Applications of Artificial Intelligence Tools to Enhance Legislative Engagement: Case Studies from Make.Org and MAPLE

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.04769v1
• Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2025 19:52:15 GMT
• Title: Applications of Artificial Intelligence Tools to Enhance Legislative Engagement: Case Studies from Make.Org and MAPLE
• Authors: Alicia Combaz, David Mas, Nathan Sanders, Matthew Victor,
• Abstract summary: This paper is a collaboration between Make.org and the Massachusetts Platform for Legislative Engagement (MAPLE)<n>Make.org is developing massive online participative platforms that can engage hundreds of thousands or even millions of participants.<n>We believe that assistive integrations of AI can meaningfully impact the equity, efficiency, and accessibility of democratic legislating.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: This paper is a collaboration between Make.org and the Massachusetts Platform for Legislative Engagement (MAPLE), two non-partisan civic technology organizations building novel AI deployments to improve democratic capacity. Make.org, a civic innovator in Europe, is developing massive online participative platforms that can engage hundreds of thousands or even millions of participants. MAPLE, a volunteer-led NGO in the United States, is creating an open-source platform to help constituents understand and engage more effectively with the state law-making process. We believe that assistive integrations of AI can meaningfully impact the equity, efficiency, and accessibility of democratic legislating. We draw generalizable lessons from our experience in designing, building, and operating civic engagement platforms with AI integrations. We discuss four dimensions of legislative engagement that benefit from AI integrations: (1) making information accessible, (2) facilitating expression, (3) supporting deliberation, and (4) synthesizing insights. We present learnings from current, in development, and contemplated AI-powered features, such as summarizing and organizing policy information, supporting users in articulating their perspectives, and synthesizing consensus and controversy in public opinion. We outline what challenges needed to be overcome to deploy these tools equitably and discuss how Make.org and MAPLE have implemented and iteratively improved those concepts to make citizen assemblies and policymaking more participatory and responsive. We compare and contrast the approaches of Make.org and MAPLE, as well as how jurisdictional differences alter the risks and opportunities for AI deployments seeking to improve democracy. We conclude with recommendations for governments and NGOs interested in enhancing legislative engagement.

Related papers

• The Right to AI [3.2132738637761027]
  This paper proposes a Right to AI, which asserts that individuals and communities should meaningfully participate in the development and governance of the AI systems that shape their lives.<n>We critically evaluate how generative agents, large-scale data extraction, and diverse cultural values bring new complexities to AI oversight.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-29T04:32:41Z)
• Toward Democracy Levels for AI [4.048639768405042]
  We provide a "Democracy Levels" framework for evaluating the degree to which decisions in a given domain are made democratically.<n>The framework can be used (i) to define in a roadmap for the democratic AI, pluralistic AI, and public AI ecosystems, (ii) to guide organizations that need to increase the legitimacy of their decisions on difficult AI governance questions, and (iii) as a rubric by those aiming to evaluate AI organizations and keep them accountable.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-14T06:37:45Z)
• From Experts to the Public: Governing Multimodal Language Models in Politically Sensitive Video Analysis [48.14390493099495]
  This paper examines the governance of large language models (MM-LLMs) through individual and collective deliberation. We conducted a two-step study: first, interviews with 10 journalists established a baseline understanding of expert video interpretation; second, 114 individuals from the general public engaged in deliberation using Inclusive.AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-15T03:17:38Z)
• Do Responsible AI Artifacts Advance Stakeholder Goals? Four Key Barriers Perceived by Legal and Civil Stakeholders [59.17981603969404]
  The responsible AI (RAI) community has introduced numerous processes and artifacts to facilitate transparency and support the governance of AI systems. We conduct semi-structured interviews with 19 government, legal, and civil society stakeholders who inform policy and advocacy around responsible AI efforts. We organize these beliefs into four barriers that help explain how RAI artifacts may (inadvertently) reconfigure power relations across civil society, government, and industry.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-22T00:14:37Z)
• Public Constitutional AI [0.0]
  We are increasingly subjected to the power of AI authorities. How can we ensure AI systems have the legitimacy necessary for effective governance? This essay argues that to secure AI legitimacy, we need methods that engage the public in designing and constraining AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-24T15:00:01Z)
• Participatory Approaches in AI Development and Governance: A Principled Approach [9.271573427680087]
  This paper forms the first part of a two-part series on participatory governance in AI. It advances the premise that a participatory approach is beneficial to building and using more responsible, safe, and human-centric AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-03T09:49:42Z)
• Particip-AI: A Democratic Surveying Framework for Anticipating Future AI Use Cases, Harms and Benefits [54.648819983899614]
  General purpose AI seems to have lowered the barriers for the public to use AI and harness its power. We introduce PARTICIP-AI, a framework for laypeople to speculate and assess AI use cases and their impacts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-21T19:12:37Z)
• Stakeholder Participation in AI: Beyond "Add Diverse Stakeholders and Stir" [76.44130385507894]
  This paper aims to ground what we dub a 'participatory turn' in AI design by synthesizing existing literature on participation and through empirical analysis of its current practices. Based on our literature synthesis and empirical research, this paper presents a conceptual framework for analyzing participatory approaches to AI design.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-01T17:57:04Z)
• Empowering Local Communities Using Artificial Intelligence [70.17085406202368]
  It has become an important topic to explore the impact of AI on society from a people-centered perspective. Previous works in citizen science have identified methods of using AI to engage the public in research. This article discusses the challenges of applying AI in Community Citizen Science.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-05T12:51:11Z)
• Building Bridges: Generative Artworks to Explore AI Ethics [56.058588908294446]
  In recent years, there has been an increased emphasis on understanding and mitigating adverse impacts of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies on society. A significant challenge in the design of ethical AI systems is that there are multiple stakeholders in the AI pipeline, each with their own set of constraints and interests. This position paper outlines some potential ways in which generative artworks can play this role by serving as accessible and powerful educational tools.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-25T22:31:55Z)
• Citizen Participation and Machine Learning for a Better Democracy [22.682698778214434]
  We report on the progress of a project that aims to address barriers to citizen participation in democratic decision-making processes. The main objectives are to explore if the application of Natural Language Processing (NLP) and machine learning can improve citizens' experience of digital citizen participation platforms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-28T13:30:07Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.