Artificial intelligence in government: Concepts, standards, and a unified framework

IF 7.8 1区 管理学 Q1 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE Government Information Quarterly Pub Date : 2023-10-01 DOI:10.1016/j.giq.2023.101881
Vincent J. Straub , Deborah Morgan , Jonathan Bright , Helen Margetts
{"title":"Artificial intelligence in government: Concepts, standards, and a unified framework","authors":"Vincent J. Straub ,&nbsp;Deborah Morgan ,&nbsp;Jonathan Bright ,&nbsp;Helen Margetts","doi":"10.1016/j.giq.2023.101881","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI), especially in generative language modelling, hold the promise of transforming government. Given the advanced capabilities of new AI systems, it is critical that these are embedded using standard operational procedures, clear epistemic criteria, and behave in alignment with the normative expectations of society. Scholars in multiple domains have subsequently begun to conceptualize the different forms that AI applications may take, highlighting both their potential benefits and pitfalls. However, the literature remains fragmented, with researchers in social science disciplines like public administration and political science, and the fast-moving fields of AI, ML, and robotics, all developing concepts in relative isolation. Although there are calls to formalize the emerging study of AI in government, a balanced account that captures the full depth of theoretical perspectives needed to understand the consequences of embedding AI into a public sector context is lacking. Here, we unify efforts across social and technical disciplines by first conducting an integrative literature review to identify and cluster 69 key terms that frequently co-occur in the multidisciplinary study of AI. We then build on the results of this bibliometric analysis to propose three new multifaceted concepts for understanding and analysing AI-based systems for government (AI-GOV) in a more unified way: (1) <em>operational fitness</em>, (2) <em>epistemic alignment,</em> and (3) <em>normative divergence</em>. Finally, we put these concepts to work by using them as dimensions in a conceptual typology of AI-GOV and connecting each with emerging AI technical measurement standards to encourage operationalization, foster cross-disciplinary dialogue, and stimulate debate among those aiming to rethink government with AI.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48258,"journal":{"name":"Government Information Quarterly","volume":"40 4","pages":"Article 101881"},"PeriodicalIF":7.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Government Information Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0740624X23000813","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI), especially in generative language modelling, hold the promise of transforming government. Given the advanced capabilities of new AI systems, it is critical that these are embedded using standard operational procedures, clear epistemic criteria, and behave in alignment with the normative expectations of society. Scholars in multiple domains have subsequently begun to conceptualize the different forms that AI applications may take, highlighting both their potential benefits and pitfalls. However, the literature remains fragmented, with researchers in social science disciplines like public administration and political science, and the fast-moving fields of AI, ML, and robotics, all developing concepts in relative isolation. Although there are calls to formalize the emerging study of AI in government, a balanced account that captures the full depth of theoretical perspectives needed to understand the consequences of embedding AI into a public sector context is lacking. Here, we unify efforts across social and technical disciplines by first conducting an integrative literature review to identify and cluster 69 key terms that frequently co-occur in the multidisciplinary study of AI. We then build on the results of this bibliometric analysis to propose three new multifaceted concepts for understanding and analysing AI-based systems for government (AI-GOV) in a more unified way: (1) operational fitness, (2) epistemic alignment, and (3) normative divergence. Finally, we put these concepts to work by using them as dimensions in a conceptual typology of AI-GOV and connecting each with emerging AI technical measurement standards to encourage operationalization, foster cross-disciplinary dialogue, and stimulate debate among those aiming to rethink government with AI.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
政府中的人工智能:概念、标准和统一框架
人工智能(AI)的最新进展,特别是在生成语言建模方面,有望改变政府。鉴于新人工智能系统的先进功能,至关重要的是,这些系统必须使用标准的操作程序、明确的认知标准,并与社会的规范期望保持一致。随后,多个领域的学者开始对人工智能应用可能采取的不同形式进行概念化,强调了它们的潜在好处和缺陷。然而,文献仍然是碎片化的,公共管理和政治学等社会科学学科的研究人员,以及人工智能、机器学习和机器人等快速发展的领域的研究人员,都在相对孤立地发展概念。尽管有人呼吁将新兴的人工智能在政府中的研究正式化,但缺乏一种平衡的描述,可以捕捉到理解将人工智能嵌入公共部门环境的后果所需的理论视角的全部深度。在这里,我们通过首先进行综合文献综述来统一社会和技术学科的努力,以识别和聚类69个在人工智能多学科研究中经常共同出现的关键术语。然后,我们以文献计量分析的结果为基础,提出了三个新的多层面的概念,以更统一的方式理解和分析基于人工智能的政府系统(AI-GOV):(1)操作适应性,(2)认知一致性,(3)规范性分歧。最后,我们将这些概念作为AI- gov概念类型学中的维度,并将它们与新兴的AI技术测量标准联系起来,以鼓励操作化,促进跨学科对话,并激发那些旨在用AI重新思考政府的人之间的辩论,从而使这些概念发挥作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Government Information Quarterly
Government Information Quarterly INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
15.70
自引率
16.70%
发文量
106
期刊介绍: Government Information Quarterly (GIQ) delves into the convergence of policy, information technology, government, and the public. It explores the impact of policies on government information flows, the role of technology in innovative government services, and the dynamic between citizens and governing bodies in the digital age. GIQ serves as a premier journal, disseminating high-quality research and insights that bridge the realms of policy, information technology, government, and public engagement.
期刊最新文献
A more secure framework for open government data sharing based on federated learning Does trust in government moderate the perception towards deepfakes? Comparative perspectives from Asia on the risks of AI and misinformation for democracy Open government data and self-efficacy: The empirical evidence of micro foundation via survey experiments Transforming towards inclusion-by-design: Information system design principles shaping data-driven financial inclusiveness Bridging the gap: Towards an expanded toolkit for AI-driven decision-making in the public sector
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1