The Architecture of Algorithmic Governance From the Perspective of the G20 India Meeting 2023 Statement

 

 

The umbrella concept was social justice, as that term has come to be understood. Like human rights in its own day, the term is elastic and dependent on application in space, time, and place.  Yet it is the essential ideological frame in this new era of popular management because it can be molded to suit the space and objectives for which it is to be deployed--strategically. 

Pix Credit here

What are the strategies of social justice in this G20 with respect to the digital space. One key element stressed development: "Improve access to digital services and digital public infrastructure, and leverage digital transformation opportunities to boost sustainable and inclusive growth" (G20  Statement §5i). This certainly aligns with the driving priority of Marxist Leninist and post colonial developing states within the older architecture of human rights and sustainability.

Another key element was the care and feeding of labor markets and labor collectives for the benefit of those collectives in a position to create and manage value. Positive noises were made in the direction of managing collective labor forces for effective insertion in digital work spaces ("Welcome the comprehensive toolkit with adaptable frameworks for designing and introducing digital upskilling and reskilling programmes" G20  Statement §20iv).

Related to the role of digital technologies in the context of labor is its role in promoting small capital enterprises, and the managed access for private capital based economic collectives. 

We welcome the 2023 Update to Leaders on Progress towards the G20 Remittance Target and endorse the Regulatory Toolkit for Enhanced Digital Financial Inclusion of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs). We endorse the voluntary and non-binding G20 Policy Recommendations for Advancing Financial Inclusion and Productivity Gains through Digital Public Infrastructure. We take note of the significant role of digital public infrastructure in helping to advance financial inclusion in support of inclusive growth and sustainable development. . . We endorse the G20 2023 Financial ¡Inclusion Action Plan (FIAP), which provides an action oriented and forward-looking roadmap for rapidly accelerating the financial inclusion of individuals and MSMEs, particularly vulnerable and underserved groups in the G20 countries and beyond. (G20  Statement §21).

PIX CREDIT HERE

The social justice foundations of these policies is clear, and clearly trumpeted through this leadership signalling text.  Less apparent is the way in which this also aligns with the core policies of Marxist Leninist and post-colonial developing states. In this context, the focus on MSME aligns with a view that markets and private orderings of economic activity must be understood as a complement to and a tool of public management of economic production, specifically, and management, generally. It aligns with the current ideological position, fashionable even in the core regions of the capitalist metropolis, that capitalism and more generally markets, are something that is in need of a redo--fundamental. And that technology can be a nice tool to achieve it. More fundamentally it does underscore a shift from markets primacy in global economics to state capitalist models with a smaller and managed space left fr the "non-state economy."

Pix credit here

Digital technology is also apparently understood as some sort of virtual mule that can be used to pull the cart of sustainable development. (G20  Statement §24i). To that end G20 states  "Recognise the role of digital transformation, AI, data advances, and the need to address digital divides. We endorse the G20 Principles on Harnessing Data for Development (D4D) and welcome the decision to launch Data for Development Capacity Building Initiative, and other existing initiatives." (Ibid.). The idea of the digital as a mule, or an ox, or centuries earlier, a slave, is appealing in the way that exploitation always is when it iss undertaken in the spirit of free riding.  In this case, of course, the free riding is the underlying conviction that the digital is neither an object of social justice. And, indeed, that is a very difficult presumption to overcome, even as non-carbon intelligence acquires a life of its own.

Pix credit here

That virtual mule, of course, ought to be available to all. The G20' reiterated its "commitment to harness digital technologies to overcome the digital divides for all learners" (G20  Statement §30ii). Included as well were (1) a commitment to extend "support to educational institutions and teachers to enable them to keep pace with emerging trends and technological advances including AI;" (2) an emphasis on "expanding access to high-quality Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET);" and (3) a reaffirmation of the "commitment to promote open, equitable and secure scientific collaboration and encourage mobility of students, scholars, researchers, and scientists across research and higher education institutions." (Ibid., ¶30 iii - v). These deepen and operationalize the conception of digital technologies to enhance labor effectiveness, and the contribution of the non-state sector in well organized and targeted private markets.  It is also a means of advancing social justice goals by shifting its management and control from social forces and culture, to the public apparatus of the state and its technocracies. This is tied as well to the gender equality objectives of the G20, especially in the context of data technologies ((G20  Statement §65).

All of these normative presumptions are then underscored in Section E of the G20 Statement; "Technological Transformation and Digital Public Infrastructure" (G20  Statement ¶¶ 55-61).  The text of this section is worth considering in detail and follows below. The fundamental premise was addressed in the section on Artificial Intelligence (A.I:):

It is our endeavour to leverage AI for the public good by solving challenges in a responsible, inclusive and human-centric manner, while protecting people’s rights and safety. To ensure responsible AI development, deployment and use, the protection of human rights, transparency and explainability, fairness, accountability, regulation, safety, appropriate human oversight, ethics, biases, privacy, and data protection must be addressed. (G20  Statement §61).

