Paper by Mikko Leino and Katariina Kulha: “Deliberative mini-publics have often been considered to be a potential way to promote future-oriented thinking. Still, thinking about the future can be hard as it can evoke negative emotions such as stress and anxiety. This article establishes why a more positive outlook towards the future can benefit long-term decision-making. Then, it explores whether and to what extent deliberative mini-publics can facilitate thinking about the future by moderating negative emotions and encouraging positive emotions. We analyzed an online mini-public held in the region of Satakunta, Finland, organized to involve the public in the drafting process of a regional plan extending until the year 2050. In addition to the standard practices related to mini-publics, the Citizens’ Assembly included an imaginary time travel exercise, Future Design, carried out with half of the participants. Our analysis makes use of both survey and qualitative data. We found that democratic deliberation can promote positive emotions, like hopefulness and compassion, and lessen negative emotions, such as fear and confusion, related to the future. There were, however, differences in how emotions developed in the various small groups. Interviews with participants shed further light onto how participants felt during the event and how their sentiments concerning the future changed…(More)”
Guidelines for Participatory and Inclusive AI
Guidelines by the Partnership on AI’s Global Task Force for Inclusive AI: “..The objective is to help practitioners navigate the common challenges that arise in the process of stakeholder engagement to ensure their efforts remain authentic and as equity-oriented as possible. The resource aims to support individuals’ efforts in aligning their work with the needs of the communities they wish to serve, while reducing the likelihood of harms and risks those communities may face due to the development and deployment of AI technologies.
The Guidelines are separated into three major parts:
- Guidance & Guardrails Recommended best practices and guardrails for participatory stakeholder engagement strategies, including specific recommendations by common use cases for engaging with stakeholders as part of the AI development process
- Emerging Resources: AI Tools for Participatory and Inclusive AI Overview of the latest AI-enabled tools proposed to support stakeholder engagement activities, including a discussion of their potential applications and risks
- Additional Background Details about why we created this resource, the people who provided their expertise for the initial draft, and foundational concepts that serve as the basis for the Global Task Force’s recommendations and guidance…(More)”.
Global Citizen Deliberation on Artificial Intelligence
Report by Connected by Data: “This report explores how global citizen deliberation, particularly drawing on the concept of a global citizens’ assembly, could and should shape the future of artificial intelligence. Drawing on an extended design lab of in-depth interviews and workshops that took place in mid-2024, it presents a series of options for bringing the voices of those affected by AI development and deployment into decision-making spaces, through processes that can deliver informed and inclusive dialogue… In this report we address how established and emerging sites of global AI development and governance can integrate citizen deliberation, setting out five template options for citizens’ assemblies on AI: deliberative review of AI summits and scientific reports; an independent global assembly on AI; a series of distributed dialogues organized across the globe; a technology-enabled collective intelligence process; and commissioning the inclusion of AI topics in other deliberative processes…(More)”.
Artificial Intelligence for the Internal Democracy of Political Parties
Paper by Claudio Novelli et al: “The article argues that AI can enhance the measurement and implementation of democratic processes within political parties, known as Intra-Party Democracy (IPD). It identifies the limitations of traditional methods for measuring IPD, which often rely on formal parameters, self-reported data, and tools like surveys. Such limitations lead to partial data collection, rare updates, and significant resource demands. To address these issues, the article suggests that specific data management and Machine Learning techniques, such as natural language processing and sentiment analysis, can improve the measurement and practice of IPD…(More)”.
AI has a democracy problem. Citizens’ assemblies can help.
Article by Jack Stilgoe: “…With AI, beneath all the hype, some companies know that they have a democracy problem. OpenAI admitted as much when they funded a program of pilot projects for what they called “Democratic Inputs to AI.” There have been some interesting efforts to involve the public in rethinking cutting-edge AI. A collaboration between Anthropic, one of OpenAI’s competitors, and the Collective Intelligence Project asked 1000 Americans to help shape what they called “Collective Constitutional AI.” They were asked to vote on statements such as “the AI should not be toxic” and “AI should be interesting,” and they were given the option of adding their own statements (one of the stranger statements reads “AI should not spread Marxist communistic ideology”). Anthropic used these inputs to tweak its “Claude” Large Language Model, which, when tested against standard AI benchmarks, seemed to help mitigate the model’s biases.
