Rządzenie w epoce informacji, cyfryzacji i sztucznej inteligencji

Przenikanie kultury sieci do przestrzeni publicznej • Wzmocnienie powiązań między technologią i polityką • Wejście w epokę internetowej wojny informacyjnej • Polityka w świecie fake newsów, farm trolli i hakerów • Rozwój cyfryzacji, internetu rzeczy i internetu ciała • Konfrontacja, podziały i nierówności związane z zimną wojną technologiczną • Przyspieszony przez pandemię koronawirusa proces tworzenia cyfrowego państwa • Rosnące uzależnienie państw i ludzi od narzędzi cyfrowych • Nowe napięcia między wolnością a prywatnością i bezpieczeństwem • Cyfrowe zagrożenia bezpieczeństwa • Niedostosowanie starych regulacji prawnych do nowych wyzwań • Nieuchronność zmian w stosunkach społecznych i rynku pracy • Niepewna przyszłość obecnego modelu demokracji • Pytanie o dalsze panowanie człowieka nad produktami technologicznymi

Governance in the Age of Information, Digitalisation and Artificial Intelligence At the beginning of the third decade of the 21st century, there can no longer be any doubt that the rising power of information, social communication and electronic technology is bringing about strategic changes in the world. The Internet and digitalisation shape society, ideologies as well as economic and political solutions. A new balance of forces and competition is emerging in the world. We witness the appearance of new dividing lines and conflicts driven primarily by dominance in the area of digital technologies. Online and offline phenomena and processes mix together and spread to all spheres of life. Public e-reality emerges, with ever more prominent elements such as e-state, e-administration, e-procedures and e-citizens. The web begins to prevail over hierarchy. Due to the blockade of direct contact resulting from the pandemic that enveloped the world in 2020, individuals, states and institutions have moved ever more of their activities online. The constantly refined, ever faster and increasingly integrated mechanisms of electronic communication as well as solutions such as smart homes and smart cities offer people new aids, shortcuts and possibilities. Transformations in the area of digital technology and artificial intelligence (AI) are accompanied by completely new problems and threats, whose essence and extent have not been fully recognised yet. Technology and politics increasingly intertwine, and their relation often puts values, standards and mechanisms of the democratic world at risk. Information technology tools have already been used to combat hostile political actors and institutional structures. Human-machine relations become ever more numerous and replace or at least fundamentally alter direct human-human relations. Human-made technological products swiftly acquire new skills by using information obtained from online resources. Data collected in cyberspace become a raw material for building tools of artificial intelligence. Today, all the changes in digital space are still in human hands. However, doubt grows whether this will always be the case or whether the increasingly intelligent products of human scientific and technical thought and advanced technologies will not escape the power of their creators. Three fundamental facts seem to me to be so essential in this context that I believe they justify a publication in book form. Firstly, in terms of thinking about the future, politicians have been considerably outdistanced by engineers, biologists and researchers of other specialities as well as by visionaries and creators of social communication networks operating outside the state structures. For a long time, governments have included the development of electronic machines and algorithms in their agendas and in state budgets – mainly with a view to creating a new type of weapon that could be used in an armed confrontation. Secondly, politicians fail at drawing sufficient conclusions from the fundamental changes in society that give a new shape to the immediate environment of their activities. This situation results in attempts to continue to govern and make political decisions in a mainly anachronistic fashion – one based on a social model that is becoming a thing of the past. In consequence, the dangerous gap between the model of expressing and aggregating political interests and giving legitimacy to and functioning of public authorities and the model of society keeps widening. Thirdly and finally (this is the leitmotif of the present considerations), political sciences need to carry out a more thorough review of strategic scenarios depicting a rational vision of the future of governance and political decision-making. Political sciences cannot look only towards the past and the present. The need to gaze into the future is becoming rather obvious in the situation when a new, technocybernetic world is emerging. Among the challenges facing political decision-making and governance, which have been proliferating over the last years and which need to be taken into account in any attempt to determine the directions, methods and ways of further action in both these areas of activity, the increasing power of communication and the expansion of new information technologies and digital solutions are essential. When predicting the future shape – or the direction of evolution – of politics, political decision-making and governance, it is worth drawing from not only knowledge and experience, but also intuition. It can namely suggest which of the scenarios under consideration has the best chance of coming true. Yet, given the numerous uncertainties, sometimes we have to limit ourselves to presenting possibilities or variants of scenarios – without predicting which would win. It will