Abstract
In the past few years, several democratic governments have published their National AI Strategies (NASs). These documents outline how AI technology should be implemented in the public sector and explain the policies that will ensure the ethical use of personal data. In this article, I examine these documents as political texts and reconstruct the political imaginary that underlies them. I argue that these documents intervene in contemporary democratic politics by suggesting that AI can help democracies overcome some of the challenges they are facing. To achieve this, NASs use different kinds of imaginaries—democratic, sociotechnical and data—that help citizens envision how a future AI democracy might look like. As part of this collective effort, a new kind of relationship between citizens and governments is formed. Citizens are seen as autonomous data subjects, but at the same time, they are expected to share their personal data for the common good. As a result, I argue, a new kind of political imaginary is developed in these documents. One that maintains a human-centric approach while championing a vision of collective sovereignty over data. This kind of political imaginary can become useful in understanding the roles of citizens and governments in this technological age.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
Not applicable.
Code availability
Not applicable.
References
Anderson B (2006) Imagined communities: reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. Verso, London
Australia. 2019. “Artificial Intelligence: Australia’s Ethics Framework.” Canberra.
Beer D (2019) The data gaze: capitalism. Power and Perception. Sage Publi, London
Beran H (1977) In defense of the consent theory of political obligation and authority. Ethics 87(3):260–271
Borgman CL (2015) Big data, little data, no data: scholarship in the networked world. The MIT Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Bottici C (2007) A philosophy of political myth. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Bradley, C, and R Wingfield. 2020. “National artificial intelligence strategies and human rights: a review.” London & Stanford.
Burri, RV. 2015. “Imaginaries of Science and Society: Framing Nanotechnology Governance in Germany and the United States.” In Dreamscapes of Modernity: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the Fabrication of Power, edited by Sheila Jasanoff and Sang Hyun Kim, 233–53. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Castoriadis C (1987) The imaginary institution of society. Polity, Cambridge
Castoriadis C (1997) The castoriadis reader. Blackwell, Oxford
Cath C, Wachter S, Mittelstadt B, Taddeo M, Floridi L (2018) Artificial intelligence and the ‘good society’: The US, EU, and UK approach. Sci Eng Ethics 24 (2). Springer Netherlands: 505–28. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9901-7.
Chopra R (2019) Written testimony of FTC commissioner Rohit Chopra. Subcomittee Antitrust Commercial Administrative Law. https://doi.org/10.7312/schw92626-015
Cicilline D (2020) Cicilline Opening Statement At Big Tech Antitrust Hearing | Congressman David Cicilline. July 29. https://cicilline.house.gov/press-release/cicilline-opening-statement-big-tech-antitrust-hearing.
CNBC (2017) Putin: Leader in Artificial Intelligence Will Rule World. CNBC, September 4. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/04/putin-leader-in-artificial-intelligence-will-rule-world.html.
Couldry N, Powell A (2014) Big Data from the Bottom Up. Big Data & Society, no. July-December: 1–5. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951714539277.
D’Alconzo A, Drago I, Morichetta A, Mellia M, Casas P (2019) A Survey on Big Data for Network Traffic Monitoring and Analysis. In: IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management 16(3). IEEE: 800–813. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNSM.2019.2933358.
Denmark (2019) National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence.
Dignum V (2019) Responsible Artificial Intelligence: How to Develop and Use AI in a Responsible Way. Arizona State Law Journal. Vol. 51. Cham: Springer. https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/arzjl51&id=1081&div=33&collection=journals.
Donahoe E, Metzger MM (2019) Artificial intelligence and human rights. J Democr 30(2):115–126. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2019.0029
Dryzek JS, Goodin RE, Tucker A, Reber B (2013) Promethean elites encounter precautionary publics : the case of GM foods. Technol Hum Values 34(3):263–288
European Commission. 2019. “High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligece: Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI.”
European Data Protection Board. 2020. “Guidelines 05/2020 on Consent under Regulation 2016/679.”
Ezrahi Y (2012) Imagined democracies: necessary political fictions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Finland (2017) Finland’s Age of Artificial Intelligence: turning finland into a leading country in the application of artificial intelligence. https://doi.org/10.1021/ja044682s.
Finley S (2014) Predictive analytics, data mining and big data: myths, misconceptions and methods. Palgrave MacMillan, Basingstoke
Flores M, Glusman G, Brogaard K, Price ND, Hood L (2013) P4 medicine: how systems medicine will transform the healthcare sector and society. Pers Med 10(6):565–576. https://doi.org/10.2217/pme.13.57
Floridi L, Cowls J, Beltrametti M, Chatila R, Chazerand P, Dignum V, Luetge C et al. (2018) AI4People—An Ethical Framework for a Good AI Society: Opportunities, Risks, Principles, and Recommendations. Minds and Machines 28 (4). Springer Netherlands: 689–707. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5.
Germany (2018) Artificial Intelligence Strategy.
Hobbes T (1996) Leviathan. Edited by J.C.A. Gaskin. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hu H, Wen Y, Chua TS, Li X (2014) Toward Scalable Systems for Big Data Analytics: A Technology Tutorial. IEEE Access 2. IEEE: 652–87. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2014.2332453.
