Digital Public Goods and Common Purpose: Part 1

Welcome to another edition of Uncomfortable Collisions with Reality, where Gene Tunny and I react to a UN report on AI that invested me as the intellectual godfather of the phrase "digital public goods". I have been mulling on the quWelcome to another edition of Uncomfortable Collisions with Reality, where Gene Tunny and I react to a UN report on AI that invested me as the intellectual godfather of the phrase "digital public goods". I have been mulling on the question of public goods since well before chairing the Government 2.0 task force, realising that many of the public goods of the twenty-first century are digital. Most people haven't noticed yet, but the Ostroms' quadrant in which a public good is both non-rival and non-excluded is no longer good enough as a definition. It denies public goods as a problem solved. But Wikipedia is a public good and it's excludable. It's just that its founders wanted to open it and could raise the funds to do so as a charity. Likewise, just as free-to-air TV figured as a public good in some 1950s and 60s textbooks, so Google, Facebook and Twitter(X) are public goods even though they're funded by advertising. (And of course you're free to think that X or any of the other social networks are public BADs, but that means they're just public goods that generate negative value. We then go on to explore ways in which social media could contribute to social mobility - something I wrote about hereAnd Gene asks me some questions about AI. I think it's obviously intelligence. Chatting with Claude and ChatGPT reveals a mysterious, shape-shifting intelligence that can easily beguile us without being truly conscious. By launching careful pilots and managing the risks, we can ensure this alien technology serves its ultimate purpose of improving our real lives.The UN report mentioned is here.