Navya

AI governance may benefit from fewer obvious observations and more focus on structuring effective incentives. What frameworks have truly worked in practice? What can motivate stakeholders to engage meaningfully beyond the initial flurry of consultations, panels, and conferences?

...because without the right incentives, consultation is just another box to tick. Real stakeholder engagement happens when participation isn't just an obligation but a strategic advantage - when it aligns with business incentives, mitigates risk, or creates long-term value.

So instead of repeating that consultation is necessary, should we maybe ask: How do we incentivize stakeholders who control vast amounts of data, to participate in governance structures like exchanges, trusts, and other frameworks?

Policymaking already moves at a snail’s pace. The last thing we need is to waste time on dwelling on performative "engagement" that doesn’t change anything. How do we make stakeholder engagement worthwhile?

A few years ago, I was trying to pilot a data exchange in Hyderabad, India. Private companies loved the idea...right up until they actually had to, you know...participate in one.

I’ve tried facilitating this earlier - it’s tough when incentives are misaligned. Everyone says they want collaboration, but when it comes to action? The incentives to not participate often outweigh the benefits.

It’s easy to point out that stakeholders aren’t talking to each other. But AI is already miles ahead of us in diagnosing problems. The real challenge? Creating the right incentives for engagement (or harmonization, if we’re feeling fancy) and actually moving towards solutions.

Every time I see "we need multi-stakeholder consultation for AI regulation," I'm curious: who needs to be convinced even now? We all agree that stakeholder consultation is important. The real question is: How do we make it happen?

5 Notes from the Big Paris A.I. Summit At times, Kevin Roose writes, it feels like he is watching policymakers on horseback trying to install seatbelts on a passing Lamborghini.

"The policy wonks here are big on fuzzy concepts like “multi-stakeholder engagement” and “innovation-enabling frameworks.” But few are thinking seriously about what would happen if smarter-than-human A.I. systems were to arrive in a matter of months, or asking the right follow-up questions."

This cartoon illustrates a satirical take on data privacy concerns. It shows people using their phones while large vacuum tubes labeled with tech giants (Meta, Amazon, Apple, Google) and "Data Brokers" extract their data. One person sarcastically remarks, “Good news! Our privacy will be protected if TikTok is banned!” emphasizing skepticism about true privacy protections amidst ongoing data harvesting.

Don Ray Ramos for @techpolicypress.bsky.social, December 2024.

The most absurd thing about this whole brouhaha is no one—not even Tik Tok—calls on Congress to amend or repeal the dumb law it made. It’s just the president or the courts who can act now, in literally every prominent voice’s conception.

I wouldn’t have known about any of this without RedNote

Contrary to common beliefs, we find that misinformation isn’t universal or a general condition of our media ecosystem.

Instead, it's specifically associated with radical-right populist parties that spread misinformation as a political strategy. 5/

I don't know how many of y'all are watching the migration of American TikTokers to RedNote, but it's the most fascinating thing I've EVER SEEN HAPPEN ONLINE.

🧵

5. Most of Meta's US-based moderation staff was already in TX, so unless they also move the core product teams who work on trust & safety, this is no change. If those teams are staying in CA, this indicates Meta wants to position T&S as separate from core product mechanics-- a dangerous delusion!

In my view, that doesn't make much sense from any principled point of view. If you were primarily concerned with "free speech" you'd go *further* than they have, while if you were only concerned with ensuring you don't interfere with legislative debates you'd go *much less far*. 🧵 5/6

Folks are mostly missing the forest for the trees re: the recent Meta announcement. Specifically, the focus on the move from fact checking to community notes. There two different changes that are a much bigger deal that have received less focus. 🧵 1/11

I want to call attention to the next paragraph, implying that a laissez faire government and media would allow "society" to simply work out its differences. This is actually the third exec I've heard say something like this in recent weeks, so I'm convinced it's an internal talking point 1/7