In using the word “constitutional,” Anthropic admits that, in making AI systems, they are doing politics by other means. We should welcome the attempt to open up. But, ultimately, these companies are interested in questions of design, not regulation. They would like there to be a societal consensus, a set of human values to which they can “align” their systems. Politics is rarely that neat…(More)”.
Children and Young People’s Participation in Climate Assemblies
Guide by KNOCA: “This guide draws on the experiences and advice of children, young people and adults involved in citizens’ assemblies that have taken place at national, city and community levels across nine countries, highlighting that:
- Involving children and young people can enrich the intergenerational legitimacy and impact of climate assemblies: adult assembly members are reminded of their responsibilities to younger and future generations, and children and young people feel listened to, valued and taken seriously.
- Involving children and young people has significant potential to strengthen the future of democracy and climate governance by enhancing democratic and climate literacy within education systems.
- Children and young people can and should be involved in climate assemblies in different ways. Most importantly, children and young people should be involved from the very beginning of the process to ensure it reflects children and young people’s own ideas.
- There are practical, ethical and design factors to consider when working with children and young people which can often be positively navigated by taking a child rights-based approach to the conceptualisation, design and delivery of climate assemblies…(More)”.
The Power of Supercitizens
Blog by Brian Klaas: “Lurking among us, there are a group of hidden heroes, people who routinely devote significant amounts of their time, energy, and talent to making our communities better. These are the devoted, do-gooding, elite one percent. Most, but not all, are volunteers.1 All are selfless altruists. They, the supercitizens, provide some of the stickiness in the social glue that holds us together.2
What if I told you that there’s this little trick you can do that makes your community stronger, helps other people, and makes you happier and live longer? Well, it exists, there’s ample evidence it works, and best of all, it’s free.
Recently published research showcases a convincing causal link between these supercitizens—devoted, regular volunteers—and social cohesion. While such an umbrella term means a million different things, these researchers focused on two UK-based surveys that analyzed three facets of social cohesion, measured through eight questions (respondents answered on a five point scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree). They were:
Neighboring
- ‘If I needed advice about something I could go to someone in my neighborhood’;
- ‘I borrow things and exchange favors with my neighbors’; and
- ‘I regularly stop and talk with people in my neighborhood’
Psychological sense of community
- ‘I feel like I belong to this neighborhood’;
- ‘The friendships and associations I have with other people in my neighborhood mean a lot to me’;
- ‘I would be willing to work together with others on something to improve my neighborhood’; and
- ‘I think of myself as similar to the people that live in this neighborhood’)
Attraction to the neighborhood
- ‘I plan to remain a resident of this neighborhood for a number of years’
While these questions only tap into some specific components of social cohesion, high levels of these ingredients are likely to produce a reliable recipe for a healthy local community. (Social cohesion differs from social capital, popularized by Robert Putnam and his book, Bowling Alone. Social capital tends to focus on links between individuals and groups—are you a joiner or more of a loner?—whereas cohesion refers to a more diffuse sense of community, belonging, and neighborliness)…(More)”.
The Power of Volunteers: Remote Mapping Gaza and Strategies in Conflict Areas
Blog by Jessica Pechmann: “…In Gaza, increased conflict since October 2023 has caused a prolonged humanitarian crisis. Understanding the impact of the conflict on buildings has been challenging, since pre-existing datasets from artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) models and OSM were not accurate enough to create a full building footprint baseline. The area’s buildings were too dense, and information on the ground was impossible to collect safely. In these hard-to-reach areas, HOT’s remote and crowdsourced mapping methodology was a good fit for collecting detailed information visible on aerial imagery.
