Report by Georgia van Toorn: “Algorithmic decision-making (ADM) poses urgent concerns regarding the rights and entitlements of people with disability from all walks of life. As ADM systems become increasingly embedded in government decision-making processes, there is a heightened risk of harm, such as unjust denial of benefits or inadequate support, accentuated by the expanding reach of state surveillance.
ADM systems have far reaching impacts on disabled lives and life chances. Despite this, they are often designed without the input of people with lived experience of disability, for purposes that do not align with the goals of full rights, participation, and justice for disabled people.
This primer explores how people with disability are collectively responding to the threats posed by algorithmic, data-driven systems – specifically their public sector applications. It provides an introductory overview of the topic, exploring the approaches, obstacles, and actions taken by people with disability in their ‘algoactivist’ struggles…(More)”.
Paper by Geoff Mulgan: “Every government is, in reality, a flotilla of many departments, agencies, tiers rather than a single thing. But all aspire to greater coherence. ‘Whole of government’ approaches – that mobilise and align many ministries and agencies around a common challenge – have a long history: during major wars, and around attempts to digitize societies, to cut energy use, to reduce poverty and to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. These have been described using different terms – national plans, priorities, strategies and missions – but the issues are similar.
This paper, linked to a European Commission programme on ‘whole of government innovation’ (launching on 16 April in Brussels) looks at the lessons of history and options for the future. Its primary focus is on innovation, but the issues apply more widely. The paper outlines the tools governments can use to achieve cross-cutting goals, from strategic roles to matrix models, cross-cutting budgets, teams, targets and processes, to options for linking law, regulation and procurement. It looks at partnerships and other structures for organising collaboration with business, universities and civil society; and at the role of public engagement…(More)”.
Gallup: “Social needs are universal, and the degree to which they are fulfilled — or not — impacts the health, well-being and resilience of people everywhere. With increasing global interest in understanding how social connections support or hinder health, policymakers worldwide may benefit from reliable data on the current state of social connectedness. Despite the critical role of social connectedness for communities and the people who live in them, little is known about the frequency or form of social connection in many — if not most — parts of the world.
Meta and Gallup have collaborated on two research studies to help fill this gap. In 2022, the Meta-Gallup State of Social Connections report revealed important variations in people’s sense of connectedness and loneliness across the seven countries studied. This report builds on that research by presenting data on connections and loneliness among people from 142 countries…(More)”.
Report by GSMA: “Cities across low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are grappling with the concurrent challenges of rapid urbanisation, climate change and widening inequalities. For intermediary cities, which account for more than half of the urban population in LMICs, these challenges are more pronounced. There is growing evidence that partnerships, collaboration and innovative service delivery models can address these challenges. The GSMA, Connected Places Catapult and UN-Habitat have come together to support cities by driving collaboration between the public and private sectors and enabling the adoption of these innovative models.
This report first outlines the state of urbanisation and the challenges of urban service provision associated with the rapid pace with which cities are growing. It then delves into the unique challenges that intermediary cities face: Governance, digital development, financial capacity and climate change, making the case to accelerate innovation and partnerships in these cities…(More)”.
Report by Demos: “This year is a politically momentous one, with almost half the world voting in elections. Generative AI may revolutionise our political information environments by making them more effective, relevant, and participatory. But it’s also possible that they will become more manipulative, confusing, and dangerous. We’ve already seen AI-generated audio of politicians going viral and chatbots offering incorrect information about elections.
This report, produced in partnership with University College London, explores how synthetic content produced by generative AI poses risks to the core democratic values of truth, equality, and non-violence. It proposes two action plans for what private and public decision-makers should be doing to safeguard democratic integrity immediately and in the long run:
In Action Plan 1, we consider the actions that should be urgently put in place to reduce the acute risks to democratic integrity presented by generative AI tools. This includes reducing the production and dissemination of harmful synthetic content and empowering users so that harmful impacts of synthetic content are reduced in the immediate term.
In Action Plan 2, we set out a longer-term vision for how the fundamental risks to democratic integrity should be addressed. We explore the ways in which generative AI tools can help bolster equality, truth and non-violence, from enabling greater democratic participation to improving how key information institutions operate…(More)”.
Essay by Jacob Harold: “Institutions are patterns of relationship. They form essential threads of our social contract. But those threads are fraying. In the United States, individuals’ trust in major institutions has declined 22 percentage points since 1979.
Institutions face a range of profound challenges. A long-overdue reckoning with the history of racial injustice has highlighted how many institutions reflect patterns of inequity. Technology platforms have supercharged access to information but also reinforced bubbles of interpretation. Anti-elite sentiment has evolved into anti-institutional rebellion.
These forces are affecting institutions of all kinds—from disciplines like journalism to traditions like the nuclear family. This essay focuses on a particular type of institution: organizations. The decline in trust in organizations has practical implications: trust is essential to the day-to-day work of an organization—whether an elite university, a traffic court, or a corner store. The stakes for society are hard to overstate. Organizations “organize” much of our society, culture, and economy.
This essay is meant to offer background for ongoing conversations about the crisis in institutional trust. It does not claim to offer a solution; instead, it lays out the parts of the problem as a step toward shared solutions.
