How AI and Democracy Can Fix Each Other | Divya Siddarth | TED

Summary

The speaker passionately discusses the intersection of democracy and technology, emphasizing that democracy should be viewed as a solution, not a problem, especially in the era of AI. They highlight the importance of collective intelligence and public participation in shaping transformative technologies, arguing that the future of AI governance and societal progress relies on democratic involvement. By working on AI governance projects across various countries, the speaker shows how integrating diverse voices can lead to fairer outcomes and calls for a reimagined democracy that harnesses technology for the collective good.

Takeaways

• 😀 The speaker believes in using technology, specifically AI, to benefit people through democratic processes and collective input.
• 🤔 Democracy is often viewed as a problem, but the speaker sees it as a solution and a radical political project that can guide technological advancements like AI.
• 🧠 Technological advancements, like AI, should be governed democratically, and if existing democracies are inadequate, they must evolve.
• 🧬 The speaker's journey started with a strong belief in science and technology, but they realized that collective projects built for the public good had the most impact.
• 🌍 Democracy acts as a system of collective intelligence, allowing diverse inputs to create decisions better than the sum of their parts.
• 💬 The public is capable of engaging in complex discussions on AI, focusing on concerns like overreliance on systems they don’t fully understand, with little polarization on key issues.
• 📜 The speaker's organization, the Collective Intelligence Project, involves the public in AI governance, demonstrating that ordinary people can create fairer systems than AI experts.
• 👥 Public participation in building AI constitutions can lead to fairer models, showing that democracy can make good decisions even on complicated topics like AI governance.
• 🤖 Technology should enhance democracy by co-creating AI models and developing public ownership of the data used in AI systems.
• 🚀 The speaker envisions a future where technology and democracy evolve together, offering new ways for collective decision-making and ensuring that progress, safety, and democracy are intertwined.

Q & A

What is the speaker's main argument about democracy and technology?

The speaker argues that democracy should not be seen as a problem to be solved but as a solution. They emphasize that democracy, like technology, can evolve and be used to direct technological innovations like AI toward the collective benefit of society.

Why does the speaker believe technology must be governed democratically?

The speaker believes that transformative technologies like AI are often seen as too complex or risky for democratic governance, but this is precisely why they must be. Technology expands human capabilities, and democracy is the process through which society decides how to use those capabilities responsibly.

What experiences led the speaker to focus on democracy and collective intelligence?

The speaker’s initial passion was for science and technology, but over time, they realized that the most impactful technologies were those built with and for the collective. Their work in countries like India, the US, the UK, and Taiwan showed them the importance of democratic processes in solving global challenges.

How does the speaker view democracy in relation to AI governance?

The speaker sees democracy as an early form of collective intelligence, which is necessary for AI governance. They advocate for democratic processes that incorporate input from diverse groups to guide AI development and ensure fair and beneficial outcomes.

What is the Collective Intelligence Project, and why was it founded?

The Collective Intelligence Project is a nonprofit founded by the speaker and Saffron Huang to build new democratic governance models for transformative technologies like AI. The organization focuses on creating collective intelligence systems that involve the public in decision-making processes related to AI.

What did the speaker learn from their work with Anthropic's collective constitution project?

The speaker learned that ordinary people, when given the opportunity to contribute to AI governance, can create fairer and more effective AI systems than researchers. This project demonstrated that non-experts can have valuable insights into shaping the ethical principles guiding AI.

Why does the speaker believe people are capable of discussing complex topics like AI governance?

The speaker found that people are willing and able to engage in nuanced discussions on difficult topics like AI. In their experience, people from diverse backgrounds expressed thoughtful concerns and ideas, often showing more consensus and reasonableness than polarized policy debates suggest.

How does the speaker address the perceived trade-offs between democracy, progress, and safety?

The speaker rejects the idea that democracy must be sacrificed for the sake of technological progress or safety. They argue that true progress and safety can only be achieved through democratic participation, and that concentrating power in the hands of a few leads to undesirable outcomes.

What role does the speaker envision for AI in enhancing democratic processes?

The speaker sees AI as a tool that can enhance democratic processes by processing large amounts of information and helping create better decision-making systems. They believe AI can be used to facilitate collective intelligence and support more inclusive and efficient governance.

What is the speaker’s vision for the future of technology and democracy?

The speaker envisions a future where technology and democracy evolve together to create systems that prioritize collective well-being. They believe that new paradigms and collective intelligence systems can be built, allowing technology to serve the many, rather than concentrating power in the hands of a few.