In February 2024, after consultation with humanitarian and UN actors working in Gaza, HOT decided to create a pre-conflict dataset of all building footprints in the area in OSM. HOT’s community of OpenStreetMap volunteers did all the data work, coordinating through HOT’s Tasking Manager. The volunteers made meticulous edits to add missing data and to improve existing data. Due to protection and data quality concerns, only expert volunteer teams were assigned to map and validate the area. As in other areas that are hard to reach due to conflict, HOT balanced the data needs with responsible data practices based on the context.
Comparing AI/ML with human-verified OSM building datasets in conflict zones
AI/ML is becoming an increasingly common and quick way to obtain building footprints across large areas. Sources for automated building footprints range from worldwide datasets by Microsoft or Google to smaller-scale open community-managed tools such as HOT’s new application, fAIr.
Now that HOT volunteers have completely updated and validated all OSM buildings in visible imagery pre-conflict, OSM has 18% more individual buildings in the Gaza strip than Microsoft’s ML buildings dataset (estimated 330,079 buildings vs 280,112 buildings). However, in contexts where there has not been a coordinated update effort in OSM, the numbers may differ. For example, in Sudan where there has not been a large organized editing campaign, there are just under 1,500,000 in OSM, compared to over 5,820,000 buildings in Microsoft’s ML data. It is important to note that the ML datasets have not been human-verified and their accuracy is not known. Google Open Buildings has over 26 million building features in Sudan, but on visual inspection, many of these features are noise in the data that the model incorrectly identified as buildings in the uninhabited desert…(More)”.
Under which conditions can civic monitoring be admitted as a source of evidence in courts?
Blog by Anna Berti Suman: “The ‘Sensing for Justice’ (SensJus) research project – running between 2020 and 2023 – explored how people use monitoring technologies or just their senses to gather evidence of environmental issues and claim environmental justice in a variety of fora. Among the other research lines, we looked at successful and failed cases of civic-gathered data introduced in courts. The guiding question was: what are the enabling factors and/or barriers for the introduction of civic evidence in environmental litigation?
Civic environmental monitoring is the use by ordinary people of monitoring devices (e.g., a sensor) or their bare senses (e.g., smell, hearing) to detect environmental issues. It can be regarded as a form of reaction to environmental injustices, a form of political contestation through data and even as a form of collective care. The practice is fast growing, especially thanks to the widespread availability of audio and video-recording devices in the hand of diverse publics, but also due to the increase in public literacy and concern on environmental matters.
Civic monitoring can be a powerful source of evidence for law enforcement, especially when it sheds light on official informational gaps associated with the shortages of public agencies’ resources to detect environmental wrongdoings. Both legal scholars and practitioners as well as civil society organizations and institutional actors should look at the practice and its potential applications with attention.
Among the cases explored for the SensJus project, the Formosa case, Texas, United States, stands out as it sets a key precedent: issued in June 2019, the landmark ruling found a Taiwanese petrochemical company liable for violating the US Clean Water Act, mostly on the basis of citizen-collected evidence involving volunteer observations of plastic contamination over years. The contamination could not be proven through existing data held by competent authorities because the company never filed any record of pollution. Our analysis of the case highlights some key determinants of the case’s success…(More)”.
Civic Monitoring for Environmental Law Enforcement
Book by Anna Berti Suman: “This book presents a thought-provoking inquiry demonstrating how civic environmental monitoring can support law enforcement. It provides an in-depth analysis of applicable legal frameworks and conventions such as the Aarhus Convention, with an enlightening discussion on the civic right to contribute environmental information.
Civic Monitoring for Environmental Law Enforcement discusses multi- and interdisciplinary research into how civil society uses monitoring techniques to gather evidence of environmental issues. The book argues that civic monitoring is a constructive approach for finding evidence of environmental wrongdoings and for leveraging this evidence in different institutional fora, including judicial proceedings and official reporting for environmental protection agencies. It also reveals the challenges and implications associated with a greater reliance on civic monitoring practices by institutions and society at large.
Adopting original methodological approaches to drive inspiration for further research, this book is an invaluable resource for students and scholars of environmental governance and regulation, environmental law, politics and policy, and science and technology studies. It is also beneficial to civil society actors, civic initiatives, legal practitioners, and policymakers working in institutions engaged in the application of environmental law…(More)”