A New Social Contract for AI? Comparing CC Signals and the Social License for Data Reuse

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Stefaan Verhulst: “Last week, Creative Commons — the global nonprofit best known for its open copyright licenses — released “CC Signals: A New Social Contract for the Age of AI.” This framework seeks to offer creators a means to signal their preferences for how their works are used in machine learning, including training Artificial Intelligence systems. It marks an important step toward integrating re-use preferences and shared benefits directly into the AI development lifecycle….

From a responsible AI perspective, the CC Signals framework is an important development. It demonstrates how soft governance mechanisms — declarations, usage expressions, and social signaling — can supplement or even fill gaps left by inconsistent global copyright regimes in the context of AI. At the same time, this initiative provides an interesting point of comparison with our ongoing work to develop a Social License for Data Reuse. A social license for data reuse is a participatory governance framework that allows communities to collectively define, signal and enforce the conditions under which data about them can be reused — including training AI. Unlike traditional consent-based mechanisms, which focus on individual permissions at the point of collection, a social license introduces a community-centered, continuous process of engagement — ensuring that data practices align with shared values, ethical norms, and contextual realities. It provides a complementary layer to legal compliance, emphasizing trust, legitimacy, and accountability in data governance.

While both frameworks are designed to signal preferences and expectations for data or content reuse, they differ meaningfully in scope, method, and theory of change.

Below, we offer a comparative analysis of the two frameworks — highlighting how each approaches the challenge of embedding legitimacy and trust into AI and data ecosystems…(More)”.

Companies Are Missing The Chance To Improve The World With Their Data

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Nino Letteriello: “This September will mark two years since the Data Governance Act officially became applicable across the European Union. This regulation, part of the broader European data strategy, focuses primarily on data sharing between public and private entities and the overall development of a data-driven economy.

Although less known than its high-profile counterparts—the Data Act and especially the Artificial Intelligence Act—the Data Governance Act introduces a particularly compelling concept: data altruism.

Data altruism refers to the voluntary sharing of data—by individuals or companies—without expecting any reward for purposes of general interest. Such data has immense potential to advance research and drive innovation in areas like healthcare, environmental sustainability and mobility…The absence of structured research into corporate resistance to data donation suggests that the topic remains niche—mostly embraced by tech giants with strong data capabilities and CSR programs, like Meta for Good and Google AI for Good—but still virtually unknown to most companies.

Before we talk about resistance to data donation, perhaps we should explore the level of awareness companies have about the impact such donations could have.

And so, in trying to answer the question I posed at the beginning of this article, perhaps the most appropriate response is yet another question: Do companies even realize that the data they collect, generate and manage could be a vital resource for building a better world?

And if they were more aware of the different ways they could do good with data—would they be more inclined to act?

Despite the existence of the Data Governance Act and the Data Act, these questions remain largely unanswered. But the hope is that, as data becomes more democratized within organizations and as social responsibility and sustainability take center stage, “Data for Good” will become a standard theme in corporate agendas.

After all, private companies are the most valuable and essential data providers and partners for this kind of transformation—and it is often we, the people, who provide them with the very data that could help change our world…(More)”.

What Counts as Discovery?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Essay by Nisheeth Vishnoi: “Long before there were “scientists,” there was science. Across every continent, humans developed knowledge systems grounded in experience, abstraction, and prediction—driven not merely by curiosity, but by a desire to transform patterns into principles, and observation into discovery. Farmers tracked solstices, sailors read stars, artisans perfected metallurgy, and physicians documented plant remedies. They built calendars, mapped cycles, and tested interventions—turning empirical insight into reliable knowledge.

From the oral sciences of Africa, which encoded botanical, medical, and ecological knowledge across generations, to the astronomical observatories of Mesoamerica, where priests tracked solstices, eclipses, and planetary motion with remarkable accuracy, early human civilizations sought more than survival. In Babylon, scribes logged celestial movements and built predictive models; in India, the architects of Vedic altars designed ritual structures whose proportions mirrored cosmic rhythms, embedding arithmetic and geometry into sacred form. Across these diverse cultures, discovery was not a separate enterprise—it was entwined with ritual, survival, and meaning. Yet the tools were recognizably scientific: systematic observation, abstraction, and the search for hidden order.

This was science before the name. And it reminds us that discovery has never belonged to any one civilization or era. Discovery is not intelligence itself, but one of its sharpest expressions—an act that turns perception into principle through a conceptual leap. While intelligence is broader and encompasses adaptation, inference, and learning in various forms (biological, cultural, and even mechanical), discovery marks those moments when something new is framed, not just found. 

Life forms learn, adapt, and even innovate. But it is humans who turned observation into explanation, explanation into abstraction, and abstraction into method. The rise of formal science brought mathematical structure and experiment, but it did not invent the impulse to understand—it gave it form, language, and reach.

