With the increasing complexity of global interconnectedness, the question arises as to how AI systems can be used to develop purposeful perspectives for communities. This essay explores the opportunities, challenges and potential impact of such an approach that could align local resonance spaces with global challenges.
1. Personalised perspective generation
The ability of an AI system to generate individual future perspectives for members of a sounding board is reminiscent of the concept of ‘anticipatory governance’ by Guston (2014). This concept aims to anticipate and proactively shape future developments. The potential implementation includes:
a) Predictive analytics: Using machine learning algorithms to predict individual development paths based on historical data and current trends (Siegel, 2016). This could help individuals to make informed decisions about their personal and professional development.
b) Scenario planning: Development of multiple future scenarios that take into account various possible developments (Schwartz, 1991). This enables more flexible and robust future planning.
c) Personalised recommendation systems: Adapting future prospects to individual preferences, abilities and goals (Ricci et al., 2011). This could lead to greater acceptance and implementation of the generated perspectives.
2. Optimisation of resonance according to community standards
Adapting resonance optimisation to the specific standards of a community requires a deep understanding of local values and norms. This is in line with the concept of ‘Cultural Algorithms’ by Reynolds (1994), which combine evolutionary algorithms with cultural knowledge. Possible approaches include:
a) Participatory value capture: Development of methods to continuously capture and update community values and goals (Kenter et al., 2015). This ensures that the perspectives generated are in line with the evolving values of the community.
b) Adaptive resonance theory: Application of models that can dynamically adapt to changing community preferences (Grossberg, 2013). This enables continuous fine-tuning of the system to the changing needs of the community.
c) Local knowledge integration: Incorporating traditional and local knowledge into the AI models (Agrawal, 1995). This ensures that the perspectives generated are culturally appropriate and locally relevant.
3. Tuning with the reciprocal resonance space
The challenge is to reconcile local optimisation with global coherence. This is reminiscent of the concept of ‘glocalisation’ by Featherstone et al. (1995), which describes the merging of the global and the local. Strategies for this could be
a) Multi-agent systems: Development of AI agents that represent local interests but also coordinate globally (Wooldridge, 2009). This enables a balance between local autonomy and global cooperation.
b) Federated learning: Enables AI systems to learn from global trends without revealing local data (Yang et al., 2019). This addresses privacy concerns while enabling global learning.
c) Dynamic network analysis: analysing the interactions between different resonance spaces in order to identify synergies and conflicts (Contractor et al., 2006). This could help to recognise potential conflicts at an early stage and identify opportunities for cooperation.
4. Consideration of global challenges
The integration of global challenges, such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), into local perspectives requires a multidimensional approach:
a) System dynamics modelling: Development of models that link local actions with global effects (Forrester, 1971). This could improve the understanding of the global impact of local decisions.
b) Ethical AI: Integrating ethical considerations into AI decision-making processes to ensure global responsibility (Dignum, 2019). This ensures that the perspectives generated are ethically justifiable and take global responsibility into account.
c) Collaborative filter bubbles: Creating ‘constructive filter bubbles’ that connect local perspectives to global challenges (Pariser, 2011; Flaxman et al., 2016). This could help to raise awareness of global problems without neglecting local identity.
5. Challenges and considerations
Despite the enormous potential of this approach, there are significant challenges and ethical considerations:
a) Data protection and security: Generating personalised futures requires access to sensitive personal data (Zuboff, 2019). Robust security measures must be implemented to prevent the misuse of this data.
b) Algorithmic biases: AI systems could reinforce existing inequalities or create new ones (O’Neil, 2016). It is important to continuously pay attention to fairness and inclusivity.
c) Psychological effects: The presentation of future prospects could have unintended effects on individual well-being and motivation (Seligman et al., 2013). Careful consideration needs to be given to how this information is presented in order to avoid negative psychological effects.
d) Democratic control: It must be ensured that AI systems are subject to democratic control and do not become tools for manipulation (Helbing et al., 2019). Transparency and accountability are crucial for public acceptance and ethical implementation.