definitely not satisfy those who expect unambiguous answers that leave no room for doubt. By deciding to share my predictions about the future of politics and governance, I am taking a certain risk. I treat these predictions as a possible point of reference in the debate about the prospective changes to the surrounding reality. In the successive parts of the book, I present: the essence and characteristics of governance; the conditions and a strategic forecast of changes in governance at the beginning of the 2020s; the consequences for governance resulting from the emergence of an information network society; the significance of the emergence and development of the Internet, social media and digital technologies for governance; global competition in the area of new communication and digital technologies; the use of digital tools for the purposes of political game and manipulation; regulatory and security challenges faced by governance related to the expansion of IT and digitalisation; the state of e-government and e-governance in Poland and the strategic dilemmas with regard to the future of governance and politics in the conditions of further expansion of digitalisation. Based on a detailed analysis, I present ten points containing my assessment, opinions and forecasts as well as recommendations. I. The world is growing more digital. This depends on the following factors: the development of online social communication tools that combine mass scale with individualisation, the emergence of network society, the intensity of works on new solutions in the area of smart digital technologies, and the huge financial resources allocated to this field. The qualitative change brought about by digitalisation will impact all areas of human life and the operation of institutional structures, including the area of public authority. It is widely known that governance strongly depends on the events that surround it. This is why digitalisation is a sphere of cooperation, competition and confrontation between states. At the same time, in a situation when instant messengers have become a new tool in politics, it is evident that states take steps to maintain a dominant position in the fields of information and communication on their territories. All the above indicates that digitalisation will swiftly gain significance in strategies, regulations and day-to-day operation of international entities and individual states. II. The power of information, communication and technology is growing stronger. The expansion of information, online social communication and digitalisation already strongly affects the model and way of exercising power in the political sphere. At the same time, digitalisation has become an area of implementing policies as well as a task and a tool of politics and governance. Social media reveal difficulties in reconciling the free nature of online communication with privacy and data protection requirements. The owners of social media and the producers and administrators of computer software are gradually becoming independent actors in the political game, mainly on account of their decisions concerning the use of algorithms and the principles of monitoring online activity and blocking user accounts. Yet the commercial character of those entities renders their politically significant decisions (concerning e.g. political advertising and restrictions on hate speech) dependent on financial objectives, such as profit maximisation. It becomes necessary to subject those entities to external scrutiny.Research and implementation in the area of artificial intelligence push the limits of technological possibilities. The design of autonomous artificial intelligence is now within those limits. If we want this area to be guided by universal values and common human interests, it has to be subject to constant supervision as well as collectively developed and effectively enforced legal regulations. III. The intensity and universality of qualitative change surrounding politics will enforce a systemic revision of governance mechanisms. The current model of gaining and exercising power in the public sphere will face a fundamental challenge: a radical modification of its technical instruments. It should be noted at this point that the emergence of the possibility of using new systemic solutions is not tantamount to their actual use. The possibilities that we are gaining thanks to the digital technological change are but one of the factors influencing transformations within governance mechanisms. Social factors will be crucial in this area: changes in awareness, the pace of development of the digital society and the reduction of fears caused by the digitalisation of politics. Electronic solutions will become a standard first in administration and in decision-making processes in the institutional structures of the state. We can expect essential modifications in the manner of implementing public policies. A great deal of changes are already being made in these areas. This process was accelerated by the 2020 pandemic, which caused a rapid popularisation of electronic procedures in all areas of human life and work. IV. In light of the rapid development of machine learning, questions about the future of democracy remain topical. Even though it is technically possible, mechanisms of electronic legitimisation are unlikely to be implemented in politics any time soon. This is particularly true of general elections as any fundamental change in this area would require overcoming the barrier of social awareness (including the fear of vote-rigging), and those in power do not seem ready to take the risk involved. Most probably, the ideas of digital democracy and electronic elections of public