Séb Krier (@sebkrier) on X

https://t.co/7HHn2uJ61C

x.com

The institutions AI will need: notes from class

Teaching AI futures at Columbia University

danbjork.substack.com

Building AI for the Democratic Matrix: A Technical Research Agenda for Normative Competence and Normative Institutions

To maintain democratic resilience, it is essential to build AI agents capable of choosing behaviors that mirror those of the human agents that constitute human democracies.

knightcolumbia.org

Continue reading on Firefly.Social

"AI becomes the government" is dystopian: it leads to slop when AI is weak, and is doom-maximizing once AI becomes strong. But AI used well can be empowering, and push the frontier of democratic / decentralized modes of governance. The core problem with democratic / decentralized modes of governance (including DAOs on ethereum) is limits to human attention: there are many thousands of decisions to make, involving many domains of expertise, and most people don't have the time or skill to be experts in even one, let alone all of them. The usual solution, delegation, is disempowering: it leads to a small group of delegates controlling decision-making while their supporters, after they hit the "delegate" button, have no influence at all. So what can we do? We use personal LLMs to solve the attention problem! Here are a few ideas: ## Personal governance agents If a governance mechanism depends on you to make a large number of decisions, a personal agent can perform all the necessary votes for you, based on preferences that it infers from your personal writing, conversation history, direct statements, etc. If the agent is (i) unsure how you would vote on an issue, and (ii) convinced the issue is important, then it should ask you directly, and give you all relevant context. ## Public conversation agents Making good decisions often cannot come from a linear process of taking people's views that are based only on their own information, and averaging them (even quadratically). There is a need for processes that aggregate many people's information, and then give each person (or their LLM) a chance to respond *based on that*. This includes: * Inferring and summarizing your own views and converting them into a format that can be shared publicly (and does not expose your private info) * Summarizing commonalities between people's inputs (expressed as words), similar to the various LLM+pol.is ideas ## Suggestion markets If a governance mechanism values "high-quality inputs" of any type (this could be proposals, or it could even be arguments), then you can have a prediction market, where anyone can submit an input, AIs can bet on a token representing that input, and if the mechanism "accepts" the input (either accepting the proposal, or accepting it as a "unit" of conversation that it then passes along to its participant), it pays out $X to the holders of the token. Note that this is basically the same as https://firefly.social/post/x/2017956762347835488 ## Decentralized governance with private information One of the biggest weaknesses of highly decentralized / democratic governance is that it does not work well when important decisions need to be made with secret information. Common situations: (i) the org engaging in adversarial conflicts or negotiations (ii) internal dispute resolution (iii) compensation / funding decisions. Typically, orgs solve this by appointing individuals who have great power to take on those tasks. But with multi-party computation (currently I've seen this done with TEEs; I would love to see at least the two-party case solved with garbled circuits https://vitalik.eth.limo/general/2020/03/21/garbled.html so we can get pure-cryptographic security guarantees for it), we could actually take many people's inputs into account to deal with these situations, without compromising privacy. Basically: you submit your personal LLM into a black box, the LLM sees private info, it makes a judgement based on that, and it outputs only that judgement. You don't see the private info, and no one else sees the contents of your personal LLM. ## The importance of privacy All of these approaches involve each participant making use of much more information about themselves, and potentially submitting much larger-sized inputs. Hence, it becomes all the more important to protect privacy. There are two kinds of privacy that matter: * Anonymity of the participant: this can be accomplished with ZK. In general, I think all governance tools should come with ZK built in * Privacy of the contents: this has two parts. First, the personal LLM should do what it can to avoid divulging private info about you that it does not need to divulge. Second, when you have computation that combines multiple LLMs or multiple people's info, you need multi-party techniques to compute it privately. Both are important.

firefly.social

To Make Sure AI Advances Democracy, First Ask, ‘Who Does It Serve?’ | TechPolicy.Press

AI must serve the people who use it to engage in free expression and make democratic decisions, writes Richard Reisman.

techpolicy.press

Does the UK really have the 12th largest ‘female health gap’ in the world? – Full Fact

Unreliable research from a male wellness company, which claimed that women are less healthy than men in the UK, has been widely shared by MPs, the media and institutions around the country.

fullfact.org

Societal and technological progress as sewing an ever-growing, ever-changing, patchy, and polychrome quilt

Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly placed in positions where their decisions have real consequences, e.g., moderating online spaces, conducting research, and advising on policy. Ens...

arxiv.org