Outlines

00:00

💡 Embracing Democracy and Technology

The speaker begins by expressing enthusiasm for working on democracy and technology despite a skeptical reaction. They argue that democracy is not a problem to be solved but a solution, especially in the context of modern challenges like artificial intelligence (AI). Democracy is presented as an evolving system of collective intelligence, offering a way to integrate technological advancements with societal benefit. The speaker emphasizes that instead of abandoning democracy when it's unequal to the task, it should be adapted and evolved with technology.

05:02

🤝 The Collective Power of People and AI

In this section, the speaker highlights the importance of collective input in guiding AI development, citing their experiences in projects that combine public collaboration with transformative technology. They share results from efforts involving ordinary people contributing to AI governance, which led to fairer, more inclusive AI models. Despite initial doubts, these collaborations showed that people are not only capable of understanding AI-related complexities but also excel in making ethical decisions, even outperforming experts in some areas.

10:04

🌍 Rethinking Technology and Democracy

The speaker reflects on the broader implications of using AI and democracy together. They explain how collective intelligence can lead to better decision-making, especially when diverse inputs are considered. They advocate for new models of co-ownership and democratic processes to govern the data that AI is built upon, asserting that technology can and should serve the collective good. Using Taiwan as a testbed, they highlight the success of public engagement in shaping the future of AI, pointing to a potential 'public option' for AI that is safe, beneficial, and adaptable to local needs.

🌱 The Future of Collective Intelligence

The speaker concludes by addressing the potential for new technologies to bring about new forms of collective intelligence. They argue that while current systems of democracy and technology governance are far from perfect, there are opportunities to reimagine and build better systems. The speaker envisions a future where democratic participation is deeply integrated into technological progress, suggesting that collective intelligence could help solve some of the world’s most pressing issues. They end with a hopeful message, quoting Arundhati Roy, and calling for action to shape a better future together.

Keywords

💡Democracy

Democracy is a system of governance where the power lies with the people, who participate directly or through elected representatives. In the video, the speaker highlights how democracy is not a problem to be solved but a solution for governing complex technologies like AI. It is framed as an evolving form of collective intelligence, crucial for addressing modern challenges.

💡Technology

Technology refers to tools, systems, and innovations developed to solve problems or enhance capabilities. The speaker's focus is on the intersection of technology and democracy, emphasizing that technological advancements, especially AI, must be directed by democratic processes to ensure they benefit society as a whole. This connects to the idea of using technology to improve collective decision-making.

💡Artificial Intelligence (AI)

AI refers to machines and systems that mimic human intelligence, such as learning, problem-solving, and decision-making. The speaker discusses the governance of AI as a transformative technology and stresses the importance of democratic input in shaping AI systems. AI is presented as a powerful tool that must be regulated and guided by collective decision-making for the greater good.

💡Collective Intelligence

Collective intelligence is the concept of pooling knowledge, input, and decision-making from diverse groups to reach better outcomes. In the video, the speaker presents democracy as an early form of collective intelligence, which is essential for solving modern problems like AI governance. The speaker's work involves creating models that incorporate the voices of thousands to guide AI development.

💡AI Governance

AI governance refers to the systems and rules that manage the development, deployment, and ethical considerations of AI. The speaker has worked with policymakers and tech companies to integrate democratic processes into AI governance. They argue that AI must be governed democratically to ensure it reflects society's values and addresses concerns like safety and fairness.

💡Public Option for AI

The public option for AI refers to an AI system that is built on shared public resources, like data, and is accessible to everyone, rather than being controlled by private companies. In the video, this concept is presented as a potential solution to ensure AI benefits all members of society. The speaker shares how people in Taiwan expressed excitement about this possibility, highlighting the public’s desire for AI systems that are safe, fair, and community-driven.

💡Co-Ownership Models

Co-ownership models involve the collective ownership and management of resources, such as data, by the public. The speaker advocates for this approach in AI development, arguing that the data AI is built on belongs to everyone and should be governed in a way that allows communities to access and benefit from it. This is part of their broader vision of integrating democracy into technology development.

💡Collective Constitution Project

The Collective Constitution Project is an initiative where ordinary people helped create a set of principles to guide AI development. The speaker describes how 1,000 representative Americans co-wrote a 'constitution' for training an AI model, and this citizen-generated model was found to be fairer than a version developed by researchers. It exemplifies how democratic participation can lead to better outcomes in technology.

