Ordinary people, not just technical experts, need to set the moral standards for regulation of AI.
AI developers, despite often having moral qualms, operate under immense pressure to quickly innovate, leading to ethical concerns being sidelined. This dynamic can foster an 'economy of virtue' where companies acquire ethical expertise to appease critics and avoid regulation. With governments globally drafting AI legislation, the lack of emphasis on safety and ethics underscores the critical need for public involvement in establishing moral guidelines.
Initiatives like Anthropic's 'Collective Constitutional AI' or citizens' assemblies aim to gather public input on AI governance. However, research indicates that such public engagement often occurs too late, addresses narrow questions, and ultimately lacks real decision-making power. This process, termed 'participation-washing,' creates the illusion of democratic oversight without genuinely empowering the public to shape AI's moral framework.
Unlike pharmaceuticals or nuclear power, where independent regulators enforce strict safety and ethical standards, AI development is largely self-governed by the companies that profit from it. Society previously determined that technologies with significant societal impact should not be solely controlled by their developers. While AI's rapid pace and global reach present unique regulatory challenges, democratic moral governance is essential to define acceptable risks and deployment standards for AI in critical sectors like law enforcement, healthcare, and defense.
Even with advanced frameworks like Canada's Directive on Automated Decision-Making, public input on AI strategy has been insufficient, highlighting a gap in democratic moral governance. Effective AI oversight demands that the public not only voice their moral judgments but also possess the political authority to enforce these decisions, ensuring AI serves humanity rather than concentrating power within a few corporate hands, as advocated by Pope Leo XIV and AI leaders.