Artificial intelligence, the common good, and the democratic deficit in AI governance
Abstract There is a broad consensus that artificial intelligence should contribute to the common good, but it is not clear what is meant by that. This paper discusses this issue and uses it as a lens for analysing what it calls the “democracy deficit” in current AI governance, which includes a tendency to deny the inherently political character of the issue and to take a technocratic shortcut. It indicates what we may agree on and what is and should be up to (further) deliberation when it comes to AI ethics and AI governance. Inspired by the republican tradition in political theory, it also argues for a more active role of citizens and (end-)users: not only as participants in deliberation but also in ensuring, creatively and communicatively, that AI contributes to the common good.
Abstract There is a broad consensus that artificial intelligence should contribute to the common good, but it is not clear what is meant by that. This paper discusses this issue and uses it as a lens for analysing what it calls the “democracy deficit” in current AI governance, which includes a tendency to deny the inherently political character of the issue and to take a technocratic shortcut. It indicates what we may agree on and what is and should be up to (further) deliberation when it comes to AI ethics and AI governance. Inspired by the republican tradition in political theory, it also argues for a more active role of citizens and (end-)users: not only as participants in deliberation but also in ensuring, creatively and communicatively, that AI contributes to the common good.
Executive Summary
The article 'Artificial intelligence, the common good, and the democratic deficit in AI governance' explores the ambiguous concept of the 'common good' in the context of AI and highlights the democratic deficit in current AI governance. It argues for a more active role of citizens and users in AI ethics and governance, inspired by the republican tradition in political theory. The paper critiques the technocratic approach to AI governance and advocates for a more deliberative and inclusive process.
Key Points
- ▸ The concept of 'common good' in AI is ambiguous and requires further deliberation.
- ▸ Current AI governance suffers from a democratic deficit, characterized by a technocratic approach.
- ▸ Citizens and users should play a more active role in AI governance and ethics.
- ▸ The republican tradition in political theory can inspire a more inclusive and deliberative approach to AI governance.
Merits
Comprehensive Analysis
The article provides a thorough analysis of the concept of the common good in AI and its implications for governance.
Innovative Perspective
The paper offers a fresh perspective by drawing on the republican tradition in political theory to advocate for a more inclusive and deliberative approach to AI governance.
Critical Evaluation
The article critically evaluates the current state of AI governance and highlights the democratic deficit, providing a balanced and objective analysis.
Demerits
Lack of Specificity
The article could benefit from more specific examples and case studies to illustrate the points made.
Theoretical Focus
The paper is heavily theoretical and could be enhanced by more practical insights and recommendations.
Scope Limitations
The article focuses primarily on the democratic deficit and may not fully address other critical aspects of AI governance.
Expert Commentary
The article 'Artificial intelligence, the common good, and the democratic deficit in AI governance' presents a rigorous and well-reasoned analysis of the ambiguous concept of the 'common good' in the context of AI. The author effectively highlights the democratic deficit in current AI governance, characterized by a technocratic approach that often overlooks the inherently political nature of AI ethics and governance. The paper's strength lies in its comprehensive analysis and innovative perspective, drawing on the republican tradition in political theory to advocate for a more inclusive and deliberative approach. However, the article could benefit from more specific examples and case studies to illustrate its points, as well as more practical insights and recommendations. The theoretical focus, while insightful, may limit its immediate applicability. Overall, the article makes a significant contribution to the discourse on AI governance and ethics, emphasizing the need for public participation and deliberation to ensure that AI technologies contribute to the common good.
Recommendations
- ✓ Incorporate more specific examples and case studies to illustrate the points made in the article.
- ✓ Provide more practical insights and recommendations for implementing a more inclusive and deliberative approach to AI governance.
- ✓ Expand the scope of the analysis to address other critical aspects of AI governance beyond the democratic deficit.