The Ditchley community debrief, from the conference on Techno-Democracy: how can democracies adopt AI and other emerging technologies at speed in order to strengthen both global competitiveness and core values?was held on the 25 February 2022. The main themes to emerge from the discussion were:
The largest risk we face is from the technology we have created and we must treat it as seriously.
We are living in a time of ‘exponential change’ and ‘emergent properties’. Individuals and societies are bad at dealing with exponential change as we are used to linear change – the change for which our governments and industries are set up.
Emergent properties are a result of exponential change. This is extremely challenging as the problem arrives before we know that it is going to, and we do not know what the problem is until it presents itself.
Vision & Virtue. Before we can troubleshoot, do we need to properly look at where we are going? Do we have a vision for what we are aiming for? Ethics and safety should underpin how we do technology—what are our values as we navigate our way forward?
Test of the West. Is the openness of our democratic system threatening our democracy? There was a powerful warning which suggested democracies are in trouble and that authoritarian regimes are in better place to handle technological challenges. Freedom of speech amplifies discord and division—countries like China take steps to reduce this and can control capital, which becomes too powerful. However, is it a greater risk that in countries like China, the state becomes ‘omnipotent’ in every sphere of life?
Need for speed. In order to grapple with the challenges we are facing, the response time of governance and institutions needs to adapt. Technology can be used as a tool to sustain norms and principles which drive and embed what we view as essential to preserving democracy. How AI can help us change the way we govern is being piloted at the moment. In the US, for example, AI is being used to help citizens interact with government to facilitate better input into policy development, as current lines of dialogue are not quick or efficient enough.
Two speeds. There is normative speed and there is crisis speed but, at present, we do not have structures for that. Maybe what would help is a digitally enforced ‘injunction’ or pause at times of crisis. When we are dealing with planetary scale crises, our institutions are not set up to cope. Big tech could play that role across borders.
Multi-agency stakeholders. A diversity of actors—government, academia, private sector—should be actively participating to work out solutions across multiple sectors and across levels of government. Mechanically and practically we have more capacity to do that than ever before and history shows we can do good regulation, for example, in the UK, on nuclear security. Regulation can sometimes hinder innovation, but the technology industry has to adapt.
Funding solutions to public problems. More investment is required in science and innovation as everything is happening at the edge. The centre is not in control. It is important to have good scientific capability and Britain, for example, could have a broader ecosystem on this (with less research done by universities) with more investment. Empirical computation is touching every field of scientific discovery, but it is difficult to regulate.
A global plan of action? Contract for the Web has been set up to encourage inclusion into digital human rights and build consensus across all major actors. While it is not quick or clean, everyone has so far been co-operative and invested time. This is what we do well in democracies.
Click here for a link to the terms of reference for the conference.