerations of the spaces for deliberative assemblies in the literature, in this paper, we argue that the spatial qualities for citizen deliberation demand more critical attention.

Through a series of interviews with leading practitioners of citizens’ assemblies from six different countrieswe explore what spatial qualities are typically considered in the planning and implementation of these assemblies, what are the recurring challenges related to the physical spaces where they take place, and the opportunities and limitations for a more intentional spatial design. In this paper, we synthesise our findings and formulate a series of considerations for the spatial qualities of citizens’ assemblies aimed at informing future practice and further research…(More)”.

Inside arXiv—the Most Transformative Platform in All of Science


Article by Sheon Han: “Nearly 35 years ago, Ginsparg created arXiv, a digital repository where researchers could share their latest findings—before those findings had been systematically reviewed or verified. Visit arXiv.org today (it’s pronounced like “archive”) and you’ll still see its old-school Web 1.0 design, featuring a red banner and the seal of Cornell University, the platform’s institutional home. But arXiv’s unassuming facade belies the tectonic reconfiguration it set off in the scientific community. If arXiv were to stop functioning, scientists from every corner of the planet would suffer an immediate and profound disruption. “Everybody in math and physics uses it,” Scott Aaronson, a computer scientist at the University of Texas at Austin, told me. “I scan it every night.”

Every industry has certain problems universally acknowledged as broken: insurance in health care, licensing in music, standardized testing in education, tipping in the restaurant business. In academia, it’s publishing. Academic publishing is dominated by for-profit giants like Elsevier and Springer. Calling their practice a form of thuggery isn’t so much an insult as an economic observation. Imagine if a book publisher demanded that authors write books for free and, instead of employing in-house editors, relied on other authors to edit those books, also for free. And not only that: The final product was then sold at prohibitively expensive prices to ordinary readers, and institutions were forced to pay exorbitant fees for access…(More)”.

AI adoption in crowdsourcing


Paper by John Michael Maxel Okoche et al: “Despite significant technology advances especially in artificial intelligence (AI), crowdsourcing platforms still struggle with issues such as data overload and data quality problems, which hinder their full potential. This study addresses a critical gap in the literature how the integration of AI technologies in crowdsourcing could help overcome some these challenges. Using a systematic literature review of 77 journal papers, we identify the key limitations of current crowdsourcing platforms that included issues of quality control, scalability, bias, and privacy. Our research highlights how different forms of AI including from machine learning (ML), deep learning (DL), natural language processing (NLP), automatic speech recognition (ASR), and natural language generation techniques (NLG) can address the challenges most crowdsourcing platforms face. This paper offers knowledge to support the integration of AI first by identifying types of crowdsourcing applications, their challenges and the solutions AI offers for improvement of crowdsourcing…(More)”.

So You Want to Be a Dissident?


Essay by Julia Angwin and Ami Fields-Meyer: “…Heimans points to an increasingly hostile digital landscape as one barrier to effective grassroots campaigns. At the dawn of the digital era, in the two-thousands, e-mail transformed the field of political organizing, enabling groups like MoveOn.org to mobilize huge campaigns against the Iraq War, and allowing upstart candidates like Howard Dean and Barack Obama to raise money directly from people instead of relying on Party infrastructure. But now everyone’s e-mail inboxes are overflowing. The tech oligarchs who control the social-media platforms are less willing to support progressive activism. Globally, autocrats have more tools to surveil and disrupt digital campaigns. And regular people are burned out on actions that have failed to remedy fundamental problems in society.

It’s not clear what comes next. Heimans hopes that new tactics will be developed, such as, perhaps, a new online platform that would help organizing, or the strengthening of a progressive-media ecosystem that will engage new participants. “Something will emerge that kind of revitalizes the space.”

There’s an oft-told story about Andrei Sakharov, the celebrated twentieth-century Soviet activist. Sakharov made his name working as a physicist on the development of the U.S.S.R.’s hydrogen bomb, at the height of the Cold War, but shot to global prominence after Leonid Brezhnev’s regime punished him for speaking publicly about the dangers of those weapons, and also about Soviet repression.

When an American friend was visiting Sakharov and his wife, the activist Yelena Bonner, in Moscow, the friend referred to Sakharov as a dissident. Bonner corrected him: “My husband is a physicist, not a dissident.”

This is a fundamental tension of building a principled dissident culture—it risks wrapping people up in a kind of negative identity, a cloak of what they are not. The Soviet dissidents understood their work as a struggle to uphold the laws and rights that were enshrined in the Soviet constitution, not as a fight against a regime.