authority bodies will come true only in the distant future. The pace and extent of their implementation will be the subject of major controversy. Perhaps only successive partial solutions consisting in the auxiliary use of electronic technology in general elections will be developed for a long time to come. In the debate about the introduction of electronic voting, the related obstacles and hazards are often highlighted. Thus, perforce, the focus is also on measures aimed at reducing the risk of disinformation on the Internet and threats to the security of IT systems. Accusations of digital disinformation spread online are often a tool of political manipulation. New possibilities offered by information and communication technology tools will continue to be used to create virtual political circles, to shape images and to build support as well as to fight political rivals for a long time to come. There is already a new model of policy making in this area and further professionalisation is to be expected. More centrally, creating solutions for civic democracy networks as a part of information society will strengthen various forms of political participation. Along with the growing readiness in society to join in the current public decision-making by means of electronic mechanisms of direct democracy, the current model of representative democracy will begin to diminish in importance. V. Digitalisation has a great positive potential: it is a lever for progress and it helps improve the quality of activities. Yet is has another facet, as well: it carries serious risks and has numerous adverse effects and a destructive influence on certain social phenomena and behaviour patterns. One such increasingly acute problem is people’s dependence on electronic devices and processes. New technologies have already permeated the world of politics, where they are sometimes used by those who want to play dirty. Various pathologies related to social communication and digitalisation come to light, including cybercrime, disinformation and manipulation. It is the duty of public authorities to make society aware of the threats related to using digital communication tools and to proof it against disinformation and manipulation on the Internet. The governments need to bear in mind that IT and information security is becoming a permanent and increasingly vital element of state security. Strengthening the power of communication and increasing the power of available digital tools, algorithms and artificial intelligence create the need to subject them to careful observation and analysis. We need to refine the methods of counteracting the adverse effects of using digital tools resulting from bad intentions of their users or from technical failures. The risks posed by digitalisation stem also from their use for military purposes. Armed conflicts can – and in certain cases already do – move into cyberspace. Worse still, the advance of digitalisation entails the risk of lowering the threshold of conflict involving the use of lethal autonomous weapon systems.We need global cooperation in order to channel and standardise works on new artificial intelligence solutions and devices. Social, economic and political success will increasingly hinge upon cooperation between humans and artificial intelligence. The present situation has been accurately summed up by Garri Kasparov, a famous Russian chess player, who said that we are already playing a game against the machines.VI. Digital data resources are becoming a strategic factor in governance. They have already become as important for the functioning of people and the operation of institutional structures as raw materials, energy sources and financial capital. Thus, gaining and maintaining access to them will continue to be the objective of overt and covert measures taken by public authorities and non-governmental actors, including commercial entities. These measures should be expected to entail various dysfunctions: abuse, threat to rights and freedoms as well as conflicts of interests. Global systems of storing, processing and distributing digital data provide less and less room for privacy protection. The fight for privacy will become one of the key issues discussed in connection with digitalisation. Another major political challenge will be to find a balance between the needs of freedom and the needs of security in the use of personal data, especially biometric data. A real threat resulting from the development of new supervision techniques on the one hand and the lack of necessary legal regulations on the other is the continuous surveillance of individuals and entire societies. It corresponds to Bentham’s design of the panopticon, in which the modern thought saw an allegory of society and the world as a global prison. The thesis that digitalisation would serve only to support democratic solutions proved to be wrong. Autocracies soon learned how to employ digital tools to supervise social life and strengthen their power.The data collected in cyberspace, and more precisely: the knowledge contained in them, have – at least potentially – political significance (according to the slogan ‘knowledge is power’) and at the same time a market value. That is why access to these data is so critical. Unequal access to electronic data, manifesting itself among others in the so-called asymmetry of information, results from a new global power structure and at the same time helps to shape and preserve this structure.VII. Digitalisation and artificial intelligence form new power relations in the world and become the subject of political and business competition on a global scale. In the area of digitalisation, we need to take advantage of the experiences gathered