Automating public services

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by Anna Dent: “…Public bodies, under financial stress and looking for effective solutions, are at risk of jumping on the automation bandwagon without critically assessing whether it’s actually appropriate for their needs, and whether the potential benefits outweigh the risks. To realise the benefits of automation and minimise problems for communities and public bodies themselves, a clear-eyed approach which really gets to grips with the risks is needed. 

The temptation to introduce automation to tackle complex social challenges is strong; they are often deep-rooted and expensive to deal with, and can have life-long implications for individuals and communities. But precisely because of their complex nature they are not the best fit for rules-based automated processes, which may fail to deliver what they set out to achieve. 

Bias is increasingly recognised as a critical challenge with automation in the public sector. Bias can be introduced through training data, and can occur when automated tools are disproportionately used on a particular community. In either case, the effectiveness of the tool or process is undermined, and citizens are at risk of discrimination, unfair targeting and exclusion from services. 

Automated tools and processes rely on huge amounts of data; in public services this will often mean personal information and data about us and our lives which we may or may not feel comfortable being used. Balancing everyone’s right to privacy with the desire for efficiency and better outcomes is rarely straightforward, and if done badly can lead to a breakdown in trust…(More)”.

The double-edged sword of AI in education

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Rose Luckin: “Artificial intelligence (AI) could revolutionize education as profoundly as the internet has already revolutionized our lives. However, our experience with commercial internet platforms gives us pause. Consider how social media algorithms, designed to maximize engagement and ad revenue, have inadvertently promoted divisive content and misinformation, a development at odds with educational goals.

Like the commercialization of the internet, the AI consumerization trend, driven by massive investments across sectors, prioritizes profit over societal and educational benefits. This focus on monetization risks overshadowing crucial considerations about AI’s integration into educational contexts.

The consumerization of AI in education is a double-edged sword. While increasing accessibility, it could also undermine fundamental educational principles and reshape students’ attitudes toward learning. We must advocate for a thoughtful, education-centric approach to AI development that enhances, rather than replaces, human intelligence and recognises the value of effort in learning.

As generative AI systems for education emerge, technical experts and policymakers have a unique opportunity to ensure their design supports the interests of learners and educators.

Risk 1: Overestimating AI’s intelligence

In essence, learning is not merely an individual cognitive process but a deeply social endeavor, intricately linked to cultural context, language development, and the dynamic relationship between practical experience and theoretical knowledge…(More)”.

The impact of data portability on user empowerment, innovation, and competition

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

OECD Note: “Data portability enhances access to and sharing of data across digital services and platforms. It can empower users to play a more active role in the re-use of their data and can help stimulate competition and innovation by fostering interoperability while reducing switching costs and lock-in effects. However, the effectiveness of data portability in enhancing competition depends on the terms and conditions of data transfer and the extent to which competitors can make use of the data effectively. Additionally, there are potential downsides: data portability measures may unintentionally stifle competition in fast-evolving markets where interoperability requirements may disproportionately burden SMEs and start-ups. Data portability can also increase digital security and privacy risks by enabling data transfers to multiple destinations. This note presents the following five dimensions essential for designing and implementing data portability frameworks: sectoral scope; beneficiaries; type of data; legal obligations; and operational modality…(More)”.

Reliability of U.S. Economic Data Is in Jeopardy, Study Finds

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Ben Casselman: “A report says new approaches and increased spending are needed to ensure that government statistics remain dependable and free of political influence.

Federal Reserve officials use government data to help determine when to raise or lower interest rates. Congress and the White House use it to decide when to extend jobless benefits or send out stimulus payments. Investors place billions of dollars worth of bets that are tied to monthly reports on job growth, inflation and retail sales.

But a new study says the integrity of that data is in increasing jeopardy.

The report, issued on Tuesday by the American Statistical Association, concludes that government statistics are reliable right now. But that could soon change, the study warns, citing factors including shrinking budgets, falling survey response rates and the potential for political interference.

The authors — statisticians from George Mason University, the Urban Institute and other institutions — likened the statistical system to physical infrastructure like highways and bridges: vital, but often ignored until something goes wrong.

“We do identify this sort of downward spiral as a threat, and that’s what we’re trying to counter,” said Nancy Potok, who served as chief statistician of the United States from 2017 to 2019 and was one of the report’s authors. “We’re not there yet, but if we don’t do something, that threat could become a reality, and in the not-too-distant future.”

The report, “The Nation’s Data at Risk,” highlights the threats facing statistics produced across the federal government, including data on education, health, crime and demographic trends.

But the risks to economic data are particularly notable because of the attention it receives from policymakers and investors. Most of that data is based on surveys of households or businesses. And response rates to government surveys have plummeted in recent years, as they have for private polls. The response rate to the Current Population Survey — the monthly survey of about 60,000 households that is the basis for the unemployment rate and other labor force statistics — has fallen to about 70 percent in recent months, from nearly 90 percent a decade ago…(More)”.

Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Press Release: “In an increasingly challenging environment – marked by successive economic shocks, rising protectionism, the war in Europe and ongoing conflicts in the Middle East, as well as structural challenges and disruptions caused by rapid technological developments, climate change and population aging – 44% of respondents now have low or no trust in their national government, surpassing the 39% of respondents who express high or moderately high trust in national government, according to a new OECD report.  

OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions – 2024 Results, presents findings from the second OECD Trust Survey, conducted in October and November 2023 across 30 Member countries. The biennial report offers a comprehensive analysis of current trust levels and their drivers across countries and public institutions. 

