PARTICIPANTS & AGENDA​

 

Introduction​ – Michal Koran (GARI) and Ann Fitz-Gerald (BSIA)

​

Session 1: The Case for Human-Responsible AI Tech Development​ (Moderator: Rohinton Medhora (CIGI); Discussant 1: Jiri Sedivy (European Defence Agency); Discussant 2: Tony Curzon-Price (UK Cabinet Office)

​

Session 2: Democratization and AI​ (Moderator: Odessa Primus (GARI); Discussant 1: Holger Hoos (Leiden University); Discussant 2: Jeremy Hunsinger (University of Waterloo)

Session 3: Digital Multilateralism​ (Moderator: Ann Fitz-Gerald (BSIA); Discussant 1: Catherine Mulligan (UCL); Discussant 2: Bob Fay (CIGI)

​

Session 4: The Great Divide​ (Moderator: Odessa Primus (GARI); Discussant 1: Patrick van der Smagt (Volkswagen Group); Discussant 2: Fakhri Karry (AI Institute, UW)

​

Session 5: Empowerment vs Fear Control​ (Moderator: Jatin Nathwani (BSIA/UW); Discussant 1: Ratislav Kacer (Globsec; Discussant 2: Aaron Schull (CIGI)

​

TOPICS
 

"DIGITAL MULTILATERALISM"
Adding to the already deeply cracking post-war multilateralism, the competing ideas about managing, regulating and profiting from the seemingly endless global landscape of digital environment push the global centrifugal tendencies to their new highs. We are witnessing several global fault lines: data protection, digital taxation, content regulation, anti-monopoly regulations, AI-competition, chip industries, to name just a few. Should these fault lines go on unchecked the nascent decoupling and disentangling of the global digital sphere will have disastrous impact on the world economy, security and politics. Realistically speaking, under the current conditions, it is rather naive to believe that a global digital multilateral framework can be devised, especially with China and the U.S. drifting apart with an ever-increasing velocity. But it is of crucial importance to at least try and, more crucially, to make sure that such a dialogue is being conducted at a trans-Atlantic level. 

DEMOCRATIZATION AND AI
The idea behind forming the Global Arena Research Institute was partly inspired by the need to democratize AI and Big Data research in social sciences and humanities. Interestingly enough, when GARI launched, the idea of AI and social sciences was a nascent one and almost did not penetrate a wider audience. Since then (2015), often without really embracing the opportunities this particular interdisciplinary approach can yield, the social sciences and humanities have turned to a critical if fearful stance. Without dismissing the case for prudence, our goal remains the same: to explore, apply and manage the potential of a wide social scientific AI research while mitigating the potentially harmful effects of spreading of AI. Very recently, new initiatives aiming at the democratization of AI have taken place, especially in the US but more needs to be done in Europe. Even the new research supporting instruments of the European Commission seem to drive the wedge between tech and social sciences deeper: there is little attempt to foster a natural and organic link between these two, rather, the social sciences are again forced to “study the impact” of technologies or improving access to technologies, rather than being encouraged to promote a closer marriage of the two.

KEEP THE HUMAN IN THE LOOP: THE CASE FOR HUMAN RESPONSIBLE AI/TECH DEVELOPMENT
Keeping humans in the loop entails keeping the human in decision-making in a time of progressive and fast-paced automation in defence, the labour market, mobility, the dawn of legal and financial AI automated reasoning and general fears of shelving human-centred control in favour of automated intelligent (artificially) control in making decisions and electing strands of strategy. On the one hand, we must consider the reasonability of automated decision-making and control, keeping in mind the programming is designed, built and controlled by humans, and on the other hand the option of electing some decisions to actually be made by the AI. This is a particularly fragile topic in defence and security. How to keep the “human” in the loop if we don’t want to start with regulation? How to achieve that if the interests differ so vastly?

Exploration and forward-thinking are amazing qualities humans have always possessed. Looking at the future in terms of opportunities rather than risks is what drives positive progress, ensures the path is designed in our image and often as a result, manifestation or expression bypasses or solves potential unformulated problems that may or may not externalise themselves in the future. However, visualising potential yet non-existent problems that may appear in the future, and prioritising solving those yet-unmanifested challenges robs us of the privileged and completely realistic opportunity and ability to craft, construct and accomplish a human-centric future. 

THE GREAT DIVIDE: UNEVEN ACCESS
The risks associated with uneven access to the benefits of information and communication technologies (and other hi-tech developments that are dramatically changing the socio-economic environment) and the likelihood of a further increase of inequality of access have been widely acknowledged by now. “Digital divide” intensifies the already existing socio-economic fault lines like age, education, income, gender or race. Add the growing misuse (or abuse) of personal data and disinformation campaigns into the grinder and what you get is an explosive mix of fear, populism and anxiety, all related to the effects of technology and globalization sneaking into everyone’s life. The COVID19 pandemic, sadly, will only further bolster the tearing forces. 
In our understanding, the digital divide is not a narrow concept of people not having access to the internet, not understanding or utilising big data and AI, or simply not trusting any technology. Instead, it is a broader issue of people not being able to profit from the wide range of possibilities the digitally-driven economy and society, as well as new technologies offer.

 

TECHNOLOGY: EMPOWERMENT VS FEAR AND CONTROL
The last point aims at exploring the nexus of new technologies as tools to empower societies vs. tool to control/exploit societies and related anxieties. So far, the focus is (understandably so) more on the issues of control, utility, efficiency and profitability of technologies. How to turn our attention to empowerment and legitimacy without overburdening and choking the technological progress with regulations and anxieties?