Political parties often claim their candidates are different from the remaining, but Smarter UK's candidate actually is, because he's not a human – he's a creation of artificial intelligence (AI). The recent political party believes its candidate, AI Steve, can bring trust back to politics at a time when trust has reached recent lows.
AI Steve is the AI avatar of Steve Endacott, the pinnacle of Neural Voice, the technology company behind the Smarter UK campaign. Endacott, the human ran and lost as a Conservative candidate within the 2022 local elections in Rochdale, where he lives.
If AI Steve is elected by the voters of Brighton Pavilion, Endacott will sit in Parliament. However, that is unlikely because the seat has a big Green majority Only Labour seems to give you the option to overturn this.
The campaign claims that AI Steve will “reinvent democracy” by having voters propose and vote on what AI Steve should do as an area MP, and Endacott personally appearing in Parliament to implement the choices.
The collective approval or disapproval of voters by AI Steve determines what Endacott will do (if greater than 50% vote for a selected measure, he’ll implement it). This approach relies on the principle of majority rule, a fundamental aspect of democratic governance. According to this principle, decisions must be made which have the best support.
Given the doubtless significant voter influence on Endacott's general election through AI Steve, SmarterUK argues that AI could improve trust between voters and their representatives.
Can AI really restore trust in politics? To answer this query, I checked out the five Elements of trust in governments as defined by the OECD: integrity, responsiveness, reliability, openness and fairness to see how AI Steve fares. While the thought theoretically gives voters more direct control, it raises a lot of other legal, ethical and practical issues in relation to the fact of governance.
Alamy Stock Photo/DIGITEYES
Integrity. Our legal and political institutions are based on the premise of human responsibility. An AI, regardless of how sophisticated, shouldn’t be human and doesn’t have the life experiences that shape our understanding of those values. There is a risk that AI Steve's data and algorithm-based decisions will fail to capture the nuances of human values and ethics. It is difficult to see how an AI can truly represent the need of the people and whether its involvement in politics is compatible with the UK's democratic principles.
Responsiveness. With 24/7 availabilityAI Steve is definitely accessible to his constituents. However, this might set unrealistic expectations for other MPs who will not be assisted by an AI version of themselves. It also means Endacott, who lives in Rochdale, Greater Manchester (though he maintains a house in Brighton, in line with AI Steve's website), can avoid appearing in person in his constituency.
Reliability. Involving voters in guiding the actions of their constituency MPs requires them to have understanding of the problems at hand with the intention to make informed decisions. AI Steve's approach is to take care of a 50% approval threshold for his actions, meaning he could make a choice or vote a certain way if a significant slice of the population is against it. This is an analogous gap to the Brexit referendum, so the potential for polarization and conflict is clear.
Openness. Human MPs can explain their reasons for a choice that will not be supported by all voters. With AI Steve, we can have more of a black box scenario. His reasoning for the way he processed his constituents' suggestions will not be immediately apparent or comprehensible to the standard voter. The law has limited options to deal with this lack of transparency and make sure that AI decision-making is as transparent and open as possible.
Justice. Some 63% of individuals said that the incontrovertible fact that government officials follow the identical rules as everyone else affects their trust within the national government.
Who shall be held accountable in case of mistakes or rule violations by AI Steve? Is it the creators of the AI, the AI itself, Endacott, the voters who supported it, or those that contributed to its positions? Should a legal framework be created clarifying the AI's accountability, how would this affect AI Steve's policy decisions?
The judgment
The invention of AI Steve raises more questions on trust in politics than it answers. AI may offer the potential for greater public participation within the political process, however the legal community have to be proactive and legislate to make sure that residents' interests and the integrity of the political system are protected.
