Search

Social media empower distributed content creation by algorithmically harnessing "the social fabric" (explicit and implicit signals of association) to serve this content. While this overcomes the bottlenecks and biases of traditional gatekeepers, many believe it has unsustainably eroded the very social fabric it depends on by maximizing engagement for advertising revenue. This paper participates in open and ongoing considerations to translate social and political values and conventions, specifically social cohesion, into platform design. We propose an alternative platform model that the social fabric an explicit output as well as input. Citizens are members of communities defined by explicit affiliation or clusters of shared attitudes. Both have internal divisions, as citizens are members of intersecting communities, which are themselves internally diverse. Each is understood to value content that bridge (viz. achieve consensus across) and balance (viz. represent fairly) this internal diversity, consistent with the principles of the Hutchins Commission (1947). Content is labeled with social provenance, indicating for which community or citizen it is bridging or balancing. Subscription payments allow citizens and communities to increase the algorithmic weight on the content they value in the content serving algorithm. Advertisers may, with consent of citizen or community counterparties, target them in exchange for payment or increase in that party's algorithmic weight. Underserved and emerging communities and citizens are optimally subsidized/supported to develop into paying participants. Content creators and communities that curate content are rewarded for their contributions with algorithmic weight and/or revenue. We discuss applications to productivity (e.g. LinkedIn), political (e.g. X), and cultural (e.g. TikTok) platforms., Comment: 60 pages

Middleware, third-party software intermediaries between users and platforms, has been broached as a means to decentralize the power of social media platforms and enhance user agency. Middleware may enable a more user-centric and democratic approach to shaping digital experiences, offering a flexible architecture as an alternative to both centrally controlled, opaque platforms and an unmoderated, uncurated internet. The widespread adoption of open middleware has long hinged on the cooperation of established major platforms; however, the recent growth of federated platforms, such as Mastodon and Bluesky, has led to increased offerings and user awareness. In this report we consider the potential of middleware as a means of enabling greater user control over curation and moderation - two aspects of the social media experience that are often mired in controversy. We evaluate the trade-offs and negative externalities it might create, and discuss the technological, regulatory, and market dynamics that could either support or hinder its implementation., Comment: 51 pages

There is increasing concern about the unilateral power of the organizations involved in the development, alignment, and governance of AI. Recent pilots - such as Meta's Community Forums and Anthropic's Collective Constitutional AI - have illustrated a promising direction, where democratic processes might be used to meaningfully improve public involvement and trust in critical decisions. However, there is no standard framework for evaluating such processes. In this paper, building on insights from the theory and practice of deliberative democracy, we provide a "Democracy Levels" framework for evaluating the degree to which decisions in a given domain are made democratically. The framework can be used (i) to define milestones 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., Comment: 11 pages. Accepted to the Workshop on Pluralistic Alignment at NeurIPS 2024

Our information and communication environment has fallen short of the ideals that networked global communication might have served. Identifying all the causes of its pathologies is difficult, but existing recommender systems very likely play a contributing role. In this paper, which draws on the normative tools of philosophy of computing, informed by empirical and technical insights from natural language processing and recommender systems, we make the moral case for an alternative approach. We argue that existing recommenders incentivise mass surveillance, concentrate power, fall prey to narrow behaviourism, and compromise user agency. Rather than just trying to avoid algorithms entirely, or to make incremental improvements to the current paradigm, researchers and engineers should explore an alternative paradigm: the use of language model (LM) agents to source and curate content that matches users' preferences and values, expressed in natural language. The use of LM agents for recommendation poses its own challenges, including those related to candidate generation, computational efficiency, preference modelling, and prompt injection. Nonetheless, if implemented successfully LM agents could: guide us through the digital public sphere without relying on mass surveillance; shift power away from platforms towards users; optimise for what matters instead of just for behavioural proxies; and scaffold our agency instead of undermining it.

Recent developments in AI have brought broader attention to tensions between two overlapping communities, "AI Ethics" and "AI Safety." In this article we (i) characterize this false binary, (ii) argue that a simple binary is not an accurate model of AI discourse, and (iii) provide concrete suggestions for how individuals can help avoid the emergence of us-vs-them conflict in the broad community of people working on AI development and governance. While we focus on "AI Ethics" an "AI Safety," the general lessons apply to related tensions, including those between accelerationist ("e/acc") and cautious stances on AI development., Comment: 32 pages

Agents often exert influence when interacting with humans and non-human agents. However, the ethical status of such influence is often unclear. In this paper, we present the SHAPE framework, which lists reasons why influence may be unethical. We draw on literature from descriptive and moral philosophy and connect it to machine learning to help guide ethical considerations when developing algorithms with potential influence. Lastly, we explore mechanisms for governing algorithmic systems that influence people, inspired by mechanisms used in journalism, human subject research, and advertising., Comment: An earlier version of this paper was accepted at EUMAS 2023

Divisiveness appears to be increasing in much of the world, leading to concern about political violence and a decreasing capacity to collaboratively address large-scale societal challenges. In this working paper we aim to articulate an interdisciplinary research and practice area focused on what we call bridging systems: systems which increase mutual understanding and trust across divides, creating space for productive conflict, deliberation, or cooperation. We give examples of bridging systems across three domains: recommender systems on social media, collective response systems, and human-facilitated group deliberation. We argue that these examples can be more meaningfully understood as processes for attention-allocation (as opposed to "content distribution" or "amplification") and develop a corresponding framework to explore similarities - and opportunities for bridging - across these seemingly disparate domains. We focus particularly on the potential of bridging-based ranking to bring the benefits of offline bridging into spaces which are already governed by algorithms. Throughout, we suggest research directions that could improve our capacity to incorporate bridging into a world increasingly mediated by algorithms and artificial intelligence., Comment: 39 pages, 14 figures. See https://bridging.systems for more about this work

Spatial models of preference, in the form of vector embeddings, are learned by many deep learning and multiagent systems, including recommender systems. Often these models are assumed to approximate a Euclidean structure, where an individual prefers alternatives positioned closer to their "ideal point", as measured by the Euclidean metric. However, Bogomolnaia and Laslier (2007) showed that there exist ordinal preference profiles that cannot be represented with this structure if the Euclidean space has two fewer dimensions than there are individuals or alternatives. We extend this result, showing that there are situations in which almost all preference profiles cannot be represented with the Euclidean model, and derive a theoretical lower bound on the expected error when using the Euclidean model to approximate non-Euclidean preference profiles. Our results have implications for the interpretation and use of vector embeddings, because in some cases close approximation of arbitrary, true ordinal relationships can be expected only if the dimensionality of the embeddings is a substantial fraction of the number of entities represented., Comment: 11 pages, 5 figures. Accepted as an extended abstract to AAMAS 2023, full paper IJCAI 2023

This volume contains revised versions of the papers selected for the second volume of the Online Handbook of Argumentation for AI (OHAAI). Previously, formal theories of argument and argument interaction have been proposed and studied, and this has led to the more recent study of computational models of argument. Argumentation, as a field within artificial intelligence (AI), is highly relevant for researchers interested in symbolic representations of knowledge and defeasible reasoning. The purpose of this handbook is to provide an open access and curated anthology for the argumentation research community. OHAAI is designed to serve as a research hub to keep track of the latest and upcoming PhD-driven research on the theory and application of argumentation in all areas related to AI.