'Artificial intelligence, the common good, and the democratic deficit in AI governance' by Mark Coeckelbergh in (2024) AI and Ethics comments
There is a broad consensus that artificial intelligence should contribute to the common good, but it is not clear what is meant by that. This paper discusses this issue and uses it as a lens for analysing what it calls the “democracy deficit” in current AI governance, which includes a tendency to deny the inherently political character of the issue and to take a technocratic shortcut. It indicates what we may agree on and what is and should be up to (further) deliberation when it comes to AI ethics and AI governance. Inspired by the republican tradition in political theory, it also argues for a more active role of citizens and (end-)users: not only as participants in deliberation but also in ensuring, creatively and communicatively, that AI contributes to the common good.
Currently there is much discussion about artificial intelligence (AI) and its potential risks and benefits to society. The version of AI that is usually talked about is machine learning, which enables statistical analysis of (big) data and thereby automation and prediction. AI is increasingly used across all sectors, and more recently applications of large language models (LLMs) have raised much public concern, for example about replacement of jobs and about manipulation.
In discussions about AI ethics and AI policy it is often said that AI should contribute to the common good. For example, the recently installed UN AI advisory body ‘aims to harness AI for the common good’, major AI companies such as Open AI claim that they develop AI for the common good, and already in 2018 The House of Lords Artificial Intelligence Committee’s report said that AI should be developed for the common good and benefit of humanity.
It is easy to imagine that AI can contribute to the common good. Consider for instance medicine and healthcare: one could argue that AI-powered diagnosis tools benefit society at large, for instance when they enable early diagnosis of cancer, help research into factors that contribute to Alzheimer disease, and improve accessibility of care. This benefits particular societies and ultimately humanity. At the same time, some people may benefit more from AI than others. And when AI risks to make some workers and perhaps even professions obsolete, including knowledge workers and creative professions, the claim that AI contributes to the common good becomes at least more controversial.
But what, exactly, is the common good, how do we know it, and who defines it? What is the collective implied in “common”: a local community, a nation, humanity? And who is included in that collective? The concept has a long history in political philosophy, which is usually neglected in AI ethics discussions (an exception is Berendt. Moreover, the question who defines the common good leads to the important question regarding the democratic character of AI governance; there are currently many worries about AI’s impact on democracy and the power asymmetries it creates.
In this paper I connect political-philosophical discussions about the common good to questions concerning the governance of AI. In particular, after sketching a conceptual framework based on relevant political philosophy literature concerning the common good (and outlining my position in that discussion), I discuss AI and the common good to more precisely identify the democratic deficit or gap in current AI governance. While it is often said that this governance could be more democratic, this paper helps to specify what, exactly, is problematic if we view it through the lens of the discussion about common good. It also indicates what we may agree on and what remains– and probably should remain– the subject of political discussion and contestation. Furthermore, in sympathy with the republican tradition in political philosophy (broadly construed), the paper points to the active role citizens can play in making sure that AI contributes to the common good. Going beyond Mouffe’s emphasis on giving voice and allowing political struggle, it calls attention to the creative and communicative aspects of active republican citizenship, and to the related need for civic education that prepares people accordingly.