Human-centric is the key.  But it is a brittle key and unlikely to be either effective or enduring (deeper dive here).  It is not clear whether human-cerntricity is baselined at the level of collective humanity or at the operative level of autonomous individuals with agency.  Indeed, the great irony here is that while the G20 and its widely varied state apparatus is keen to bend data tech to human desire, it appears that this bending actually produces a parallel of efficient use.  Here data tech is at its most useful when it can be deployed to make its human subjects more efficient. The exploiter, in this case, of both human and digital intelligence, remains the state. Perhaps individuals do like being managed; and the imperceptible and real time management through data tech makes it possible to manage populations without the need for performative politics (legislation,. debates, etc.). That may perfectly align with the ideological foundations for the political-economic system of a state, but its debasement into a form of generic feel good language meant to appeal to the propaganda departments of these political apparatus advancing rhetoric of social justice provides much in the way of discursive power and perhaps less ion the way of substance. Here, indeed, the value of the digital is in the enhancement of the ability of the state (and its dependent collectives, public or private) to increase the value of human exploitation.  But all in a good cause (e.g., here).  

Pix credit here

Either way, however, to those ends it is necessary to convince the masses.  And that is the function of G20 2023 ¶¶ 55-61. All of this will fall on deaf ears, of course--human privileging virtue signalling in the shadow of (human) social justice serves as the orthodox sloganeering and a screen behind which  those who have now been vested with social justice (collective) power can manage things in ways that are assessed by their value as performance. And yet, the self absorption of the technocracies aligned with political vanguards and their state apparatus (in either Marxist-Leninist, post-colonial, or liberal democratic architectures), suggests a plural subjectivity in the realm of data tech.  First the group of people who resist or ignore the architectures of state (or market vanguard) control will continue to develop and deploy data tech as they like.  Calling the names will not change the fact that data tech will continue to evolve as it wills in relation to a class of coders and users intent on having their way. That is less difficult, for example, than mounting analog versions of rebellion. Second, data tech has a life of its own; one that is developing autonomously from the human along its interface with coders and users. Generative tech and descriptive/predictive models are not vacuum cleaners that are the amoeba of non-carbon life forms. It works and processes even when its user interface with carbon based life is not engaging with it. The nature of its inductive iterative forms of sentience can be coded, but once released into its environment (either internal within silicon based machinery) or external (operating in the circulatory system of interactive data analytics. None of that matters in a human-centric governance framework--what matters is the appearance of control. The rest can be fudged.  And the irony--in order to rationalize the complicated system of regulatory pathways identified and assess meeting objectives--these grand normative architectures will be dependent on all of the tools that they purport to control. The human-centric regulation of data tech will be impossible without the power of data tech to make it so. One can only wonder about the realities of lines of control.

Still it is worth considering the architecture of this policy-regulatory framework as a refinement of what is emerging as the public orthodox view aligning tech and social justice. It s built on a number of key focus areas: (1) public infrastructure; (2) digital economy; (3) digital finance; (4) digital currency; (5) digital ecosystems; and (6) artificial intelligence stripped of autonomy. The first speaks to concepts like "smart cities" and seamless communications aiding the functioning of the state.  And in a sense, to the extent that the state oversees the development of such infrastructures it retains the position of hub along which well monitored spokes may be allowed to be built, assessed, and deployed. The extent to which non-state based "smartness" may be developed without permission will likely shrink.  Transparency, however is not aligned with this project.   The second speaks to the transposition of infrastructure framing into the roadways and byways of commerce. The same rules will apply.  And in the end it is the hub that acquires a greater regulatory control--to the extent it is actually able to control the use, content, and deployment of commerce aiding data tech.  That is a tall order. But the "Global Digital Public Infrastructure Repository (GDPIR), a virtual repository of DPI, voluntarily shared by G20 members and beyond" (¶56ii) and the "G20 High-level Principles to Support Businesses in Building Safety, Security, Resilience, and Trust in the Digital Economy" (¶57i)) suggests the direction in both objectives. .And then there is control of the education for the kidddies--an essential element in the smooth transition to data tech based seamless management under the watchful eye of non-carbon intelligence ostensibly controlled and operated by carbon life forms. Digital finance measures also speak to efficiency and control.  These are old friends of social relations, made better now that they can be deployed through technologies.  But the space for resistance is equally large, and the temptation to use the objectives of social justice (reduce digital divides) to ensure control by managing those divides strategically is quite irresistible. Digital ecosystems is a polite way developing mechanisms that define the borderlands and patrol the internal behaviors of those engaged in the business of interfacing with tech, and of devising new forms of such interfacing ("fostering safe and resilient digital ecosystems, and ensuring that every citizen on our planet is financially included" (¶60)).  There is irony here in three respects: (1) data tech control of the management of human culture; (2) data tech objectives of a totalizing inclusion (one can't manage who one can't embed); (3) the deployment of ecologies of tech against ecologies of nature (viruses, etc.). The last suggests the Nicene creed of data tech regulation. But like the Nicene creed (an orthodox confession of faith) it papers over the quite real divide between this orthodoxy and those now necessarily recast as heresy. These sorts of divides do not portend well for stability, order or prosperity.

