Particip-AI: A Democratic Surveying Framework for Anticipating Future AI Use Cases, Harms, and Benefits

Kernekoncepter

Introducing Particip-AI for democratic AI governance and risk assessment through public participation.

Resumé

The article introduces the Particip-AI framework to gather public opinions on AI use cases, harms, and benefits. It emphasizes the need for democratic governance in AI development and regulation. The framework involves brainstorming use cases, assessing risks under alternate scenarios, and making choices on development. Results show diverse public interests in AI applications for personal life and society, contrasting with business-focused development.

Introduction

General-purpose AI accessibility increases with models like ChatGPT.
Concerns over centralized governance despite democratization attempts.

Use Cases of AI

Participants brainstorm current (Tech-X) and future (Tech-X 10) use cases.
Themes include domain, support type, impact realms like work, personal life, society.

Harms of Developing

Misuses lead to social/psychological effects; failures cause economic/physical harm.

Benefits of Developing

Reinvesting human capital leads to personal growth; economic gain improves efficiency.

Harms of Not Developing

Limiting human potential is a major concern; losing information/resources impacts efficiency.

Benefits of Not Developing

Human growth potential is highlighted; less dependence on tech fosters learning skills.

Tensions over Development

Most participants favor developing use cases despite identified harms and benefits.

Statistik

"Participants most often mentioned the domain of use cases compared to support type or goal."
"Personal life applications were more frequent for Tech-X compared to Tech-X 10."
"Economic impact was a common theme but had lower perceived impact compared to other themes."

Citater

Vigtigste indsigter udtrukket fra

Particip-AI

by Jimin Mun,Li... kl. arxiv.org 03-25-2024

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2403.14791.pdf

Dybere Forespørgsler

How can frameworks like Particip-AI ensure diverse public voices are included in AI governance?

Frameworks like Particip-AI can ensure diverse public voices are included in AI governance by providing a structured and inclusive platform for non-experts to share their opinions and critical assessments of AI. By incorporating various perspectives from different demographic groups, such frameworks can capture a wide range of concerns, values, and priorities that may not be represented in expert-driven discussions. Additionally, Particip-AI's approach of gathering detailed and nuanced public opinions on AI through use cases allows for a more comprehensive understanding of the potential impacts and implications of AI technologies on society.

What challenges might arise from relying solely on expert opinions for assessing AI risks?

Relying solely on expert opinions for assessing AI risks may lead to several challenges. One major challenge is the lack of diversity in perspectives, as experts may have biases or blind spots that could overlook certain ethical considerations or societal implications. This narrow focus could result in overlooking important factors that affect marginalized communities or vulnerable populations.
Another challenge is the potential for expertise bias, where experts may prioritize technical aspects over broader societal impacts. This could lead to an imbalance between technological advancements and ethical considerations, resulting in decisions that prioritize efficiency or innovation at the expense of human well-being.
Furthermore, exclusive reliance on expert opinions may limit transparency and accountability in decision-making processes related to AI governance. Without input from a diverse range of stakeholders, there is a risk of decisions being made without considering the broader societal context or addressing concerns raised by those directly impacted by AI technologies.

How can the tension between developing and not developing AI applications be resolved effectively?

The tension between developing and not developing AI applications can be effectively resolved through transparent communication channels that involve all relevant stakeholders in decision-making processes. It is essential to engage with diverse voices representing different perspectives – including experts, policymakers, industry representatives, ethicists, community members, and end-users – to weigh the benefits against potential harms comprehensively.
Additionally, implementing robust regulatory frameworks that address ethical considerations while fostering innovation is crucial. These frameworks should incorporate mechanisms for ongoing monitoring and evaluation to assess the impact of developed applications continuously.
Moreover, promoting interdisciplinary collaboration among various fields such as technology development ethics policy-making will help bridge gaps between different viewpoints regarding the development of new technologies like artificial intelligence.