💡AI Safety

AI safety refers to the precautions and measures taken to ensure that AI systems do not cause harm or unintended consequences. The speaker notes that people are concerned about overreliance on systems they do not understand, highlighting the need for safety mechanisms in AI. The argument is made that democratic governance can help address these concerns by involving the public in decisions about AI deployment and regulation.

💡Decentralized Input

Decentralized input refers to gathering feedback, knowledge, or decisions from a wide and diverse group of individuals rather than concentrating power in a small group. The speaker stresses that democracy allows for decentralized input, which leads to better decision-making in complex areas like AI governance. This concept is central to their argument that collective intelligence is key to managing transformative technologies.

Highlights

Democracy is not a problem to be solved, but a solution to build a world where technology benefits people using their input.

Democracy was once a radical political project and is a form of collective intelligence, answering how we live well together, even in the AI era.

Technologies like AI are often viewed as too complicated or risky for democratic governance, but this is exactly why they must be governed democratically.

The goal is not to abandon democracy if it is unequal to the task, but to evolve it, using technology as an asset.

Early democratic governance models can be effective in solving transformative technological challenges, such as AI governance.

Democracy allows decentralized input from diverse sources to produce better decisions than the sum of individual parts.

Projects that combine creating new technologies with collective access, benefits, and direction make a meaningful difference, unlike profit-driven tech developments.

In the AI governance project, citizens voiced concerns about overreliance on systems they do not understand, showcasing thoughtful public engagement.

Despite common fears, polarization was minimal in AI discussions, with people largely agreeing on critical issues such as free speech and AI fairness.

A collective constitution for AI, co-written by 1,000 Americans, was as capable and fairer than one developed by AI researchers.

Democracy can be effective at deciding how to manage complex technologies like AI, offering a viable alternative to expert-only models.

Work in Taiwan shows the public's desire for a 'public option for AI,' built on shared, safe, and accessible public data.

Public expertise and co-ownership models of data, combined with AI's ability to process large inputs, can enhance democratic decision-making processes.

Technological progress, safety, and democratic participation are interdependent, and abandoning any one of them leads to negative outcomes.

Democratic AI models can advance safety, progress, and participation, and public expertise is vital in addressing risks and building fair systems.

New technologies create opportunities for building new collective intelligence systems, allowing us to reshape how we live together in the future.

Transcripts

Recently I told someone my work is on democracy and technology.

He turned to me and said,

“Wow...

I’m sorry.”

(Laughter)

But I love my work.

I know that we can build a world

where technological marvels are directed towards people's benefit,

using their input.

We have gotten so used to seeing democracy as a problem to be solved.

But I see democracy as a solution,

not as a problem.

Democracy was once a radical political project,

itself a cutting-edge social technology,

a new way to answer the very question we are faced with now,

in the era of artificial intelligence:

how do we use our capabilities to live well together?

We are told that transformative technologies like AI are too complicated,

or too risky

or too important to be governed democratically.

But this is precisely why they must be.

If existing democracy is unequal to the task,

our job is not to give up on it.

Our job is to evolve it.

And to use technology as an asset to help us do so.

Still, I understand his doubts.

I never meant to build my life around new forms of democracy.

I started out just really believing in the power of science.

I was modifying DNA in my kitchen at 12,

and when I got to Stanford as a computational biology major,

I was converted to a new belief -- technology.

I truly believed in the power of tech to change the world.

Maybe, like many of you.

But I saw that the technologies that really made a difference

were the ones that were built with and for the collective.

Not the billions of dollars

pumped into the 19th addiction-fueling social app.

But the projects that combine creating something truly new

with building in ways for people to access,

benefit from and direct it.

Instead of social media, think of the internet.

Built with public resources on open standards.

This is what brought me to democracy.

Technology expands what we are capable of.

Democracy is how we decide what to do with that capability.

Since then, I've worked on using democracy as a solution

in India, the US, the UK, Taiwan.

I've worked alongside incredible collaborators

to use democracy to help solve COVID,

to help solve data rights.

And as I'll tell you today,

to help solve AI governance with policymakers around the world

and cutting-edge technology companies like OpenAI and Anthropic.

How?

By recognizing that democracy is still in its infancy.

It is an early form of collective intelligence,

a way to put together decentralized input from diverse sources

and produce decisions that are better than the sum of their parts.

That’s why, when my fantastic cofounder Saffron Huang and I

left our jobs at Google DeepMind and Microsoft

to build new democratic governance models for transformative tech,

I named our nonprofit the Collective Intelligence Project,

as a nod to the ever-evolving project of building collective intelligence

for collective flourishing.

Since then we've done just that,

building new collective intelligence models to direct artificial intelligence,

to run democratic processes.

