Chaire de recherche de l’Université en technologie et société // University Research Chair in Technology and Society

Permanent URI for this collectionhttp://hdl.handle.net/10393/50561

Browse

Now showing 1 - 12 of 12

Gouverner avec l'IA : Quatre actions pour bâtir une administration publique transformatrice et résiliente
(2026-04-15) Régis, Catherine; Martin-Bariteau, Florian; Adams, Rachel; Bertrand, Brunessen; Effoduh, Jake Okechukwu; Parycek, Peter; Pereira de Souza, Carlos Alfonso; Yoon, Hyesun Melissa
Recourir à l’IA n’est pas un raccourci pour réformer le gouvernement. En l’absence d’une refonte institutionnelle préalable, de capacités suffisantes et d’une gouvernance claire, son adoption risque fort de renforcer les dysfonctionnements bureaucratiques, les biais et l’opacité au lieu d’améliorer les performances ou l’équité. Au bout du compte, le succès de l’IA dans l’administration publique relève davantage de défis de gouvernance que de défis techniques. Les résultats dépendent moins de la complexité de la technologie que des capacités institutionnelles, des mécanismes de reddition de comptes, des rapports de force avec les fournisseurs et d’une planification résiliente. Cet énoncé de politiques mondiales recommande quatre actions : avant de déployer l’IA, repenser les services publics en fonction de problèmes concrets, investir dans le renforcement des capacités institutionnelles en créant des formations et des équipes interfonctionnelles, rééquilibrer les rapports de force avec le secteur privé grâce à des processus d’approvisionnement collectif et à la collaboration, et ancrer l’IA gouvernementale dans une « infrastructure de confiance » reposant sur la transparence, la responsabilité et la surveillance, ainsi que sur la résilience.
Governing with AI : Four Actions to Build a Transformative and Resilient Public Administration
(2026-02-26) Régis, Catherine; Martin-Bariteau, Florian; Adams, Rachel; Bertrand, Brunessen; Effoduh, Jake Okechukwu; Pereira de Souza, Carlos Alfonso; Parycek, Peter; Yoon, Hyesun Melissa
Artificial intelligence (AI) is not a shortcut to reforming government. Without prior institutional redesign, sufficient capacity, and clear governance, its adoption is more likely to entrench bureaucratic dysfunctions, bias, and opacity than to improve performance or fairness. The success of AI in government is ultimately a governance challenge, not a technical one. Outcomes depend less on the technology’s sophistication than on institutional capacity, accountability mechanisms, vendor power relations, and resilience planning. The Global Policy Brief recommends four actions: * Redesign public services around real problems before deploying AI; * Invest in institutional capacity through training and cross-functional teams; * Rebalance power with vendors through collective procurement and collaboration; and * Anchor public-sector AI in a “trust stack” build on transparency, accountability and oversight, as well as resilience.
Can't Compute: Moving Towards an Equitable Digital World
(2023-07-15) Martin-Bariteau, Florian; Dunn, Suzie; Ahmed, Nasma
In today’s society, we all live in a digitally immersive world. While technology brings benefits and conveniences to our daily lives, many forms of technology reinforce individual and systemic biases, and injustices. Digital technologies have been shown to both replicate and amplify existing discriminatory social patterns. Algorithms and artificial intelligence have been shown to reinforce racial and gender stereotypes, social media has been used as a platform to promote hateful and violent speech, and privacy invasive tools, such as internet connected cameras, have been used as surveillance devices against populations already over policed and monitored, notably Black, Indigenous, People of Colour, and members of the LGBTQ2S+ community. Despite these problems, technology has also provided unique opportunities for members of equity seeking groups. Smartphones have been used to capture and expose racist police brutality, social media has been used to build solidarity and social movements, and digital tools have been developed that advance the lifestyles of people living with disabilities. As digitalization increases, we can’t compute an equitable digital context without an understanding of those issues. We need those voices in tech, academic and social spaces. While there is an increase of thought leadership on these issues globally, there is a need to engage more fulsomely in a Canadian-specific context, in order to address the unique history of discrimination, equality, and colonialism from Canadian authors. The Can’t Compute collection of essays aims at bridging this gap in Canadian studies to highlight technology issues that are relevant to members of equality-seeking groups, not simply by exploring those issues but by amplifying voices from those groups unrepresented in mainstream conversation about the digital context. The personal narratives, scholarly articles, and fictional stories in Can’t Compute represent the emerging diversity of topics and voices in the sphere of digital technology. Each piece was written during the early years of the COVID-19 pandemic. A time when global inequities were intensified, there was a resurgence of far-right groups, abusive online behaviour was amplified at higher rates, and dependence on technologies was increasing at unprecedented levels. The impetus for bringing this collection together was to highlight the perspectives of people who work