 

E. Technological Transformation and Digital Public Infrastructure

55. Technology can enable rapid transformations for bridging the existing digital divides and accelerate progress for inclusive and sustainable development. Digital public infrastructure (DPI), as an evolving concept and as a set of shared digital systems, built and leveraged by both the public and private sectors, based on secure and resilient infrastructure, and can be built on open standards and specifications, as well as opensource software can enable delivery of services at societal-scale. In our voluntary efforts to make digital public infrastructure interoperable, we recognize the importance of data free flow with trust and cross-border data flows while respecting applicable legal frameworks. We also reaffirm the role of Data for Development.

Building Digital Public Infrastructure

56. We recognize that safe, secure, trusted, accountable and inclusive digital public
infrastructure, respectful of human rights, personal data, privacy and intellectual
property rights can foster resilience, and enable service delivery and innovation. To this
end, we:

i. Welcome the G20 Framework for Systems of Digital Public Infrastructure, a
voluntary and suggested framework for the development, deployment and
governance of DPI.
ii. Welcome India’s plan to build and maintain a Global Digital Public Infrastructure
Repository (GDPIR), a virtual repository of DPI, voluntarily shared by G20 members
and beyond.
iii. Take note of the Indian Presidency’s proposal of the One Future Alliance (OFA), a
voluntary initiative aimed to build capacity, and provide technical assistance and
adequate funding support for implementing DPI in LMICs.

Building Safety, Security, Resilience and Trust in the Digital Economy

57. An enabling, inclusive, open, fair, non-discriminatory and secure digital economy is
increasingly important for all countries and stakeholders while respecting applicable
legal frameworks. We will share our approaches and good practices to build a safe,
secure and resilient digital economy. To this extent, we:

i. Welcome the non-binding G20 High-level Principles to Support Businesses in
Building Safety, Security, Resilience, and Trust in the Digital Economy.
ii. Welcome the G20 Toolkit on Cyber Education and Cyber Awareness of Children
and Youth.

Crypto-assets: Policy and Regulation

58. We continue to closely monitor the risks of the fast-paced developments in the crypto-
asset ecosystem. We endorse the Financial Stability Board’s (FSB’s) high-level
recommendations for the regulation, supervision and oversight of crypto-assets
activities and markets and of global stablecoin arrangements. We ask the FSB and
SSBs to promote the effective and timely implementation of these recommendations in
a consistent manner globally to avoid regulatory arbitrage. We welcome the shared
FSB and SSBs workplan for crypto assets. We welcome the IMF-FSB Synthesis Paper,
including a Roadmap, that will support a coordinated and comprehensive policy and
regulatory framework taking into account the full range of risks and risks specific to the
emerging market and developing economies (EMDEs) and ongoing global
implementation of FATF standards to address money laundering and terrorism
financing risks. Our Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors will discuss taking
forward the Roadmap at their meeting in October 2023. We also welcome the BIS
Report on The Crypto Ecosystem: Key Elements and Risks.

Central Bank Digital Currency

59. We welcome discussions on the potential macro-financial implications arising from the
introduction and adoption of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs), notably on
cross-border payments as well as on the international monetary and financial system.
We welcome the BIS Innovation Hub (BISIH) Report on Lessons Learnt on CBDCs and
look forward to the IMF Report on Potential macro-financial implications of widespread
adoption of CBDCs to advance the discussion on this issue.

Fostering Digital Ecosystems

60. We resolve to deploy all available digital tools and technologies and spare no effort in
fostering safe and resilient digital ecosystems, and ensuring that every citizen on our
planet is financially included. To support this, we:

i. Commit to promote responsible, sustainable and inclusive use of digital technology
by farmers and an ecosystem of Agri-Tech start-ups and MSMEs.
ii. Welcome the establishment of the Global Initiative on Digital Health (GIDH) within
a WHO-managed framework to build a comprehensive digital health ecosystem in
compliance with respective data protection regulations.
iii. Will leverage digital technologies for the protection and promotion of culture and
cultural heritage and adopt digital frameworks for the development of cultural and
creative sectors and industries.

Harnessing Artificial Intelligence (AI) Responsibly for Good and for All

61. The rapid progress of AI promises prosperity and expansion of the global digital
economy. It is our endeavour to leverage AI for the public good by solving challenges
in a responsible, inclusive and human-centric manner, while protecting people’s rights
and safety. To ensure responsible AI development, deployment and use, the protection
of human rights, transparency and explainability, fairness, accountability, regulation,
safety, appropriate human oversight, ethics, biases, privacy, and data protection must
be addressed. To unlock the full potential of AI, equitably share its benefits and mitigate
risks, we will work together to promote international cooperation and further discussions
on international governance for AI. To this end, we::

i. Reaffirm our commitment to G20 AI Principles (2019) and endeavour to share
information on approaches to using AI to support solutions in the digital economy.
ii. Will pursue a pro-innovation regulatory/governance approach that maximizes the
benefits and takes into account the risks associated with the use of AI.
iii. Will promote responsible AI for achieving SDGs