Expanding the Visibility of Public Voice on AI - What if?

At 1:45 IST on Friday 20th February, at the British Pavilion in Hall 14 of the Bharat Mandapam complex in New Delhi (hosting the India AI Impact Summit), something exceptional happened. For a few minutes, voices of students from a school in Luton played out of speakers, and delegates nearby had a chance to hear their nuanced views about how generative AI in education affects them, and how they want to see it governed in future. This moment formed part of a panel curated by the University of Sheffield sharing work on public voices in AI, and showing videos and photos of everyday citizens sharing their views on AI.

This presence of direct testimony from those affected by AI should not be exceptional (and I’m sure there were at least a few other examples across booths and panels at the Impact Summit). Yet, I don’t think it would be an exaggeration to say that it made up less than 1% of the content that delegates might have encountered. Amidst the glowing blue screens, expert panels, tech demos and glitzy stands, opportunities to engage with evidence from the kinds of informed public engagement that should be shaping our future alongside AI were near non-existent.

That’s a problem.

A few days earlier, at the online and in-person days of the Participatory AI Research and Practice Symposium we heard over 90 presentations on in-depth work across the world to give voice to affected communities in shaping the development and governance of Artificial Intelligence. Rich findings, and critically evaluated methods, that show what different communities want from AI, and how they are encountering and adapting to the impacts of AI currently on offer. The problem is not a shortage of insight from the public - although undoubtedly there is much space for the participatory AI field to grow, and participatory practices to be embedded into business as usual. The issue is that this insight remains far too easy to simply miss or ignore.

So what can we do about it?

Notwithstanding the concern that some actors in the AI space are incentivised to wilfully dismiss public views, I’m left feeling that it is, at least partially, on us to create more opportunities for the AI community to encounter public voices and views. Which, from conversations with many collaborators around the Summit, suggests three ‘What ifs?’

What if we brought together insights from existing public engagement in one place?

We’ve advocated in the past for the new Independent International Scientific Panel on AI to have a focus on evidence from public engagement. It’s likely the first reports will not extend to this in depth, so how could we collectively bring together evidence and insights from existing public engagement on AI?

The Public Voices in AI programme has done methodological groundwork on understanding what evidence tells us, and the open call for papers for PAIRS has shown we can surface many examples of practice across the world. Can we build on learning from projects like Participedia and Assemblis to build a global case book of public views on AI?

What if the expo area at the next big AI conference hosted a showcase of public attitudes to AI?

Although it was great to be able to spend 30 minutes sharing citizen voices at the British Council organised UK Pavillion right at the entrance to the Impact Summit Expo, what if we could bring together groups who have been running public engagement on AI across the world to take over a large expo booth on our own: providing a hub for exploring public attitudes to AI? Imagine a large expo stand sharing videos, posters, literature and chances for conversation with public engagement projects from across the globe.

Would this help delegates to approach other stands and exhibits with impact on affected publics at the top-of-mind? Could this help place citizen voices more central to conference discussions?

What if there was a citizen hub at an AI conference that facilitated direct dialogue between members of the public, and government, industry and NGO delegates?

There are 100s of members of the public who have gained confidence in talking about AI through past involvement in public deliberation, and who would be well placed to share authentic ideas, desires and insights from their community. An expo space or parallel hub could host one-to-one and group discussions, perhaps drawing on the model of the Kavli Center Hopes & Fears Lab .

I think back to my experience many years back helping run a youth-zone at the Internet Governance Forum in Sharm-el-Sheikh with Diplo Foundation, where our booth included both a front-of-house space with comfortable sofas for discussions between young people and delegates, and a ‘behind the scenes’ space, which acted a safe-base where young people perhaps daunted by the dynamic of an international multi-stakeholder conference could debrief, regroup and to head out to engage with conference sessions. I also think about the potential of virtual presence to connect conversations in the conference venue, to publics across the globe.

A shared ‘citizens hub’ (inside or alongside conference/summit venues) could give confidence to NGOs working on public participation to bring public participants along, and could also provide a space for self-registered attendees to engage their citizen identities in how they approach the wider conference.

Even though PAIRS helped us to find many of the people working on public voice around the India AI Impact Summit, I have the sense there is still the need for a meeting point to further help projects and practitioners thinking about public voice to discover each other, connect, and have confidence in their collective voice.

Making it happen?

Although these ideas could be applied to any number of AI events, in exploring them I’ve been particularly thinking about the UN Global Dialogue on AI Governance taking place parallel to the ITU’s AI for Good Summit in Geneva with its large expo.

However, it is fast approaching - so I want to quickly test out whether anyone else can see potential in these ideas.

At Connected by Data we work to catalyse projects that give communities a powerful voice in the governance of data and AI, but we’re a tiny team: so would only be able to work on something like this with partners. I’m already excited to be working with Susan Oman at University of Sheffield on exploring the case book idea, and hoping we might bring PAIRS partners on board, but it will take more of us to really put public voice front-and-centre.

It might be a long-shot to pull something together for AI for Good in 2026, but we can also look ahead to 2027 too.

So - this is a call out:

• Would you be interested in collaborating on a presence for public voice at the UN Global Dialogue in Geneva in July?
• Do you have ‘Yes and’ ideas that could build on this? Or past experience that might guide us to the most effective approach?
• Do you have evidence from public engagement in AI that could be included in a casebook or expo showcase?
• Could you help with funding, fundraising and/or logistics?

Drop me a line, or ideally fill in this quick form here before 23rd March and we’ll be ready to follow up!