And today, we stand at the edge of something unfamiliar: the possibility of lifeless discoveries. Artificial Intelligence machines, built without awareness or curiosity, are beginning to surface patterns and propose explanations, sometimes without our full understanding. If science has long been a dialogue between the world and living minds, we are now entering a strange new phase: abstraction without awareness, discovery without a discoverer.

AI systems now assist in everything from understanding black holes to predicting protein folds and even symbolic equation discovery. They parse vast datasets, detect regularities, and generate increasingly sophisticated outputs. Some claim they’re not just accelerating research, but beginning to reshape science itself—perhaps even to discover.

But what truly counts as a scientific discovery? This essay examines that question…(More)”

The Devil’s Advocate: What Happens When Dissent Becomes Digital

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Anthea Roberts: “But what if the devil’s advocate wasn’t human at all? What if it was an AI agent—faceless, rank-agnostic, apolitically neutral? A devil without a career to lose. Here’s where the inversion occurs: artificial intelligence enabling more genuine human conversation.

At Dragonfly Thinking, we’ve been experimenting with this concept. We call this Devil’s Advocate your Critical Friend. It’s an AI agent designed to do what humans find personally difficult and professionally dangerous: provide systematic criticism without career consequences.

The magic isn’t in the AI’s intelligence. It’s in how removing the human face transforms the social dynamics of dissent.

When critical feedback comes from an AI, no one’s promotion is at risk. The criticism can be thorough without being insubordinate. Teams can engage with substance rather than navigating office politics.

The AI might note: “Previous digital transformations show 73% failure rate when legacy system dependencies exceed 40%. This proposal shows significant dependencies.” It’s the AI saying what the tech lead knows but can’t safely voice, at least not alone.

Does criticism from code carry less weight because there’s no skin in the game? Counterintuitively, we’ve found the opposite. Without perceived motives or political agendas, the criticism becomes clearer, more digestible.

Ritualizing Productive Dissent

Imagine every major initiative automatically triggering AI analysis. Not optional. Built in like a financial review.

The ritual unfolds:

Monday, 2 PM: The transformation strategy is pitched. Energy builds. Heads nod. The vision is compelling.

Tuesday, 9 AM: An email arrives: “Devil’s Advocate Analysis – Digital Transformation Initiative.” Sender: DA-System. Twelve pages of systematic critique. People read alone, over coffee. Some sections sting. Others confirm private doubts.

Wednesday, 10 AM: The team reconvenes. Printouts are marked up. The tech lead says, “Section 3.2 about integration dependencies—we need to address this.” The ops head adds, “The adoption curve analysis on page 8 matches what we saw in Phoenix.”

Thursday: A revised strategy goes forward. Not perfect, but honest about assumptions and clear about risks.

When criticism is ritualized and automated, it stops being personal. It becomes data…(More)”.

A New Paradigm for Fueling AI for the Public Good

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Kevin T. Frazier: “Imagine receiving this email in the near future: “Thank you for sharing data with the American Data Collective on May 22, 2025. After first sharing your workout data with SprintAI, a local startup focused on designing shoes for differently abled athletes, your data donation was also sent to an artificial intelligence research cluster hosted by a regional university. Your donation is on its way to accelerate artificial intelligence innovation and support researchers and innovators addressing pressing public needs!”

That is exactly the sort of message you could expect to receive if we made donations of personal data akin to blood donations—a pro-social behavior that may not immediately serve a donor’s individual needs but may nevertheless benefit the whole of the community. This vision of a future where data flow toward the public good is not science fiction—it is a tangible possibility if we address a critical bottleneck faced by innovators today.

Creating the data equivalent of blood banks may not seem like a pressing need or something that people should voluntarily contribute to, given widespread concerns about a few large artificial intelligence (AI) companies using data for profit-driven and, arguably, socially harmful ends. This narrow conception of the AI ecosystem fails to consider the hundreds of AI research initiatives and startups that have a desperate need for high-quality data. I was fortunate enough to meet leaders of those nascent AI efforts at Meta’s Open Source AI Summit in Austin, Texas. For example, I met with Matt Schwartz, who leads a startup that leans on AI to glean more diagnostic information from colonoscopies. I also connected with Edward Chang, a professor of neurological surgery at the University of California, San Francisco Weill Institute for Neurosciences, who relies on AI tools to discover new information on how and why our brains work. I also got to know Corin Wagen, whose startup is helping companies “find better molecules faster.” This is a small sample of the people leveraging AI for objectively good outcomes. They need your help. More specifically, they need your data.

