Bringing AI Participation Down to Scale: A Comment on Open AIs Democratic Inputs to AI Project

Overview

• This commentary piece reviews a program called the Open AI Democratic Inputs program, which funded 10 teams to design ways for the public to participate in generative AI.
• While the technical innovations in these projects are praised, the authors identify several shared assumptions, including the generality of large language models (LLMs), extracting abstract values, soliciting solutions rather than problems, and equating participation with democracy.
• The authors call for AI participation that involves specific communities and use cases, and solicits concrete problems to be addressed. They also emphasize the importance of these communities having a stake in the outcome, including ownership of data or models.

Plain English Explanation

The paper discusses a program called the Open AI Democratic Inputs program that funded 10 teams to design ways for the public to get involved in the development of generative AI systems. While the authors acknowledge the technical advancements made in these projects, they identify some underlying assumptions that they believe are problematic.

One assumption is that these AI systems should be designed to be generally applicable, rather than tailored to specific communities and use cases. The authors argue that AI participation should instead focus on involving particular communities and addressing their concrete problems, rather than just trying to extract abstract values or solicit general solutions.

Another assumption is that simply getting the public to participate is equivalent to promoting democracy. The authors contend that true democratic participation requires the communities involved to have a real stake in the outcome, such as ownership of the data or models being developed.

Overall, the authors believe that AI participation should be more grounded in the needs and perspectives of specific communities, rather than trying to create one-size-fits-all solutions. They also emphasize the importance of these communities having a meaningful role in the process, beyond just being asked for input.

Technical Explanation

The paper provides a critical analysis of the Open AI Democratic Inputs program, which funded 10 teams to design procedures for public participation in the development of generative AI systems. While the authors acknowledge the technical innovations presented in these projects, they identify several shared assumptions that they believe are problematic.

One key assumption is the focus on the generality of large language models (LLMs), which the authors argue may not be the most effective approach. Instead, they call for AI participation that involves specific communities and use cases, and solicits concrete problems to be addressed rather than just abstract values or general solutions.

The authors also take issue with the assumption that simply soliciting public input is equivalent to promoting democracy. They argue that true democratic participation requires the communities involved to have a real stake in the outcome, such as ownership of the data or models being developed.

Critical Analysis

The authors raise valid concerns about the underlying assumptions of the Open AI Democratic Inputs program. By focusing on the generality of LLMs and equating public participation with democracy, the program may overlook important nuances and fail to truly empower the communities it seeks to engage.

The authors' call for AI participation that is tailored to specific communities and use cases is a compelling alternative approach. This could help ensure that the needs and perspectives of these communities are more effectively incorporated into the development of generative AI systems.

However, the authors do not address the practical challenges of implementing such an approach, such as how to identify and engage with the relevant communities, or how to balance the need for specific solutions with the potential benefits of more general AI models.

Additionally, the authors' emphasis on community ownership of data and models raises questions about the feasibility and scalability of such an approach, as well as potential tensions with existing intellectual property frameworks.

Conclusion

The paper provides a thought-provoking critique of the assumptions underlying the Open AI Democratic Inputs program, highlighting the need for more nuanced and community-driven approaches to public participation in generative AI development.

The authors' call for AI participation that is tailored to specific communities and use cases, and that ensures these communities have a meaningful stake in the outcome, offers an alternative vision that could help address some of the limitations of the current program.

While the authors raise valid concerns, the practical implementation of their proposed approach may face its own challenges. Nonetheless, this paper serves as an important reminder that the pursuit of democratic participation in AI development requires careful consideration of the diverse needs and perspectives of the communities involved.