when programming, monitoring and modifying as well as managing processes in businesses. A common practice in the field of business is strategic and operational controlling. It involves regular analysis of changes and emerging threats and deviations from the adopted objectives. As a result, necessary corrections and development stimulants are introduced where appropriate. The objectives themselves, and not only the solutions that implement them become the subject of thorough observation, analysis and – if necessary – modification. In the context of political decision-making and governance, a similar strategic and operational controlling should cover also the phenomena of expansion of information and communication technologies and advances in the area of digitalisation.VIII. The development of individualised, electronic mass communication and the expansion of digitalisation and artificial intelligence have a geopolitical significance. They affect the criteria of assessment of sovereignty of individual states and the position of international and interstate structures. It is to be expected that the role of the technological context of sovereignty will grow. The emergence of a new, cybernetic world order brings with it the threat of increasing social and economic inequalities and of political confrontation. Cyberspace becomes an ever more vital area of competition and confrontation between states. Geopolitics is gaining a digital dimension. The ability to use digital data and new methods will be an increasingly significant factor of political power and will translate into a new configuration of economic influences in the world. Participation in the supervision of global networks and electronic communication nods is already crucial. There is a growing awareness that artificial intelligence is the ‘industry of the future’ that will determine one’s position in the world of tomorrow.States become ever more engaged in the development of smart technologies. In the US, they have the status of a strategic task of paramount importance for the position and security of the state. In China, they constitute an element of a comprehensive national programme. In the European Union, which is trying to make up for its backwardness in this regard, the participation of the member states in works on the development of artificial intelligence has been recognised as a priority task. Competition for primacy in AI projects is increasing. In fact, it has morphed into an open conflict, a technological war between China and the US. As third states are being dragged into the US-Chinese conflict about the fifth generation mobile network (5G network), it becomes evident that there is no room for an isolated clash between the two powers in the area of smart technologies.Digital exclusion is already becoming a political factor. Development strategies which do not take the use of digital capabilities sufficiently into consideration cannot meet the needs of sustainable and responsible development and are unable to face security challenges. IX. The fundamental role in relations between political decision-making and governance on the one hand and new digital technologies and tools on the other will continue to be played by people and the public structures they create. It depends on the humans – and probably will continue to depend on them in the future – how the growing possibilities offered by digital technologies will be used and how their development will be channelled and monitored. Humans constitute the primary element of the system of governance, and at the same time one that is most susceptible to malfunctions. Human errors and omissions can strengthen the already visible and reveal the new consequences of the ‘dark side’ of digitalisation. In the long term, they can even lead to the emergence of tensions between humans and their ever more autonomous products of digital technology. X. Enhancing the positive impact and reducing the adverse effects of digitalisation and artificial intelligence require global cooperation. Above all, those in power are responsible for carrying out these tasks. Yet, success is contingent on cooperation between politicians, scientists and technologists working on new solutions, financial and business actors as well as leaders of civic organisations and movements. This is a great challenge for international law and for national legal systems. It is crucial for people to be able to develop common norms of conduct that will go beyond particular views on specific matters and divergent interests. We need to build an efficient system of supervision and intervention, equipped with appropriate implementation tools, to guard the adopted standards. This is one of the greatest challenges, but even now, when watching attempts at positive action, one can be a ‘conscious optimist,’ to use an expression from Max Tegmark’s book.***When it comes to scenarios for the future – or ‘visions of future possibilities and directions of development’ (http://infuture.institute/scenariusze-przyszlosci), it is not advisable to focus on concrete details. A fairly responsible way of making a detailed forecast is only possible in the short term. This is particularly true for areas involving dynamic changes, such as governance, social communication, digitalisation, or artificial intelligence. Bearing that in mind, I have focused on problems and tendencies that are strategic in the light of current knowledge. As I announced in the introduction to the present book, I would like it to be not only an image or a balance sheet of the current changes at the interface of new technologies and governance, but also an invitation to think together about the challenges that the future has in store for us.