India (2018) National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence. http://library1.nida.ac.th/termpaper6/sd/2554/19755.pdf.
Italy (2018) Artificial intelligence: at the service of citizens.
Japan (2019) AI Strategy 2019.
Jasanoff S, Kim SH (2009) Containing the atom: sociotechnical imaginaries and nuclear power in the United States and South Korea. Minerva 47(2):119–146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-009-9124-4
Jasanoff S (2015a) Future Imperfect: Science, Technology and the Imaginations of Modernity. In: Dreamscapes of Modernity: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the Fabrication of Power, edited by Sheila Jasanoff and Sang Hyun Kim, 1–33. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.
Jasanoff S (2015b) Imagined and Invented Worlds. In: Dreamscapes of Modernity: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the Fabrication of Power, edited by Sheila Jasanoff and Sang Hyun Kim, 321–41. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Jobin A, Ienca M, Vayena E (2019) The Global Landscape of AI Ethics Guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence 1 (9). Springer US: 389–99. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2.
Klosko G (2018) Consent theory of political obligation. In: Muller A, Schaber P (eds) The routledge handbook of the ethics of consent. Routledge, Abingdon, pp 348–358
Kopponen A, Ruostetsaari N (2019) AuroraAI—Towards a Human- Centric Society.
Köstler L, Ossewaarde R (2021) The making of AI society : AI futures frames in german political and media discourses. AI & SOCIETY, no. 0123456789. Springer London. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01161-9.
Kuziemski M, Misuraca G (2020) AI governance in the public sector: three tales from the frontiers of automated decision-making in democratic settings. Telecommunications Policy 44 (6). Elsevier Ltd: 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2020.101976.
Linde J, Peters Y (2018) Responsiveness, support, and responsibility. Party Politics, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068818763986
Mayer-Schönberger V, Cukier K (2013) Big data : a revolution that will transform how we live, work, and think. Eamon Dolan, Boston
Mounk Y (2018) The People vs. Democracy: Why Our Freedom Is in Danger and How to Save It. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Norway (2020) National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence.
OECD (2019) Artificial intelligence in society. https://doi.org/10.1787/eedfee77-en.
Ossewaarde M, Gulenc E (2020) National varieties of artificial intelligence discourses: Myth, Utopianism, and solutionism in West European policy expectations. Computer 53(11):53–61. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2020.2992290
Pencheva I, Esteve M, Mikhaylov SJ (2018) Big data and AI—A transformational shift for government: So, What next for research? Public Policy and Administration 35(1):24–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952076718780537
Runciman D (2018) Is this how democrcay ends? Profile Books, London
Schudson M (1998) The good citizen: a history of american civic life. a history of history. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203102565.
Shaw S, Elston J, Abbott S (2004) Comparative analysis of health policy implementation—the use of documentary analysis. Policy Stud 25(4):259–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144287042000288451
Smart City Embassy (2020) Ring-ring—a platform to stimulate cycling. Accessed March 30. http://www.smartcityembassy.nl/initiative/ring-ring/.
Solove DJ (2013) Introduction: privacy self-management and the consent dilemma. Harv Law Rev 126(7):1880–1903
Spain (2019) Spanish RDI strategy in artificial intelligence.
Taylor C (2004) Modern social imaginaries. Duke University Press, Durham and London
The Netherlands (2019a) Strategic Action Plan for Artificial Intelligence.
The Netherlands (2019b) Dutch Vision on Data Sharing between Businesses.
The United Kingdom (2018) Report: AI in the UK: ready, willing and able?
UK Government Office for Science (2016) Artificial intelligence: opportunities and implications for the future of decision making. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/566075/gs-16-19-artificial-intelligence-ai-report.pdf.
Utz C, Degeling M, Fahl S, Schaub F, Holz T (2019) (Un)Informed Consent: Studying GDPR Consent Notices in the Field. In: Proceedings of the 2019 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, 18. New York, NY, USA: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3319535.3354212.
Vallor S (2016) Technology and the virtues: a philosophical guide to a future worth wanting. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Villani C, Schoenauer M, Bonnet Y, Berthet C, Cornut A-C, Levin F (2018) Executive Summary Villiani Report.
Villani C (2018) For a meaningful artificial intelligence: towards a french and european strategy.
Winter J (2006) Dreams of Peace and Freedom: Utopian Moments in the 20th Century. Yale University Press, New York & London
Wirtz BW, Weyerer JC, Geyer C (2019) Artificial Intelligence and the Public Sector—Applications and Challenges. Int J Publ Administration 42 (7). Routledge: 596–615. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2018.1498103.
World Economic Forum (2014) Rethinking personal data : a new lens for strengthening trust.
Zuboff S (2019) The age of surveillance capitalism: the fight for the future at the new frontier of power. Profile Books, London
Funding
Not applicable.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interests
Not applicable.
Ethics approval
Not applicable.
Consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Paltieli, G. The political imaginary of National AI Strategies. AI & Soc 37, 1613–1624 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01258-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01258-1