This is excellent. This is the critical distinction, AI as an amplifier of transparency or as yet another arbiter. I've written a bit about how AI can amplify the bad of technocracy, as well as how institutions will resist beneficial uses of AI.
This was a fantastic and timely piece — thank you for articulating the evolving tension between administrative efficiency and democratic vitality with such clarity. Our systems weren’t built to evolve at the pace AI innovation is unfolding. We have almost no policy — and even less precedent.
One section that especially stood out to me was the discussion of “digital twins” and augmented democracy. While there’s real promise in these models, I worry about a future where we simulate civic input rather than cultivate it. Simulation might optimize representation on paper, but it doesn’t strengthen the public’s capacity to think critically, self-reflect, or adapt in real time. I believe we can foster more thoughtful deliberation — and AI policy might offer a rare opportunity to position that process as a unifying force, something we've struggled to achieve in the digital public square.
We’re entering an era where governance won’t just require better data, but better humans — people who are engaged, pattern-aware, and actively learning to reconcile personal values with complex trade-offs. I’ve been developing a civic concept called Be Heard, which aims to reactivate public agency in a world increasingly shaped by AI.
Be Heard is imagined as a pre-policy sandbox — guided by an AI moderator (prompted with input from cross-sector institutions), and potentially funded by major AI labs as part of their civic responsibility. The platform would function as a dynamic public service tool — a space where people can explore how AGI might impact everything from speed cameras and education to tax structures and judicial systems. Most of the public isn’t thinking about this yet. But the pace of change is accelerating, and if we don’t start aligning around core principles soon, the downstream consequences could be massive.
Just wanted to offer that lens — and thank you again for such a compelling and necessary contribution. The “narrow corridor” framing is especially powerful, and a great reminder that anticipatory governance starts with us, not just with our models.
I’ve been exploring these ideas further on my Substack if anyone’s interested — especially around how AI might reshape civic participation and public agency: https://substack.com/@kellycostelloducruet. Always open to dialogue.
Great work! Yep, I agree, we can build a direct democratic X or Mastodon to become like a planet-wide brain, mockups:
https://x.com/MelonUsks/status/1929660387995115713
P.S. I'm not sure is it okay to respond in the same way on X and here?)
This is excellent. This is the critical distinction, AI as an amplifier of transparency or as yet another arbiter. I've written a bit about how AI can amplify the bad of technocracy, as well as how institutions will resist beneficial uses of AI.
If you're interested: https://open.substack.com/pub/seekingsignal/p/the-accountability-machine?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=mn93
What a thought provoking read.
This was a fantastic and timely piece — thank you for articulating the evolving tension between administrative efficiency and democratic vitality with such clarity. Our systems weren’t built to evolve at the pace AI innovation is unfolding. We have almost no policy — and even less precedent.
One section that especially stood out to me was the discussion of “digital twins” and augmented democracy. While there’s real promise in these models, I worry about a future where we simulate civic input rather than cultivate it. Simulation might optimize representation on paper, but it doesn’t strengthen the public’s capacity to think critically, self-reflect, or adapt in real time. I believe we can foster more thoughtful deliberation — and AI policy might offer a rare opportunity to position that process as a unifying force, something we've struggled to achieve in the digital public square.
We’re entering an era where governance won’t just require better data, but better humans — people who are engaged, pattern-aware, and actively learning to reconcile personal values with complex trade-offs. I’ve been developing a civic concept called Be Heard, which aims to reactivate public agency in a world increasingly shaped by AI.
Be Heard is imagined as a pre-policy sandbox — guided by an AI moderator (prompted with input from cross-sector institutions), and potentially funded by major AI labs as part of their civic responsibility. The platform would function as a dynamic public service tool — a space where people can explore how AGI might impact everything from speed cameras and education to tax structures and judicial systems. Most of the public isn’t thinking about this yet. But the pace of change is accelerating, and if we don’t start aligning around core principles soon, the downstream consequences could be massive.
Just wanted to offer that lens — and thank you again for such a compelling and necessary contribution. The “narrow corridor” framing is especially powerful, and a great reminder that anticipatory governance starts with us, not just with our models.
I’ve been exploring these ideas further on my Substack if anyone’s interested — especially around how AI might reshape civic participation and public agency: https://substack.com/@kellycostelloducruet. Always open to dialogue.