The Ethics of Advanced AI Assistants

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Iason Gabriel et al: “This paper focuses on the opportunities and the ethical and societal risks posed by advanced AI assistants. We define advanced AI assistants as artificial agents with natural language interfaces, whose function is to plan and execute sequences of actions on behalf of a user – across one or more domains – in line with the user’s expectations. The paper starts by considering the technology itself, providing an overview of AI assistants, their technical foundations and potential range of applications. It then explores questions around AI value alignment, well-being, safety and malicious uses. Extending the circle of inquiry further, we next consider the relationship between advanced AI assistants and individual users in more detail, exploring topics such as manipulation and persuasion, anthropomorphism, appropriate relationships, trust and privacy. With this analysis in place, we consider the deployment of advanced assistants at a societal scale, focusing on cooperation, equity and access, misinformation, economic impact, the environment and how best to evaluate advanced AI assistants. Finally, we conclude by providing a range of recommendations for researchers, developers, policymakers and public stakeholders…(More)”.

The End of the Policy Analyst? Testing the Capability of Artificial Intelligence to Generate Plausible, Persuasive, and Useful Policy Analysis

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Mehrdad Safaei and Justin Longo: “Policy advising in government centers on the analysis of public problems and the developing of recommendations for dealing with them. In carrying out this work, policy analysts consult a variety of sources and work to synthesize that body of evidence into useful decision support documents commonly called briefing notes. Advances in natural language processing (NLP) have led to the continuing development of tools that can undertake a similar task. Given a brief prompt, a large language model (LLM) can synthesize information in content databases. This article documents the findings from an experiment that tested whether contemporary NLP technology is capable of producing public policy relevant briefing notes that expert evaluators judge to be useful. The research involved two stages. First, briefing notes were created using three models: NLP generated; human generated; and NLP generated/human edited. Next, two panels of retired senior public servants (with only one panel informed of the use of NLP in the experiment) were asked to judge the briefing notes using a heuristic evaluation rubric. The findings indicate that contemporary NLP tools were not able to, on their own, generate useful policy briefings. However, the feedback from the expert evaluators indicates that automatically generated briefing notes might serve as a useful supplement to the work of human policy analysts. And the speed with which the capabilities of NLP tools are developing, supplemented with access to a larger corpus of previously prepared policy briefings and other policy-relevant material, suggests that the quality of automatically generated briefings may improve significantly in the coming years. The article concludes with reflections on what such improvements might mean for the future practice of policy analysis…(More)”.

Unleashing collective intelligence for public decision-making: the Data for Policy community

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Zeynep Engin, Emily Gardner, Andrew Hyde, Stefaan Verhulst and Jon Crowcroft: “Since its establishment in 2014, Data for Policy (https://dataforpolicy.org) has emerged as a prominent global community promoting interdisciplinary research and cross-sector collaborations in the realm of data-driven innovation for governance and policymaking. This report presents an overview of the community’s evolution from 2014 to 2023 and introduces its six-area framework, which provides a comprehensive mapping of the data for policy research landscape. The framework is based on extensive consultations with key stakeholders involved in the international committees of the annual Data for Policy conference series and the open-access journal Data & Policy published by Cambridge University Press. By presenting this inclusive framework, along with the guiding principles and future outlook for the community, this report serves as a vital foundation for continued research and innovation in the field of data for policy...(More)”.oeoMMrMrM..Andrew Hyde,Stefaan Verhulst[Opens in a new window] and

Millions of gamers advance biomedical research

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by McGill: “…4.5 million gamers around the world have advanced medical science by helping to reconstruct microbial evolutionary histories using a minigame included inside the critically and commercially successful video game, Borderlands 3. Their playing has led to a significantly refined estimate of the relationships of microbes in the human gut. The results of this collaboration will both substantially advance our knowledge of the microbiome and improve on the AI programs that will be used to carry out this work in future.

By playing Borderlands Science, a mini-game within the looter-shooter video game Borderlands 3, these players have helped trace the evolutionary relationships of more than a million different kinds of bacteria that live in the human gut, some of which play a crucial role in our health. This information represents an exponential increase in what we have discovered about the microbiome up till now. By aligning rows of tiles which represent the genetic building blocks of different microbes, humans have been able to take on tasks that even the best existing computer algorithms have been unable to solve yet…(More) (and More)”.

The False Choice Between Digital Regulation and Innovation

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Anu Bradford: “This Article challenges the common view that more stringent regulation of the digital economy inevitably compromises innovation and undermines technological progress. This view, vigorously advocated by the tech industry, has shaped the public discourse in the United States, where the country’s thriving tech economy is often associated with a staunch commitment to free markets. US lawmakers have also traditionally embraced this perspective, which explains their hesitancy to regulate the tech industry to date. The European Union has chosen another path, regulating the digital economy with stringent data privacy, antitrust, content moderation, and other digital regulations designed to shape the evolution of the tech economy towards European values around digital rights and fairness. According to the EU’s critics, this far-reaching tech regulation has come at the cost of innovation, explaining the EU’s inability to nurture tech companies and compete with the US and China in the tech race. However, this Article argues that the association between digital regulation and technological progress is considerably more complex than what the public conversation, US lawmakers, tech companies, and several scholars have suggested to date. For this reason, the existing technological gap between the US and the EU should not be attributed to the laxity of American laws and the stringency of European digital regulation. Instead, this Article shows there are more foundational features of the American legal and technological ecosystem that have paved the way for US tech companies’ rise to global prominence—features that the EU has not been able to replicate to date. By severing tech regulation from its allegedly adverse effect on innovation, this Article seeks to advance a more productive scholarly conversation on the costs and benefits of digital regulation. It also directs governments deliberating tech policy away from a false choice between regulation and innovation while drawing their attention to a broader set of legal and institutional reforms that are necessary for tech companies to innovate and for digital economies and societies to thrive…(More)”.