This edition of the Trust Survey confirms the previous finding that socio-economic and demographic factors, as well as a sense of having a say in decision making, affect trust. For example, 36% of women reported high or moderately high trust in government, compared to 43% of men. The most significant drop in trust since 2021 is seen among women and those with lower levels of education. The trust gap is largest between those who feel they have a say and those who feel they do not have a say in what the government does. Among those who report they have a say, 69% report high or moderately high trust in their national government, whereas among those who feel they do not only 22% do…(More)”.

Big Tech-driven deliberative projects

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by Canning Malkin and Nardine Alnemr: “Google, Meta, OpenAI and Anthropic have commissioned projects based on deliberative democracy. What was the purpose of each project? How was deliberation designed and implemented, and what were the outcomes? In this Technical Paper, Malkin and Alnemr describe the commissioning context, the purpose and remit, and the outcomes of these deliberative projects. Finally, they offer insights on contextualising projects within the broader aspirations of deliberative democracy…(More)”.

Diversity in Artificial Intelligence Conferences

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by the divinAI (Diversity in Artificial Intelligence) Project: “…provides a set of diversity indicators for seven core artificial intelligence (AI) conferences from 2007 to 2023: the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), the Annual Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) Conference, the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) Conference, the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Recommender Systems (RecSys) Conference, the European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI) and the European Conference on Machine Learning/Practice of Knowledge Discovery in Databases (ECML/PKDD) .
We observe that, in general, Conference Diversity Index (CDI) values are still low for the selected conferences, although showing a slight temporal improvement thanks to diversity initiatives in the AI field. We also note slight differences between conferences, being RecSys the one with higher comparative diversity indicators, followed by general AI conferences (IJCAI, ECAI and AAAI). The selected Machine Learning conferences NeurIPS and ICML seem to provide lower values for diversity indicators.
Regarding the different dimensions of diversity, gender diversity reflects a low proportion of female authors in all considered conferences, even given current gender diversity efforts in the field, which is in line with the low presence of women in technological fields. In terms of country distribution, we observe a notable presence of researchers from the EU, US and China in the selected conferences, where the presence of Chinese authors has increased in the last few years. Regarding institutions, universities and research centers or institutes play a central role in the AI scientific conferences under analysis, and the presence of industry seems to be more notable in machine learning conferences. An online dashboard that allows exploration and reproducibility complements the report…(More)”.

What does a ‘mission-driven’ approach to government mean and how can it be delivered?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by the Institute for Government and Nesta: “… set out a recommended approach for how government could effectively organise itself to deliver missions. It should act as a guide for public servants at the start of a new administration that has pledged to do things differently.

Missions are designed to set bold visions for change, inspiring collaboration across the system and society to break down silos and work towards a common goal. They represent the ultimate purpose of the Government, and the story it aims to tell by the end of the Parliament.

To succeed, government will need to adopt three key roles: driving public service innovation, shaping markets and harnessing collective intelligence to improve decision-making. Achieving these missions will require strong foundations and well-recognised enablers of good government, pursued in a specific manner to bring about a cultural change in Whitehall…(More)”.

Against Elections: The Lottocratic Alternative

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Alexander A. Guerrero: “It is widely accepted that electoral representative democracy is better — along a number of different normative dimensions — than any other alternative lawmaking political arrangement. It is not typically seen as much of a competition: it is also widely accepted that the only legitimate alternative to electoral representative democracy is some form of direct democracy, but direct democracy — we are told — would lead to bad policy. This article makes the case that there is a legitimate alternative system — one that uses lotteries, not elections, to select political officials — that would be better than electoral representative democracy. Part I diagnoses two significant failings of modern-day systems of electoral representative government: the failure of responsiveness and the failure of good governance. The argument offered suggests that these flaws run deep, so that even significant and politically unlikely reforms with respect to campaign finance and election law would make little difference. Although my distillation of the argument is novel, the basic themes will likely be familiar. I anticipate the initial response to the argument may be familiar as well: the Churchillian shrug. Parts II, III, and IV of this article represent the beginning of an effort to move past that response, to think about alternative political systems that might avoid some of the problems with the electoral representative system without introducing new and worse problems. In the second and third parts of the article, I outline an alternative political system, the lottocratic system, and present some of the virtues of such a system. In the fourth part of the article, I consider some possible problems for the system. The overall aims of this article are to raise worries for electoral systems of government, to present the lottocratic system and to defend the view that this system might be a normatively attractive alternative, removing a significant hurdle to taking a non-electoral system of government seriously as a possible improvement to electoral democracy…(More)”

The Digital Economy Report 2024

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by UNCTAD: “…underscores the urgent need for environmentally sustainable and inclusive digitalization strategies.

Digital technology and infrastructure depend heavily on raw materials, and the production and disposal of more and more devices, along with growing water and energy needs are taking an increasing toll on the planet.

For example, the production and use of digital devices, data centres and information and communications technology (ICT) networks account for an estimated 6% to 12% of global electricity use.

Developing countries bear the brunt of the environmental costs of digitalization while reaping fewer benefits. They export low value-added raw materials and import high value-added devices, along with increasing digital waste. Geopolitical tensions over critical minerals, abundant in many of these countries, complicate the challenges.

The report calls for bold action from policymakers, industry leaders and consumers. It urges a global shift towards a circular digital economy, focusing on circularity by design through durable products, responsible consumption, reuse and recycling, and sustainable business models…(More)”.