A tragic irony shapes our current data infrastructure. Most of us share mountains of data with massive and profitable private parties—smartwatch companies, diet apps, game developers, and social media companies. Yet, AI labs, academic researchers, and public interest organizations best positioned to leverage our data for the common good are often those facing the most formidable barriers to acquiring the necessary quantity, quality, and diversity of data. Unlike OpenAI, they are not going to use bots to scrape the internet for data. Unlike Google and Meta, they cannot rely on their own social media platforms and search engines to act as perpetual data generators. And, unlike Anthropic, they lack the funds to license data from media outlets. So, while commercial entities amass vast datasets, frequently as a byproduct of consumer services and proprietary data acquisition strategies, mission-driven AI initiatives dedicated to public problems find themselves in a state of chronic data scarcity. This is not merely a hurdle—it is a systemic bottleneck choking off innovation where society needs it most, delaying or even preventing the development of AI tools that could significantly improve lives.

Individuals are, quite rightly, increasingly hesitant to share their personal information, with concerns about privacy, security, and potential misuse being both rampant and frequently justified by past breaches and opaque practices. Yet, in a striking contradiction, troves of deeply personal data are continuously siphoned by app developers, by tech platforms, and, often opaquely, by an extensive network of data brokers. This practice often occurs with minimal transparency and without informed consent concerning the full lifecycle and downstream uses of that data. This lack of transparency extends to how algorithms trained on this data make decisions that can impact individuals’ lives—from loan applications to job prospects—often without clear avenues for recourse or understanding, potentially perpetuating existing societal biases embedded in historical data…(More)”.

Protecting young digital citizens

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Blog by Pascale Raulin-Serrier: “…As digital tools become more deeply embedded in children’s lives, many young users are unaware of the long-term consequences of sharing personal information online through apps, games, social media platforms and even educational tools. The large-scale collection of data related to their preferences, identity or lifestyle may be used for targeted advertising or profiling. This affects not only their immediate online experiences but can also have lasting consequences, including greater risks of discrimination and exclusion. These concerns underscore the urgent need for stronger safeguards, greater transparency and a child-centered approach to data governance.

CNIL’s initiatives to promote children’s privacy

In response to these challenges, the CNIL introduced eight recommendations in 2021 to provide practical guidance for children, parents and other stakeholders in the digital economy. These are built around several key pillars to promote and protect children’s privacy:

1. Providing specific safeguards

Children have distinct digital rights and must be able to exercise them fully. Under the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), they benefit from special protections, including the right to be forgotten and, in some cases, the ability to consent to the processing of their data.In France, children can only register for social networks or online gaming platforms if they are over 15, or with parental consent if they are younger. CNIL helps hold platforms accountable by offering clear recommendations on how to present terms of service and collect consent in ways that are accessible and understandable to children.

2. Balancing autonomy and protection

The needs and capacities of a 6-year-old child differ greatly from those of a 16-year-old adolescent. It is essential to consider this diversity in online behaviour, maturity and the evolving ability to make informed decisions. The CNIL emphasizes  the importance of offering children a digital environment that strikes a balance between protection and autonomy. It also advocates for digital citizenship education to empower young people with the tools they need to manage their privacy responsibly…(More)”. See also Responsible Data for Children.

Scientific Publishing: Enough is Enough

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Blog by Seemay Chou: “In Abundance, Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson make the case that the biggest barriers to progress today are institutional. They’re not because of physical limitations or intellectual scarcity. They’re the product of legacy systems — systems that were built with one logic in mind, but now operate under another. And until we go back and address them at the root, we won’t get the future we say we want.

I’m a scientist. Over the past five years, I’ve experimented with science outside traditional institutes. From this vantage point, one truth has become inescapable. The journal publishing system — the core of how science is currently shared, evaluated, and rewarded — is fundamentally broken. And I believe it’s one of the legacy systems that prevents science from meeting its true potential for society.

It’s an unpopular moment to critique the scientific enterprise given all the volatility around its funding. But we do have a public trust problem. The best way to increase trust and protect science’s future is for scientists to have the hard conversations about what needs improvement. And to do this transparently. In all my discussions with scientists across every sector, exactly zero think the journal system works well. Yet we all feel trapped in a system that is, by definition, us.

I no longer believe that incremental fixes are enough. Science publishing must be built anew. I help oversee billions of dollars in funding across several science and technology organizations. We are expanding our requirement that all scientific work we fund will not go towards traditional journal publications. Instead, research we support should be released and reviewed more openly, comprehensively, and frequently than the status quo.

This policy is already in effect at Arcadia Science and Astera Institute, and we’re actively funding efforts to build journal alternatives through both Astera and The Navigation Fund. We hope others cross this line with us, and below I explain why every scientist and science funder should strongly consider it…(More)”.