It is not possible to isolate the question of institutional trust from other trends. The institutional trust crisis is intertwined with broader issues of polarization, gridlock, fragility, and social malaise. Figure 1 maps out eight adjacent issues. Some of these may be seen as drivers of the institutional trust crisis, others as consequences of it. Most are both.
This essay considers trust as a form of information. It is data about the external perceptions of institutions. Declining trust can thus be seen as society teaching itself. Viewing a decline in trust as information reframes the challenge. Sometimes, institutions may “deserve” some of the mistrust that has been granted to them. In those cases, the information can serve as a direct corrective…(More)”.
Status Report by the EU/USA: “Academic and civil society research on prominent online platforms has become a crucial way to understand the information environment and its impact on our societies. Scholars across the globe have leveraged application programming interfaces (APIs) and web crawlers to collect public user-generated content and advertising content on online platforms to study societal issues ranging from technology-facilitated gender-based violence, to the impact of media on mental health for children and youth. Yet, a changing landscape of platforms’ data access mechanisms and policies has created uncertainty and difficulty for critical research projects.
The United States and the European Union have a shared commitment to advance data access for researchers, in line with the high-level principles on access to data from online platforms for researchers announced at the EU-U.S. Trade and Technology Council (TTC) Ministerial Meeting in May 2023.1 Since the launch of the TTC, the EU Digital Services Act (DSA) has gone into effect, requiring providers of Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) and Very Large Online Search Engines (VLOSEs) to provide increased transparency into their services. The DSA includes provisions on transparency reports, terms and conditions, and explanations for content moderation decisions. Among those, two provisions provide important access to publicly available content on platforms:
• DSA Article 40.12 requires providers of VLOPs/VLOSEs to provide academic and civil society researchers with data that is “publicly accessible in their online interface.” • DSA Article 39 requires providers of VLOPs/VLOSEs to maintain a public repository of advertisements.
The announcements related to new researcher access mechanisms mark an important development and opportunity to better understand the information environment. This status report summarizes a subset of mechanisms that are available to European and/or United States researchers today, following, in part VLOPs and VLOSEs measures to comply with the DSA. The report aims at showcasing the existing access modalities and encouraging the use of these mechanisms to study the impact of online platform’s design and decisions on society. The list of mechanisms reviewed is included in the Appendix…(More)”
Report by Paris21: “Artificial Intelligence (AI) and its impact on people’s lives is growing rapidly. AI is already leading to significant developments from healthcare to education, which can contribute to the efficient monitoring and achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), a call to action to address the world’s greatest challenges. AI is also raising concerns because, if not addressed carefully, its risks may outweigh its benefits. As a result, AI is garnering increasing attention from National Statistical Offices (NSOs) and the official statistics community as they are challenged to produce more, comprehensive, timely, and highquality data for decision-making with limited resources in a rapidly changing world of data and technologies and in light of complex and converging global issues from pandemics to climate change. This paper has been prepared as an input to the “Data and AI for Sustainable Development: Building a Smarter Future” Conference, organized in partnership with The Partnership in Statistics for Development in the 21st Century (PARIS21), the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Building on case studies that examine the use of AI by NSOs, the paper presents the benefits and risks of AI with a focus on NSO operations related to sustainable development. The objective is to spark discussions and to initiate a dialogue around how AI can be leveraged to inform decisions and take action to better monitor and achieve sustainable development, while mitigating its risks…(More)”.
Report by Nicholas Diakopoulos et al: “The introduction of ChatGPT by OpenAI in late 2022 captured the imagination of the public—and the news industry—with the potential of generative AI to upend how people create and consume media. Generative AI is a type of artificial intelligence technology that can create new content, such as text, images, audio, video, or other media, based on the data it has been trained on and according to written prompts provided by users. ChatGPT is the chat-based user interface that made the power and potential of generative AI salient to a wide audience, reaching 100 million users within two months of its launch.
Although similar technology had been around, by late 2022 it was suddenly working, spurring its integration into various products and presenting not only a host of opportunities for productivity and new experiences but also some serious concerns about accuracy, provenance and attribution of source information, and the increased potential for creating misinformation.
This report serves as a snapshot of how the news industry has grappled with the initial promises and challenges of generative AI towards the end of 2023. The sample of participants reflects how some of the more savvy and experienced members of the profession are reacting to the technology.
Based on participants’ responses, they found that generative AI is already changing work structure and organization, even as it triggers ethical concerns around use. Here are some key takeaways:
Applications in News Production. The most predominant current use cases for generative AI include various forms of textual content production, information gathering and sensemaking, multimedia content production, and business uses.
Changing Work Structure and Organization. There are a host of new roles emerging to grapple with the changes introduced by generative AI including for leadership, editorial, product, legal, and engineering positions.
Work Redesign. There is an unmet opportunity to design new interfaces to support journalistic work with generative AI, in particular to enable the human oversight needed for the efficient and confident checking and verification of outputs..(More)”
OECD Policy Paper: “This policy paper aims to help governments develop regulatory experimentation constructively and appropriately as part of their implementation of the 2021 OECD Recommendation for Agile Regulatory Governance to Harness Innovation. Regulatory experimentation can help promote adaptive learning and innovative and better-informed regulatory policies and practices. This policy paper examines key concepts, definitions and constitutive elements of regulatory experimentation. It outlines the rationale for using regulatory experimentation, discusses enabling factors and governance requirements, and presents a set of forward-looking conclusions…(More)”.
