Two substantial technological advances have reshaped the public square in recent decades: first with the advent of the internet and second with the recent introduction of large language models (LLMs). LLMs offer opportunities for a paradigm shift towards more decentralized, participatory online spaces that can be used to facilitate deliberative dialogues at scale, but also create risks of exacerbating societal schisms. Here, we explore four applications of LLMs to improve digital public squares: collective dialogue systems, bridging systems, community moderation, and proof-of-humanity systems. Building on the input from over 70 civil society experts and technologists, we argue that LLMs both afford promising opportunities to shift the paradigm for conversations at scale and pose distinct risks for digital public squares. We lay out an agenda for future research and investments in AI that will strengthen digital public squares and safeguard against potential misuses of AI.

We introduce a method to measure the alignment between public will and language model (LM) behavior that can be applied to fine-tuning, online oversight, and pre-release safety checks. Our `chain of alignment' (CoA) approach produces a rule based reward (RBR) by creating model behavior $\textit{rules}$ aligned to normative $\textit{objectives}$ aligned to $\textit{public will}$. This factoring enables a nonexpert public to directly specify their will through the normative objectives, while expert intelligence is used to figure out rules entailing model behavior that best achieves those objectives. We validate our approach by applying it across three different domains of LM prompts related to mental health. We demonstrate a public input process built on collective dialogues and bridging-based ranking that reliably produces normative objectives supported by at least $96\% \pm 2\%$ of the US public. We then show that rules developed by mental health experts to achieve those objectives enable a RBR that evaluates an LM response's alignment with the objectives similarly to human experts (Pearson's $r=0.841$, $AUC=0.964$). By measuring alignment with objectives that have near unanimous public support, these CoA RBRs provide an approximate measure of alignment between LM behavior and public will.

Recent decisions by leading AI labs to either open-source their models or to restrict access to their models has sparked debate about whether, and how, increasingly capable AI models should be shared. Open-sourcing in AI typically refers to making model architecture and weights freely and publicly accessible for anyone to modify, study, build on, and use. This offers advantages such as enabling external oversight, accelerating progress, and decentralizing control over AI development and use. However, it also presents a growing potential for misuse and unintended consequences. This paper offers an examination of the risks and benefits of open-sourcing highly capable foundation models. While open-sourcing has historically provided substantial net benefits for most software and AI development processes, we argue that for some highly capable foundation models likely to be developed in the near future, open-sourcing may pose sufficiently extreme risks to outweigh the benefits. In such a case, highly capable foundation models should not be open-sourced, at least not initially. Alternative strategies, including non-open-source model sharing options, are explored. The paper concludes with recommendations for developers, standard-setting bodies, and governments for establishing safe and responsible model sharing practices and preserving open-source benefits where safe.

Numerous parties are calling for the democratisation of AI, but the phrase is used to refer to a variety of goals, the pursuit of which sometimes conflict. This paper identifies four kinds of AI democratisation that are commonly discussed: (1) the democratisation of AI use, (2) the democratisation of AI development, (3) the democratisation of AI profits, and (4) the democratisation of AI governance. Numerous goals and methods of achieving each form of democratisation are discussed. The main takeaway from this paper is that AI democratisation is a multifarious and sometimes conflicting concept that should not be conflated with improving AI accessibility. If we want to move beyond ambiguous commitments to democratising AI, to productive discussions of concrete policies and trade-offs, then we need to recognise the principal role of the democratisation of AI governance in navigating tradeoffs and risks across decisions around use, development, and profits.

How can many people (who may disagree) come together to answer a question or make a decision? "Collective response systems" are a type of generative collective intelligence (CI) facilitation process meant to address this challenge. They enable a form of "generative voting", where both the votes, and the choices of what to vote on, are provided by the group. Such systems overcome the traditional limitations of polling, town halls, standard voting, referendums, etc. The generative CI outputs of collective response systems can also be chained together into iterative "collective dialogues", analogously to some kinds of generative AI. Technical advances across domains including recommender systems, language models, and human-computer interaction have led to the development of innovative and scalable collective response systems. For example, Polis has been used around the world to support policy-making at different levels of government, and Remesh has been used by the UN to understand the challenges and needs of ordinary people across war-torn countries. This paper aims to develop a shared language by defining the structure, processes, properties, and principles of such systems. Collective response systems allow non-confrontational exploration of divisive issues, help identify common ground, and elicit insights from those closest to the issues. As a result, they can help overcome gridlock around conflict and governance challenges, increase trust, and develop mandates. Continued progress toward their development and adoption could help revitalize democracies, reimagine corporate governance, transform conflict, and govern powerful AI systems -- both as a complement to deeper deliberative democratic processes and as an option where deeper processes are not applicable or possible.