Opportunities and challenges of AI-systems in political decision-making contexts

Abstract

Political decision-making is often riddled with uncertainties, largely due to the complexities and fluid nature of contemporary societies, which make it difficult to predict the consequences of political decisions. Despite these challenges, political leaders cannot shy away from decision-making, even when faced with overwhelming uncertainties. Thankfully, there are tools that can help them manage these uncertainties and support their decisions. Among these tools, Artificial Intelligence (AI) has recently emerged. AI-systems promise to efficiently analyze complex situations, pinpoint critical factors, and thus reduce some of the prevailing uncertainties. Furthermore, some of them have the power to carry out in-depth simulations with varying parameters, predicting the consequences of various political decisions, and thereby providing new certainties. With these capabilities, AI-systems prove to be a valuable tool for supporting political decision-making. However, using such technologies for certainty purposes in political decision-making contexts also presents several challenges—and if these challenges are not addressed, the integration of AI in political decision-making could lead to adverse consequences. This paper seeks to identify these challenges through analyses of existing literature, conceptual considerations, and political-ethical-philosophical reasoning. The aim is to pave the way for proactively addressing these issues, facilitating the responsible use of AI for managing uncertainty and supporting political decision-making. The key challenges identified and discussed in this paper include: (1) potential algorithmic biases, (2) false illusions of certainty, (3) presumptions that there is no alternative to AI proposals, which can quickly lead to technocratic scenarios, and (4) concerns regarding human control.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 13 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.