Reliable data facilitates better policy implementation

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Ganesh Rao and Parul Agarwal: “Across India, state government departments are at the forefront of improving human capabilities through education, health, and nutrition programmes. Their ability to do so effectively depends on administrative (or admin) data1 collected and maintained by their staff. This data is collected as part of regular operations and informs both day-to-day decision-making and long-term policy. While policymaking can draw on (reasonably reliable) sample surveys alone, effective implementation of schemes and services requires accurate individual-level admin data. However, unreliable admin data can be a severe constraint, forcing bureaucrats to rely on intuition, experience, and informed guesses. Improving the reliability of admin data can greatly enhance state capacity, thereby improving governance and citizen outcomes.  

There has been some progress on this front in recent years. For instance, the Jan Dhan-Aadhaar-Mobile (JAM) trinity has significantly improved direct benefit transfer (DBT) mechanisms by ensuring that certain recipient data is reliable. However, challenges remain in accurately capturing the well-being of targeted citizens. Despite significant investments in the digitisation of data collection and management systems, persistent reliability issues undermine the government’s efforts to build a data-driven decision-making culture…

There is growing evidence of serious quality issues in admin data. At CEGIS, we have conducted extensive analyses of admin data across multiple states, uncovering systemic issues in key indicators across sectors and platforms. These quality issues compound over time, undermining both micro-level service delivery and macro-level policy planning. This results in distorted budget allocations, gaps in service provision, and weakened frontline accountability…(More)”.

Project Push creates an archive of news alerts from around the world

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Neel Dhanesha: “A little over a year ago, Matt Taylor began to feel like he was getting a few too many push notifications from the BBC News app.

It’s a feeling many of us can probably relate to. Many people, myself included, have turned off news notifications entirely in the past few months. Taylor, however, went in the opposite direction.

Instead of turning off notifications, he decided to see how the BBC — the most popular news app in the U.K., where Taylor lives —  compared to other news organizations around the world. So he dug out an old Google Pixel phone, downloaded 61 news apps onto it, and signed up for push notifications on all of them.

As notifications roll in, a custom-built script (made with the help of ChatGPT) uploads their text to a server and a Bluesky page, providing a near real-time view of push notifications from services around the world. Taylor calls it Project Push.

People who work in news “take the front page very seriously,” said Taylor, a product manager at the Financial Times who built Project Push in his spare time. “There are lots of editors who care a lot about that, but actually one of the most important people in the newsroom is the person who decides that they’re going to press a button that sends an immediate notification to millions of people’s phones.”

The Project Push feed is a fascinating portrait of the news today. There are the expected alerts — breaking news, updates to ongoing stories like the wars in Gaza and Ukraine, the latest shenanigans in Washington — but also:

— Updates on infrastructure plans that, without the context, become absolutely baffling (a train will instead be a bus?).

— Naked attempts to increase engagement.

— Culture updates that some may argue aren’t deserving of a push alert from the Associated Press.

— Whatever this is.

Taylor tells me he’s noticed some geographic differences in how news outlets approach push notifications. Publishers based in Asia and the Middle East, for example, send far more notifications than European or American ones; CNN Indonesia alone pushed about 17,000 of the 160,000 or so notifications Project Push has logged over the past year…(More)”.

Engagement Integrity: Ensuring Legitimacy at a time of AI-Augmented Participation

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Stefaan G. Verhulst: “As participatory practices are increasingly tech-enabled, ensuring engagement integrity is becoming more urgent. While considerable scholarly and policy attention has been paid to information integrity (OECD, 2024; Gillwald et al., 2024; Wardle & Derakhshan, 2017; Ghosh & Scott, 2018), including concerns about disinformation, misinformation, and computational propaganda, the integrity of engagement itself — how to ensure collective decision-making is not tech manipulated — remains comparatively under-theorized and under-protected. I define engagement integrity as the procedural fairness and resistance to manipulation of tech-enabled deliberative and participatory processes.

My definition is different from prior discussions of engagement integrity, which mainly emphasized ethical standards when scientists engage with the public (e.g., in advisory roles, communication, or co-research). The concept is particularly salient in light of recent innovations that aim to lower the transaction costs of engagement using artificial intelligence (AI) (Verhulst, 2018). From AI-facilitated citizen assemblies (Simon et al., 2023) to natural language processing (NLP) -enhanced policy proposal platforms (Grobbink & Peach, 2020) to automated analysis of unstructured direct democracy proposals (Grobbink & Peach, 2020) to large-scale deliberative polls augmented with agentic AI (Mulgan, 2022), these developments promise to enhance inclusion, scalability, and sense-making. However, they also create new attack surfaces and vectors of influence that could undermine legitimacy.

This concern is not speculative…(More)”.