Search

There is currently considerable excitement within government about the potential of artificial intelligence to improve public service productivity through the automation of complex but repetitive bureaucratic tasks, freeing up the time of skilled staff. Here, we explore the size of this opportunity, by mapping out the scale of citizen-facing bureaucratic decision-making procedures within UK central government, and measuring their potential for AI-driven automation. We estimate that UK central government conducts approximately one billion citizen-facing transactions per year in the provision of around 400 services, of which approximately 143 million are complex repetitive transactions. We estimate that 84% of these complex transactions are highly automatable, representing a huge potential opportunity: saving even an average of just one minute per complex transaction would save the equivalent of approximately 1,200 person-years of work every year. We also develop a model to estimate the volume of transactions a government service undertakes, providing a way for government to avoid conducting time consuming transaction volume measurements. Finally, we find that there is high turnover in the types of services government provide, meaning that automation efforts should focus on general procedures rather than services themselves which are likely to evolve over time. Overall, our work presents a novel perspective on the structure and functioning of modern government, and how it might evolve in the age of artificial intelligence.

Generative AI has the potential to transform how public services are delivered by enhancing productivity and reducing time spent on bureaucracy. Furthermore, unlike other types of artificial intelligence, it is a technology that has quickly become widely available for bottom-up adoption: essentially anyone can decide to make use of it in their day to day work. But to what extent is generative AI already in use in the public sector? Our survey of 938 public service professionals within the UK (covering education, health, social work and emergency services) seeks to answer this question. We find that use of generative AI systems is already widespread: 45% of respondents were aware of generative AI usage within their area of work, while 22% actively use a generative AI system. Public sector professionals were positive about both current use of the technology and its potential to enhance their efficiency and reduce bureaucratic workload in the future. For example, those working in the NHS thought that time spent on bureaucracy could drop from 50% to 30% if generative AI was properly exploited, an equivalent of one day per week (an enormous potential impact). Our survey also found a high amount of trust (61%) around generative AI outputs, and a low fear of replacement (16%). While respondents were optimistic overall, areas of concern included feeling like the UK is missing out on opportunities to use AI to improve public services (76%), and only a minority of respondents (32%) felt like there was clear guidance on generative AI usage in their workplaces. In other words, it is clear that generative AI is already transforming the public sector, but uptake is happening in a disorganised fashion without clear guidelines. The UK's public sector urgently needs to develop more systematic methods for taking advantage of the technology.

Allocation of scarce resources is a recurring challenge for the public sector: something that emerges in areas as diverse as healthcare, disaster recovery, and social welfare. The complexity of these policy domains and the need for meeting multiple and sometimes conflicting criteria has led to increased focus on the use of algorithms in this type of decision. However, little engagement between researchers across these domains has happened, meaning a lack of understanding of common problems and techniques for approaching them. Here, we performed a cross disciplinary literature review to understand approaches taken for different areas of algorithmic allocation including healthcare, organ transplantation, homelessness, disaster relief, and welfare. We initially identified 1070 papers by searching the literature, then six researchers went through them in two phases of screening resulting in 176 and 75 relevant papers respectively. We then analyzed the 75 papers from the lenses of optimization goals, techniques, interpretability, flexibility, bias, ethical considerations, and performance. We categorized approaches into human-oriented versus resource-oriented perspective, and individual versus aggregate and identified that 76% of the papers approached the problem from a human perspective and 60% from an aggregate level using optimization techniques. We found considerable potential for performance gains, with optimization techniques often decreasing waiting times and increasing success rate by as much as 50%. However, there was a lack of attention to responsible innovation: only around one third of the papers considered ethical issues in choosing the optimization goals while just a very few of them paid attention to the bias issues. Our work can serve as a guide for policy makers and researchers wanting to use an algorithm for addressing a resource allocation problem.

This article explores how the 'rules in use' from Ostrom's Institutional Analysis and Development Framework (IAD) can be developed as a context analysis approach for AI. AI risk assessment frameworks increasingly highlight the need to understand existing contexts. However, these approaches do not frequently connect with established institutional analysis scholarship. We outline a novel direction illustrated through a high-level example to understand how clinical oversight is potentially impacted by AI. Much current thinking regarding oversight for AI revolves around the idea of decision makers being in-the-loop and, thus, having capacity to intervene to prevent harm. However, our analysis finds that oversight is complex, frequently made by teams of professionals and relies upon explanation to elicit information. Professional bodies and liability also function as institutions of polycentric oversight. These are all impacted by the challenge of oversight of AI systems. The approach outlined has potential utility as a policy tool of context analysis aligned with the 'Govern and Map' functions of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) AI Risk Management Framework; however, further empirical research is needed. Our analysis illustrates the benefit of existing institutional analysis approaches in foregrounding team structures within oversight and, thus, in conceptions of 'human in the loop'., Comment: 19 pages

Calls for new metrics, technical standards and governance mechanisms to guide the adoption of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in institutions and public administration are now commonplace. Yet, most research and policy efforts aimed at understanding the implications of adopting AI tend to prioritize only a handful of ideas; they do not fully connect all the different perspectives and topics that are potentially relevant. In this position paper, we contend that this omission stems, in part, from what we call the relational problem in socio-technical discourse: fundamental ontological issues have not yet been settled--including semantic ambiguity, a lack of clear relations between concepts and differing standard terminologies. This contributes to the persistence of disparate modes of reasoning to assess institutional AI systems, and the prevalence of conceptual isolation in the fields that study them including ML, human factors, social science and policy. After developing this critique, we offer a way forward by proposing a simple policy and research design tool in the form of a conceptual framework to organize terms across fields--consisting of three horizontal domains for grouping relevant concepts and related methods: Operational, Epistemic, and Normative. We first situate this framework against the backdrop of recent socio-technical discourse at two premier academic venues, AIES and FAccT, before illustrating how developing suitable metrics, standards, and mechanisms can be aided by operationalizing relevant concepts in each of these domains. Finally, we outline outstanding questions for developing this relational approach to institutional AI research and adoption., Comment: 23 pages, 1 figure