AI-driven public services and the privacy paradox: do citizens really care about their privacy?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Based on privacy calculus theory, we derive hypotheses on the role of perceived usefulness and privacy risks of artificial intelligence (AI) in public services. In a representative vignette experiment (n = 1,048), we asked citizens whether they would download a mobile app to interact in an AI-driven public service. Despite general concerns about privacy, we find that citizens are not susceptible to the amount of personal information they must share, nor to a more anthropomorphic interface. Our results confirm the privacy paradox, which we frame in the literature on the government’s role to safeguard ethical principles, including citizens’ privacy…(More)”.

The impact of generative artificial intelligence on socioeconomic inequalities and
policy making

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Valerio Capraro et al: “Generative artificial intelligence, including chatbots like ChatGPT, has the potential to both exacerbate and ameliorate existing socioeconomic inequalities. In this article, we provide a state-of-the-art interdisciplinary overview of the probable impacts of generative AI on four critical domains: work, education, health, and information. Our goal is to warn about how generative AI could worsen existing inequalities while illuminating directions for using AI to resolve pervasive social problems. Generative AI in the workplace can boost productivity and create new jobs, but the benefits will likely be distributed unevenly. In education, it offers personalized learning but may widen the digital divide. In healthcare, it improves diagnostics and accessibility but could deepen pre-existing inequalities. For information, it democratizes content creation and access but also dramatically expands the production and proliferation of misinformation. Each section covers a specific topic, evaluates existing research, identifies critical gaps, and recommends research directions. We conclude with a section highlighting the role of policymaking to maximize generative AI’s potential to reduce inequalities while
mitigating its harmful effects. We discuss strengths and weaknesses of existing policy frameworks in the European Union, the United States, and the United Kingdom, observing that each fails to fully confront the socioeconomic challenges we have identified. We contend that these policies should promote shared prosperity through the advancement of generative AI. We suggest several concrete policies to encourage further research and debate. This article emphasizes the need for interdisciplinary collaborations to understand and address the complex challenges of generative AI…(More)”.

Social Movements and Public Opinion in the United States

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Amory Gethin & Vincent Pons: “Recent social movements stand out by their spontaneous nature and lack of stable leadership, raising doubts on their ability to generate political change. This article provides systematic evidence on the effects of protests on public opinion and political attitudes. Drawing on a database covering the quasi-universe of protests held in the United States, we identify 14 social movements that took place from 2017 to 2022, covering topics related to environmental protection, gender equality, gun control, immigration, national and international politics, and racial issues. We use Twitter data, Google search volumes, and high-frequency surveys to track the evolution of online interest, policy views, and vote intentions before and after the outset of each movement. Combining national-level event studies with difference-in-differences designs exploiting variation in local protest intensity, we find that protests generate substantial internet activity but have limited effects on political attitudes. Except for the Black Lives Matter protests following the death of George Floyd, which shifted views on racial discrimination and increased votes for the Democrats, we estimate precise null effects of protests on public opinion and electoral behavior…(More)”.

Global AI governance: barriers and pathways forward 

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Huw Roberts, Emmie Hine, Mariarosaria Taddeo, Luciano Floridi: “This policy paper is a response to the growing calls for ambitious new international institutions for AI. It maps the geopolitical and institutional barriers to stronger global AI governance and considers potential pathways forward in light of these constraints. We argue that a promising foundation of international regimes focused on AI governance is emerging, but the centrality of AI to interstate competition, dysfunctional international institutions and disagreement over policy priorities problematizes substantive cooperation. We propose strengthening the existing weak ‘regime complex’ of international institutions as the most desirable and realistic path forward for global AI governance. Strengthening coordination between, and the capacities of, existing institutions supports mutually reinforcing policy change, which, if enacted properly, can lead to catalytic change across the various policy areas where AI has an impact. It also facilitates the flexible governance needed for rapidly evolving technologies.

To make this argument, we outline key global AI governance processes in the next section. In the third section, we analyse how first- and second-order cooperation problems in international relations apply to AI. In the fourth section we assess potential routes for advancing global AI governance, and we conclude by providing recommendations on how to strengthen the weak AI regime complex…(More)”.

Citizen scientists—practices, observations, and experience

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Michael O’Grady & Eleni Mangina: “Citizen science has been studied intensively in recent years. Nonetheless, the voice of citizen scientists is often lost despite their altruistic and indispensable role. To remedy this deficiency, a survey on the overall experiences of citizen scientists was undertaken. Dimensions investigated include activities, open science concepts, and data practices. However, the study prioritizes knowledge and practices of data and data management. When a broad understanding of data is lacking, the ability to make informed decisions about consent and data sharing, for example, is compromised. Furthermore, the potential and impact of individual endeavors and collaborative projects are reduced. Findings indicate that understanding of data management principles is limited. Furthermore, an unawareness of common data and open science concepts was observed. It is concluded that appropriate training and a raised awareness of Responsible Research and Innovation concepts would benefit individual citizen scientists, their projects, and society…(More)”.