ABSTRACT
AI governance is like one of those mythical creatures that everyone speaks of but which no one has seen. Sometimes, it is reduced to a list of shared principles such as transparency, non-discrimination, and sustainability; at other times, it is conflated with specific mechanisms for certification of algorithmic solutions or ways to protect the privacy of personal data. We suggest a conceptual and normative approach to AI governance in the context of a global digital public goods ecosystem to enable progress on the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Conceptually, we propose rooting this approach in the human capability concept-what people are able to do and to be, and in a layered governance framework connecting the local to the global. Normatively, we suggest the following six irreducibles: a. human rights first; b. multi-stakeholder smart regulation; c. privacy and protection of personal data; d. a holistic approach to data use captured by the 3Ms-misuse of data, missed use of data and missing data; e. global collaboration ('digital cooperation'); f. basing governance more in practice, in particular, thinking separately and together about data and algorithms. Throughout the article, we use examples from the health domain particularly in the current context of the Covid-19 pandemic. We conclude by arguing that taking a distributed but coordinated global digital commons approach to the governance of AI is the best guarantee of citizen-centered and societally beneficial use of digital technologies for the SDGs.
ABSTRACT
Adolescents and young adults are also experiencing a crisis of connection to family, community, and society, with increasing numbers living on the streets or dropping out of school.34 Between 2003 and 2015, development assistance for adolescent health accounted for only 1.6% of total development assistance for health,5 despite a third of the total global burden of disease estimated to have roots in adolescence.6 Mental health problems affect 10-20% of adolescents, and many more experience symptoms that diminish wellbeing.7 Furthermore, this is the age at which the gender inequalities that underlie and pose major barriers to wellbeing emerge clearly and is when programmes can transform these inequalities. In 2017, 34% of young women and 10% of young men aged 15-24 years were not in employment, education, or training, with more pronounced disparities in northern Africa and southern Asia.68 Even among employed adolescents and young adults, an increasing proportion have poor job security, variable weekly earnings, and minimal or no health or social security coverage.8 These examples show that, as a global community, we have paid insufficient attention to the multidimensional and intersectional nature of adolescent wellbeing and the importance of the transition to young adulthood. In 2019, for a more concerted and collaborative approach to adolescents’ wellbeing, an unprecedented coalition of governments, United Nations agencies, non-governmental organisations, and academic institutions—working closely with adolescents and young people—committed to a call to action for adolescent wellbeing.9 Underpinning this call to action is a new agreed definition and conceptual framework for adolescent wellbeing to inform policies and programming.10 The framework emphasises the importance of integrating five interconnected domains in adolescent programming: good health and optimum nutrition;connectedness, positive values, and contribution to society;safety and a supportive environment;learning, competence, education, skills, and employability;and agency and resilience.