“They were fastidious about everything they did being consistent with Soviet law,” Benjamin Nathans, a history professor at the University of Pennsylvania and the author of a book on Soviet dissidents, said. “I call it radical civil obedience.”

An affirmative vision of what the world should be is the inspiration for many of those who, in these tempestuous early months of Trump 2.0, have taken meaningful risks—acts of American dissent.

Consider Mariann Budde, the Episcopal bishop who used her pulpit before Trump on Inauguration Day to ask the President’s “mercy” for two vulnerable groups for whom he has reserved his most visceral disdain. For her sins, a congressional ally of the President called for the pastor to be “added to the deportation list.”..(More)”.

Community Data: Creative Approaches to Empowering People with Information


Book by Rahul Bhargava: “…new toolkit for data storytelling in community settings, one purpose-built for goals like inclusion, empowerment, and impact. Data science and visualization has spread into new domains it was designed for – community organizing, education, journalism, civic governance, and more. The dominant computational methods and processes, which have not changed in response, are causing significant discriminatory and harmful impacts, documented by leading scholars across a variety of populations. Informed by 15 years of collaborations in academic and professional settings with nonprofits and marginalized populations, the book articulates a new approach for aligning the processes and media of data work with social good outcomes, learning from the practices of newspapers, museums, community groups, artists, and libraries.

This book introduces a community-driven framework as a response to the urgent need to realign data theories and methods around justice and empowerment to avoid further replicating harmful power dynamics and ensure everyone has a seat at the table in data-centered community processes. It offers a broader toolbox for working with data and presenting it, pushing beyond the limited vocabulary of surveys, spreadsheets, charts and graphs…(More)”.

The Social Biome: How Everyday Communication Connects and Shapes Us


Book by Andy J. Merolla and Jeffrey A. Hall: “We spend much of our waking lives communicating with others. How does each moment of interaction shape not only our relationships but also our worldviews? And how can we create moments of connection that improve our health and well-being, particularly in a world in which people are feeling increasingly isolated?
 
Drawing from their extensive research, Andy J. Merolla and Jeffrey A. Hall establish a new way to think about our relational life: as existing within “social biomes”—complex ecosystems of moments of interaction with others. Each interaction we have, no matter how unimportant or mundane it might seem, is a building block of our identities and beliefs. Consequently, the choices we make about how we interact and who we interact with—and whether we interact at all—matter more than we might know. Merolla and Hall offer a sympathetic, practical guide to our vital yet complicated social lives and propose realistic ways to embrace and enhance connection and hope…(More)”.

How is AI augmenting collective intelligence for the SDGs?


Article by UNDP: “Increasingly AI techniques like natural language processing, machine learning and predictive analytics are being used alongside the most common methods in collective intelligence, from citizen science and crowdsourcing to digital democracy platforms.

At its best, AI can be used to augment and scale the intelligence of groups. In this section we describe the potential offered by these new combinations of human and machine intelligence. First we look at the applications that are most common, where AI is being used to enhance efficiency and categorize unstructured data, before turning to the emerging role of AI – where it helps us to better understand complex systems.

These are the three main ways AI and collective intelligence are currently being used together for the SDGs:

1. Efficiency and scale of data processing

AI is being effectively incorporated into collective intelligence projects where timing is paramount and a key insight is buried deep within large volumes of unstructured data. This combination of AI and collective intelligence is most useful when decision makers require an early warning to help them manage risks and distribute public resources more effectively. For example, Dataminr’s First Alert system uses pre-trained machine learning models to sift through text and images scraped from the internet, as well as other data streams, such as audio broadcasts, to isolate early signals that anticipate emergency events…(More)”. (See also: Where and when AI and CI meet: exploring the intersection of artificial and collective intelligence towards the goal of innovating how we govern).

AI for collective intelligence


Introduction to special issue by Christoph Riedl and David De Cremer: “AI has emerged as a transformative force in society, reshaping economies, work, and everyday life. We argue that AI can not only improve short-term productivity but can also enhance a group’s collective intelligence. Specifically, AI can be employed to enhance three elements of collective intelligence: collective memory, collective attention, and collective reasoning. This editorial reviews key emerging work in the area to suggest ways in which AI can support the socio-cognitive architecture of collective intelligence. We will then briefly introduce the articles in the “AI for Collective Intelligence” special issue…(More)”.