6. Potential advantages
Despite the challenges, this approach offers significant potential benefits:
a) Increased individual and collective capacity to act through an improved vision of the future.
b) Strengthening local communities while taking global responsibility.
c) Addressing global challenges more effectively through local action.
d) Promoting intercultural understanding and co-operation.
Conclusion
The development of AI systems that generate personalised futures for members of a resonance space, reconciling local values with global challenges, is a promising approach to promoting sustainable development and social cohesion. However, it requires a careful balance between local autonomy and global responsibility, as well as robust ethical frameworks and democratic control mechanisms.
The implementation of such a system would require not only technological innovation, but also new forms of social organisation and intercultural dialogue. It offers the potential to fundamentally improve our capacity for collective problem-solving and forward-looking action, but also requires constant critical reflection and adaptation to avoid unintended negative consequences.
Ultimately, this approach could lead to a new form of ‘glocal’ governance that harmonises local needs and global responsibility. It promises to empower communities to actively shape their future while contributing to solving global challenges.
The challenge now is to put these concepts into practice and carefully evaluate how they impact different communities and cultures. Only through an inclusive, ethical and reflective approach can we ensure that the development of such AI systems actually leads to a fairer, more sustainable and resonant world.
References
Agrawal, A. (1995). Dismantling the divide between indigenous and scientific knowledge. Development and change, 26(3), 413-439.
Contractor, N. S., Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (2006). Testing multitheoretical, multilevel hypotheses about organizational networks: An analytic framework and empirical example. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 681-703.
Dignum, V. (2019). Responsible artificial intelligence: How to develop and use AI in a responsible way. Springer Nature.
Flaxman, S., Goel, S., & Rao, J. M. (2016). Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news consumption. Public opinion quarterly, 80(S1), 298-320.
Forrester, J. W. (1971). World dynamics. Wright-Allen Press.
Grossberg, S. (2013). Adaptive Resonance Theory: How a brain learns to consciously attend, learn, and recognize a changing world. Neural Networks, 37, 1-47.
Guston, D. H. (2014). Understanding ‘anticipatory governance’. Social studies of science, 44(2), 218-242.
Helbing, D., Frey, B. S., Gigerenzer, G., Hafen, E., Hagner, M., Hofstetter, Y., … & Zwitter, A. (2019). Will democracy survive big data and artificial intelligence?. In Towards Digital Enlightenment (pp. 73-98). Springer, Cham.
Kenter, J. O., O’Brien, L., Hockley, N., Ravenscroft, N., Fazey, I., Irvine, K. N., … & Williams, S. (2015). What are shared and social values of ecosystems?. Ecological Economics, 111, 86-99.
O’Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. Crown.
Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. Penguin UK.
Reynolds, R. G. (1994). An introduction to cultural algorithms. In Proceedings of the third annual conference on evolutionary programming (pp. 131-139). World Scientific.
Ricci, F., Rokach, L., & Shapira, B. (2011). Introduction to recommender systems handbook. In Recommender systems handbook (pp. 1-35). Springer, Boston, MA.
Featherstone, M., Lash, S., Robertson, R., & Robertson, R. (1995). Glocalization: Time-Space and Homogeneity-Heterogeneity. 25–44.
Schwartz, P. (1991). The art of the long view: planning for the future in an uncertain world. Currency Doubleday, New York.
Seligman, M. E., Railton, P., Baumeister, R. F., & Sripada, C. (2013). Navigating into the future or driven by the past. Perspectives on psychological science, 8(2), 119-141.
Siegel, E. (2016). Predictive analytics: The power to predict who will click, buy, lie, or die. John Wiley & Sons.
Wooldridge, M. (2009). An introduction to multiagent systems. John Wiley & Sons.
Yang, Q., Liu, Y., Chen, T., & Tong, Y. (2019). Federated machine learning: Concept and applications. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST), 10(2), 1-19.
Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. Profile books.