Contribution to the handbook
Priority · Assessed 2026-10-28
Public voice and its relationship to authority are central to serving citizens. The question also brings an international scale into view as a possible dependency or alternative, while leaving the appropriate level unresolved. The evidence supports inquiry, not a conclusion that international governance belongs in the design.
Does this challenge the goal?
Material definition challenge
The question’s requirement to consider international governance challenges the city- or country-scale framing. That is a legitimate scale-boundary question, not evidence that the definition should be broadened.
The supplied material calls for international public input but does not establish how authority, representation, or accountability would work across countries.
Why this category?
- meaningful alternatives
- dependencies
- consequential risks/limits
The international-level proposal is normative and under-specified. The packet does not provide arrangements for international authority or show that city- or country-level governance requires them.
This is an AI assessment of contribution to the goal, separate from whether the question has an answer.
Making and interpreting laws →
Authority, accountability and resilience →
Read the exploration goalSpecify the relevant levels of decision-making, including international governance, and explain why public voice belongs at those levels.
What we can say so far
Public voice should be included in AI governance alongside expert involvement, and the supplied Landemore material explicitly calls for it at the international level. It grounds that international level in the global character of AI-related concerns, comparing them with concerns such as climate change. The supplied Danaher material offers a further normative reason for public voice: legitimate decision-making should allow people to participate and understand the reasons behind decisions. The evidence does not specify additional institutional tiers, such as local or national bodies, so it does not establish a complete map of the levels at which people should have a voice.
What remains open
- The evidence does not identify which non-international levels should have public voice or how authority should be divided among levels.
- It does not specify how participation at the international level should be organized or how much influence participants should hold.
Conditions and limits
- The international-level recommendation is an interpretation of selected article excerpts, not independent new evidence; the excerpts do not explain how people across countries would participate.
- The legitimacy reasons are reported arguments and normative premises, not empirical demonstrations that a particular participation arrangement produces better outcomes.
- Citizen voice is presented alongside expertise and regulation, not as a replacement for them.
Objections to consider
- The conditional argument for concentrating authority in an epistemic elite is a material counterposition to public voice. The supplied item notes that its factual assumptions can be criticized, but the evidence does not assess those assumptions or resolve the normative dispute.
Evidence and related ideas
Supporting evidence, qualifications and context play different roles in this answer.
supports
Bring public voice to global institutions The author argues that public input on AI governance should also be heard through international institutions.
Explicitly supports public voice in international institutions and relates that level to globally significant concerns.
Fostering More Inclusive Democracy with AI
Read full source ↗