And we've incorporated the voices of thousands of people into AI governance.

Here are a few of the things we've learned.

First, people are willing and able to have difficult,

complex conversations on nuanced topics.

When we asked people about the risks of AI they were most concerned about,

they didn't reach for easy answers.

Out of more than 100 risks put forward,

the top-cited one: overreliance on systems we don't understand.

We talked to people across the country,

from a veteran in the Midwest to a young teacher in the South.

People were excited about the possibilities of this technology,

but there were specific things they wanted to understand

about what models were capable of before seeing them deployed in the world.

A lot more reasonable than many of the policy conversations that we're in.

And importantly, we saw very little of the polarization

we're always hearing about.

On average, just a few divisive statements

for hundreds of consensus statements.

Even on the contentious issues of the day,

like free speech or race and gender,

we saw far more agreement than disagreement.

Almost three quarters of people agree that AI should protect free speech.

Ninety percent agree that AI should not be racist or sexist.

Only around 50 percent think that AI should be funny though,

so they are still contentious issues out there.

These last statistics

are from our collective constitution project with Anthropic,

where we retrained one of the world's most powerful language models

on principles written by 1,000 representative Americans.

Not AI developers or regulators or researchers at elite universities.

We built on a way of training AI

that relies on a written set of principles or a constitution,

we asked ordinary people to cowrite this constitution,

we compared it to a model that researchers had come up with.

When we started this project, I wasn't sure what to expect.

Maybe the naysayers were right.

AI is complicated.

Maybe people wouldn't understand what we were asking them.

Maybe we'd end up with something awful.

But the people’s model, trained on the cowritten constitution,

was just as capable and more fair

than the model the researchers had come up with.

People with little to no experience in AI

did better than researchers, who work on this full-time,

in building a fairer chatbot.

Maybe I shouldn't have been surprised.

As one of our participants from another process said,

"They may be experts in AI, but I have eight grandchildren.

I know how to pick good values."

If technology expands what we are capable of

and democracy is how we decide what to do with that capability,

here is early evidence that democracy can do a good job deciding.

Of course, these processes aren't enough.

Collective intelligence requires a broader reimagining of technology

and democracy.

That’s why we’re also working on co-ownership models

for the data that AI is built on -- which, after all, belongs to all of us --

and using AI itself to create new and better decision-making processes.

Taking advantage of the things

that language models can do that humans can’t,

like processing huge amounts of text input.

Our work in Taiwan has been an incredible test bed for all of this.

Along with Minister Audrey Tang and the Ministry of Digital Affairs,

we are working on processes to ask Taiwan's millions of citizens

what they actually want to see as a future with AI.

And using that input not just to legislate,

but to build.

Because one thing that has already come out of these processes

is that people are truly excited about a public option for AI,

one that is built on shared public data that is reliably safe,

that allows communities to access, benefit from

and adjust it to their needs.

This is what the world of technology could look like.

Steered by the many for the many.

I often find that we accept unnecessary trade-offs

when it comes to transformative tech.

We are told that we might need to sacrifice democracy

for the sake of technological progress.

We have no choice but to concentrate power to keep ourselves safe

from possible risks.

This is wrong.

It is impossible to have any one of these things --

progress, safety or democratic participation --

without the others.

If we resign ourselves to only two of the three,

we will end up with either centralized control or chaos.

Either a few people get to decide or no one does.

These are both terrible outcomes,

and our work shows that there is another way.

Each of our projects advanced progress,

safety and democratic participation

by building cutting-edge democratic AI models,

by using public expertise as a way to understand diffuse risks

and by imagining co-ownership models for the digital commons.

We are so far from the best collective intelligence systems we could have.

If we started over on building a decision-making process for the world,

what would we choose?

Maybe we'd be better at separating financial power from political power.

Maybe we'd create thousands of new models of corporations

or bureaucracies.

Maybe we'd build in the voices of natural elements

or future generations.

Here's a secret.

In some ways, we are always starting from scratch.

New technologies usher in new paradigms

that can come with new collective intelligence systems.

We can create new ways of living well together

if we use these brief openings for change.

The story of technology and democracy is far from over.

It doesn't have to be this way.

Things could be unimaginably better.

As the Indian author Arundhati Roy once said,

"Another world is not only possible,

she is on her way.

On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing."

I can hear our new world breathing.

One in which we shift the systems we have

towards using the solution of democracy to build the worlds we want to see.

The future is up to us.

We have a world to win.

Thank you.

(Applause)