The claim that the AI community, or society at large, should'democratize AI' has attracted considerable critical attention and controversy. Two core problems have arisen and remain unsolved: conceptual disagreement persists about what democratizing AI means; normative disagreement persists over whether democratizing AI is ethically and politically desirable. We identify eight common AI democratization traps: democratization-skeptical arguments that seem plausible at first glance, but turn out to be misconceptions. We develop arguments about how to resist each trap. We conclude that, while AI democratization may well have drawbacks, we should be cautious about dismissing AI democratization prematurely and for the wrong reasons. We offer a constructive roadmap for developing alternative conceptual and normative approaches to democratizing AI that successfully avoid the traps.

This week only, every donation is doubled! Halfway through our Summer Membership Drive, we're still well behind where we need to be. But there's good news: This week, every donation will be doubled up, to $50,000 We need you right now. We need you right now. Trump's Justice Department Backs Elon Musk in Data Center Lawsuit DOJ urges judge to throw NAACP's legal action over xAI's gas turbines in Mississippi.

This week only, every donation is doubled! Halfway through our Summer Membership Drive, we're still well behind where we need to be. But there's good news: This week, every donation will be doubled up, to $50,000 We need you right now. We need you right now. The wave of booing aimed at AI-pilled commencement speakers signals a sea change in public opinion.

The great German philosopher, who died in March, understood how much depended on a principled public sphere. Habermas emerged from the uncompromising Frankfurt School, but his work was considerably less fatalistic. You wake up and brace yourself for the barrage of toxic gibberish that constitutes the modern public sphere. Your e-mail is overrun with spam, scams, and smut. There are voice mails from no one about nothing. A glance at the news reveals that the President is continuing to spew lies and obscenities; that a trillionaire is peddling white-supremacist propaganda on a social-media platform he owns; that a chart-topping musical artist is praising Hitler, or apologizing for praising Hitler, or praising Hitler once again. Publications from the on down employ clickbait headlines that treat you like a starving rat in a Pavlovian experiment. A.I. systems simulate the experience of talking to an arrogant ten-year-old boy who knows far less than he thinks he does. When pressed, the chatbots admit that they cannot "naturally understand human morality, dignity, culture, or meaning." It all adds up to a continuous discursive tinnitus--a buzz of random, fake, stupid, sinister chatter that nobody wants and nobody can stop. The person who should have been best able to explain how we got here was the great German philosopher Jürgen Habermas, who illuminated how a feisty, principled public sphere is integral to democracy. But Habermas died in March, at the age of ninety-six, and, although he remained active until his final months, commenting on Ukraine, Gaza, and Eurobonds, he struggled to understand the turn history had taken. As a teen-ager in 1945, he had witnessed American soldiers enter his home town of Gummersbach, near Cologne, carrying messages of freedom and openness. Eight decades later, he watched American voters choose a leader who had advertised his fascistic bent in blood-and-soil rhetoric, fantasies of punitive violence, and a taste for bombastic architectural kitsch.

'According to Kurz, technological moguls have long seen themselves as superior beings whose natural role is to shape society - so they have no problem disrupting the institution of democracy.' 'According to Kurz, technological moguls have long seen themselves as superior beings whose natural role is to shape society - so they have no problem disrupting the institution of democracy.' 'Capitalism has to become more humane': a Stanford economist on big tech, power hoarding and democracy T he billionaires of today are unusually aggressive in their hoarding of cultural and technological influence, according to Mordecai Kurz, a Stanford economist whose research connects monopoly power with political and economic inequality. In his new book, Private Power and Democracy's Decline, publishing 19 May, he argues the US is living through an extreme version of a pattern that has repeated itself since industrialization: technological power concentrating in the hands of a few, which is eroding democracy. According to Kurz, technological moguls have long seen themselves as superior beings whose natural role is to shape society - so they have no problem disrupting the institution of democracy.

Liquid democracy with ranked delegations is a novel voting scheme that unites the practicability of representative democracy with the idealistic appeal of direct democracy: Every voter decides between casting their vote on a question at hand or delegating their voting weight to some other, trusted agent. Delegations are transitive, and since voters may end up in a delegation cycle, they are encouraged to indicate not only a single delegate, but a set of potential delegates and a ranking among them. Based on the delegation preferences of all voters, a delegation rule selects one representative per voter. Previous work has revealed a trade-off between two properties of delegation rules called anonymity and copy-robustness. To overcome this issue we study two fractional delegation rules: MIXEDBORDA BRANCHING, which generalizes a rule satisfying copy-robustness, and the RANDOMWALKRULE, which satisfies anonymity. Using the Markov chain tree theorem, we show that the two rules are in fact equivalent, and simultaneously satisfy generalized versions of the two properties. Combining the same theorem with Fulkerson's algorithm, we develop a polynomial-time algorithm for computing the outcome of the studied delegation rule. This algorithm is of independent interest, having applications in semi-supervised learning and graph theory.

A typical solution isdirect democracywhich decides based on amajority vote, the so called "wisdom of the crowd."

Predictions that AI bot swarms were a threat to democracy weren't'fanciful', said Michael Wooldridge, professor of the foundations of AI at Oxford University. Predictions that AI bot swarms were a threat to democracy weren't'fanciful', said Michael Wooldridge, professor of the foundations of AI at Oxford University. Experts warn of threat to democracy from'AI bot swarms' infesting social media Political leaders could soon launch swarms of human-imitating AI agents to reshape public opinion in a way that threatens to undermine democracy, a high profile group of experts in AI and online misinformation has warned. The Nobel peace prize-winning free-speech activist Maria Ressa, and leading AI and social science researchers from Berkeley, Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge and Yale are among a global consortium flagging the new "disruptive threat" posed by hard-to-detect, malicious "AI swarms" infesting social media and messaging channels. A would-be autocrat could use such swarms to persuade populations to accept cancelled elections or overturn results, they said, amid predictions the technology could be deployed at scale by the time of the US presidential election in 2028.

Advances in artificial intelligence are creating a perfect storm for those seeking to spread disinformation at unprecedented speed and scale. And it's virtually impossible to detect. In 2016, hundreds of Russians filed into a modern office building on 55 Savushkina Street in St. Petersburg every day; they were part of the now-infamous troll farm known as the Internet Research Agency . Day and night, seven days a week, these employees would manually comment on news articles, post on Facebook and Twitter, and generally seek to rile up Americans about the then-upcoming presidential election. When the scheme was finally uncovered, there was widespread media coverage and Senate hearings, and social media platforms made changes in the way they verified users.

Ana Corina Sosa (second from left), receives the Nobel Peace Prize for her mother, Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado, from the Chair of the Norwegian Nobel Committee Jorgen Watne Frydnes next to a photo of Machado, in Oslo on Wednesday. OSLO - Democracies must be prepared to fight for freedom in order to survive, Nobel Peace Prize laureate Maria Corina Machado said on Wednesday, in a speech delivered by her daughter during a ceremony Machado could not attend. The Venezuelan opposition leader said that the prize held profound significance, not only for her country but for the world. "It reminds the world that democracy is essential to peace," she said, via her daughter Ana Corina Sosa Machado. "And the most important, the lesson Venezuelans can share with the world, is a lesson forged on a long and difficult path: If we want democracy, we must be prepared to fight for freedom."