Paper by Ingrid Campo-Ruiz: “Urban space is an important infrastructure for democracy and fosters democratic engagement, such as meetings, discussions, and protests. Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems could affect democracy through urban space, for example, by breaching data privacy, hindering political equality and engagement, or manipulating information about places. This research explores the urban places that promote democratic engagement according to the outputs generated with ChatGPT-4o. This research moves beyond the dominant framework of discussions on AI and democracy as a form of spreading misinformation and fake news. Instead, it provides an innovative framework, combining architectural space as an infrastructure for democracy and the way in which generative AI tools provide a nuanced view of democracy that could potentially influence millions of people. This article presents a new conceptual framework for understanding AI for democracy from the perspective of architecture. For the first case study in Stockholm, Sweden, AI outputs were later combined with GIS maps and a theoretical framework. The research then analyzes the results obtained for Madrid, Spain, and Brussels, Belgium. This analysis provides deeper insights into the outputs obtained with AI, the places that facilitate democratic engagement and those that are overlooked, and the ensuing consequences.Results show that urban space for democratic engagement obtained with ChatGPT-4o for Stockholm is mainly composed of governmental institutions and non-governmental organizations for representative or deliberative democracy and the education of individuals in public buildings in the city centre. The results obtained with ChatGPT-40 barely reflect public open spaces, parks, or routes. They also prioritize organized rather than spontaneous engagement and do not reflect unstructured events like demonstrations, and powerful actors, such as political parties, or workers’ unions. The places listed by ChatGPT-4o for Madrid and Brussels give major prominence to private spaces like offices that house organizations with political activities. While cities offer a broad and complex array of places for democratic engagement, outputs obtained with AI can narrow users’ perspectives on their real opportunities, while perpetuating powerful agents by not making them sufficiently visible to be accountable for their actions. In conclusion, urban space is a fundamental infrastructure for democracy, and AI outputs could be a valid starting point for understanding the plethora of interactions. These outputs should be complemented with other forms of knowledge to produce a more comprehensive framework that adjusts to reality for developing AI in a democratic context. Urban space should be protected as a shared space and as an asset for societies to fully develop democracy in its multiple forms. Democracy and urban spaces influence each other and are subject to pressures from different actors including AI. AI systems should, therefore, be monitored to enhance democratic values through urban space…(More)”.
Curated findings and actionable knowledge at the intersection of technology, innovation, and governance