This essay briefly summarizes the key characteristics and social philosophies in Japan’s vision of Society 5.0. Then it discusses why Vietnam, as a developing country, can learn from the experiences of Japan in establishing its vision for an AI-powered human-centric society. The paper finally provides five concrete recommendations for Vietnam toward a harmonic and human-centric coexistence with increasingly competent and prevalent AI systems, including: Human-centric AI vision; Multidimensional, pluralistic understanding of human-technology relation; AI as a driving force for socio-economic development; (...) Bottom-up, participatory approach for building the vision; and Sustainability and inclusion in the adoption of AI. (shrink)

Bài viết này tóm lược các điểm quan trọng và những triết lý xã hội trong Tầm nhìn Xã hội 5.0 (Society 5.0) của Nhật Bản, đồng thời đưa ra bài học cho Việt Nam trong việc hình thành một xã hội “lấy dân làm gốc”, được hiện thực hoá bởi trí tuệ nhân tạo (AI). Nhằm tiến tới một xã hội nơi con người được đặt làm trung tâm đồng thời chung sống hài hoà với công nghệ ngày càng (...) thông minh, năm gợi ý cụ thể cho Việt Nam đã được đưa ra: Tầm nhìn lấy con người làm trung tâm; Góc nhìn đa chiều về mối quan hệ giữa người và máy; Lấy AI làm động lực phát triển kinh tế-xã hội; Cách tiếp cận từ dưới lên trên và thúc đẩy tính tham gia trong việc thiết lập tầm nhìn; và Tính bền vững và bao quát trong các ứng dụng của AI. (shrink)

Modern democratic states are increasingly adopting new information and communication technologies to enhance the efficiency and quality of public administration, public policy and services. However, there is substantial variation in the extent to which countries are successful in pursuing such public digitalization. This paper zooms in on the role of social trust as a possible account for the observed empirical pattern in the range and scope of public digitalization across countries. Our argument is that high social trust makes it easier (...) to digitalize the public sector to the benefit of overall society. We develop a simple game-theoretical model that specifies this positive externality from a high-trust culture and provide empirical evidence that a higher level of social trust is associated with a higher level of public digitalization. Of course, high-trust countries cannot do without the rule of law and some institutionalized mechanisms of control and accountability. However, from our argument, it follows that one future challenge could be that control crowds out trust, so that the balance is no longer optimal. If such overcontrol occurs, public digitalization win–win situations between citizens and government can be undermined, even in high-trust countries. (shrink)

The promises and risks of Artificial Intelligence permeate current policy statements and have attracted much attention by AI governance research. However, most analyses focus exclusively on AI policy on the national and international level, overlooking existing federal governance structures. This is surprising because AI is connected to many policy areas, where the competences are already distributed between the national and subnational level, such as research or economic policy. Addressing this gap, this paper argues that more attention should be dedicated to (...) subnational efforts to shape AI and asks which themes are discussed in subnational AI policy documents with a case study of Germany’s 16 states. Our qualitative analysis of 34 AI policy documents issued on the subnational level demonstrates that subnational efforts focus on knowledge transfer between research and industry actors, the commercialization of AI, different economic identities of the German states, and the incorporation of ethical principles. Because federal states play an active role in AI policy, analysing AI as a policy issue on different levels of government is necessary and will contribute to a better understanding of the developments and implementations of AI strategies in different national contexts. (shrink)

AI systems, which receive vast amounts of information including privacy information, are emerging. Protecting the privacy of the general public is an important issue for democracies. In this study, “Public space watched by AI- connected cameras” is taken as an example of an AI-system that is expected to be used for public purposes and has a relatively high privacy violation risk. It is defined as a wide public area where every point is monitored by multiple AI-connected street cameras. The following (...) four socially acceptable applications of “Public space watched by AI- connected cameras” are discussed: (1) Human/vehicle tracking, (2) Watching over children, (3) Detection of abnormal situations, (4) Criminal and terrorist behavior pattern analysis. As for privacy protection measures for AI systems, in addition to reliable protection itself, reliable recording and auditing to deter misuse and abuse is considered a prerequisite to ensure that the general public can feel secure. In this paper, the concept of “Verifiable record of AI output”, which is a verifiable and tamper-proof record and disclosure of AI output is proposed. “Verifiable record of AI output” is based on the idea that it may be more realistic to apply a simple exit control only for AI output to confirm rule conformance, rather than anonymizing huge AI inputs such as Big Data or controlling internal AI processes that are black-boxed. A concrete example of implementing “Verifiable record of AI output” in “Public space watched by AI-connected cameras” is proposed. In the “Verifiable record of AI output”, the AI system is enclosed in an outbound firewall, and only AI outputs that are confirmed to be in line with “the purpose of use approved in advance through social discussion” are allowed to be transmitted. The process from application to permission of transmission is anonymized and disclosed in a verifiable and tamper-proof manner. This public record can be verified by the general public or an auditing organization to ensure that any misuse or abuse of the AI system will be exposed. The “Verifiable record of AI output” proposed in this paper is characterized by reliable measurement and recording of AI output, and its disclosure for auditing purposes. The possibility of using this as a template to apply to other AI systems that receive Big Data input, including the privacy of the general public, is considered. (shrink)

National Artificial Intelligence (AI) strategies articulate imaginaries of the integration of AI into society and envision the governing of AI research, development and applications accordingly. To integrate these central aspects of national AI strategies under one coherent perspective, this paper presented an analysis of Germany’s strategy ‘AI made in Germany’ through the conceptual lens of ordoliberal political rationality. The first part of the paper analyses how the guiding vision of a human-centric AI not only adheres to ethical and legal principles (...) consistent with Germany’s liberal democratic constitutional system but also addresses the risks and promises inherent to the ordoliberal problematization of freedom. Second, it is scrutinized how the strategy cultivates the fear of not achieving technological sovereignty in the AI sector. Thereby, it frames the global AI race as a race of competing (national) approaches to governing AI and articulates an ordoliberal approach to governing AI (the ‘third way’), according to which government has to operate between the twin dangers of governing too much and not governing enough. Third, the paper analyses how this ordoliberal proportionality of governing structures Germany’s Science Technology & Innovation Policy. It is shown that the corresponding risk-based approach of regulating AI constitutes a security apparatus as it produces an assessment of fears: weighting the fear of the failure to innovate with the fear of the ramifications of innovation. Finally, two lines of critical engagement based on this analysis are conducted. (shrink)