Artificial intelligence researchers have proposed various data-driven algorithms to improve the processes that match individuals experiencing homelessness to scarce housing resources. It remains unclear whether and how these algorithms are received or adopted by practitioners and what their corresponding consequences are. Through semi-structured interviews with 13 policymakers in homeless services in Los An-geles, we investigate whether such change-makers are open to the idea of integrating AI into the housing resource matching process, identifying where they see potential gains and drawbacks from such a system in issues of efficiency, fairness, and transparency. Our qualitative analysis indicates that, even when aware of various complicating factors, policymak-ers welcome the idea of an AI matching tool if thoughtfully designed and used in tandem with human decision-makers. Though there is no consensus as to the exact design of such an AI system, insights from policymakers raise open questions and design considerations that can be enlightening for future researchers and practitioners who aim to build responsible algorithmic systems to support decision-making in low-resource scenarios.

The Home Office plans to use artificial intelligence to reduce the asylum backlog, and is launching a three-day hackathon in the search for quicker ways to process the 138,052 undecided asylum cases. The government is convening academics, tech experts, civil servants and business people to form 15 multidisciplinary teams tasked with brainstorming solutions to the backlog. Teams will be invited to compete to find the most innovative solutions, and will present their ideas to a panel of judges. The winners are expected to meet the prime minister, Rishi Sunak, in Downing Street for a prize-giving ceremony. Inspired by Silicon Valley's approach to problem-solving, the hackathon will take place in London and Peterborough in May.

I spend a disproportionate amount of time reading and talking to two somewhat niche groups of people in American politics: democratic socialists of the Sen. Bernie Sanders variety (or maybe a bit to the left of that), and left-libertarians from the Bay Area who are interested in effective altruism. These are both small groups, but they have social and intellectual influence bigger than their numbers. And while from a distance they look similar (I'm sure they both vote for Democrats in general elections, say), there's a big issue on which they part ways where collaboration could be productive: artificial intelligence safety. Effective altruists have, for complex sociological reasons I explored in a podcast episode, become very interested in AI as a potential "existential risk": a force that could, in extreme circumstances, wipe out humanity, just as nuclear war or asteroid strikes could. Kelsey Piper has a comprehensive Vox explainer of these arguments, and I take them seriously, but most friends to my left do not.