and live at the intersections, as there continues to be a significant gap in representation of these voices and issues in literature on technology, even as it becomes increasingly apparent that members of these equity-seeking groups often face a disproportionate brunt of technology's negative effects. This multidisciplinary collection features a variety of writing styles and formats to describe the ways in which technology affects Black, Indigenous, People of Colour, people living with disabilities, women, gender minorities, and members of the LGBTQ2S+ community. These various vantage points provide an opportunity to explore the difficulties equity-seeking communities face when engaging with technology. In the chapters in this collection, the authors discuss how technological tools both connect people by creating spaces for community building, while also isolating people when digital spaces do not represent them, are not accessible to them, or are unsafe due to harassment and discrimination. The authors of this collection often weave in their lived experiences and social locations into their analysis or narrative, adding critical depth to our understanding of these issues. Cindy Ma, Danielle Lussier, Raine Liliefeldt, and Emily Macrae integrate their personal experiences with the benefits and detriments related to technology. Their stories provide the reader with an insider's view of someone impacted by technology, moving away from the abstract and bringing the issue closer to home. Tamsyn Riddle, Stephanie Jonsson, Lucia Flores Echaiz, and Michelle C. Liu, Brittany C. Singh, and Giovanni C. Giuga’s pieces engage with these issues through a more classic academic and/or legal lens to engage in deep analysis, highlighting issues with technology that are important to the equity-seeking groups they discuss. Finally, GL Barrett’s short story builds on the reader's imagination, bringing them into the possibilities of the future of technology. We hope this collection introduces readers to new ideas about technology and reframes old ones, while inspiring advocacy for a more equitable world. When the words, thoughts, and ideas of all people are not included, the system can’t compute. This collection of chapters written by academics, activists, and storytellers describes a multitude of ways that technology is impacting Black, Indigenous, People of Colour, people living with disabilities, women, gender-minorities, and members of the LGBTQ2S+ community. Equity-seeking groups have found new terrain on the Internet, with people gathering for positive, community-building experiences. However, these same technologies have also caused some of the most serious harms and exacerbated existing discrimination. We hope that these chapters will help inform those researching, developing, and living with digital technologies regarding key issues faced by these equity-seeking groups. This collection builds on the foundational work done by previous authors and advocates, and seeks to inspire more writing, learning, and sharing on these issues in the future.
Quando a IA Interfere nas Eleições: Quatro Ações para Proteger a Integridade Eleitoral e Preservar a Democracia
(2025-02-01) Régis, Catherine; Martin-Bariteau, Florian; Effoduh, Jake Okechukwu; Gutiérrez, Juan David; Neff, Gina; Souza, Carlos Affonso; Zolynski, Célia
Exemplos recentes do Brasil, Romênia, Gabão, Estados Unidos e outros países revelam como o uso de inteligência artificial (IA) por atores políticos pode prejudicar a integridade eleitoral e a democracia. Os países usualmente não estão preparados para os desafios relacionados à IA: muitos não possuem regras que regulamentam o uso de IA em eleições, os partidos políticos ainda não chegaram a um consenso sobre práticas eleitorais justas na era da IA, e a maioria das jurisdições não consegue lidar de forma eficaz com ataques impulsionados por IA contra suas instituições democráticas. Recomendamos quatro ações: 1) os países devem atualizar as regras eleitorais (por exemplo, proibindo conteúdos enganosos gerados por IA); 2) os partidos políticos devem adotar um código de conduta com diretrizes claras para o uso responsável da IA na política; 3) as autoridades eleitorais devem estabelecer equipes independentes para prevenir e responder a incidentes envolvendo IA; e, 4) no âmbito internacional, os países devem criar um programa de Promotores da Integridade Eleitoral para IA e protocolos para lidar com interferências transfronteiriças.
Amfani da AI a akwatunan zaɓe: Matakai hudu da za a inganta harkokin zabe da dimokraɗiyya
(2025-02-01) Régis, Catherine; Martin-Bariteau, Florian; Effoduh, Jake Okechukwu; Gutiérrez, Juan David; Neff, Gina; Souza, Carlos Affonso; Zolynski, Célia
Misalai na baya-bayan nan daga Brazil, Romania, Gabon, Amurka, da sauran ƙasashe sun nuna yadda aka yi amfani da AI domin cimma wata manufar ‘yan siyasa da lalata dimokraɗiyya. Da yawa daga cikin Kasashe ba su shiyawa ƙalubalen da ke da alaƙa da AI ba: da yawa ba su da ƙa’idodin da ke tafiyar da AI a zaɓe, jam’iyyun siyasa ba su da amannar za yi zaɓe mai inganci da AI ba, kuma yawancin hurumin da suke da shi ba zai yi tasiri a kan AI ba, hakan kuma babbar barazana ce ga dimkraɗiyyarsu. Muna ba da shawarar a yi abu guda 4: Gwamnatoci su gyara dokokin zaɓe (waɗanda za su haramta amfani da haramtattun bayanai daga AI); Jam’iyyun siyasa su samar da tsare tsaren da za su shata layi game da amfani da AI; Hukumomin zaɓe su samara da wasu tawaga da za su maida hankali wajen kaluabalntar duk wasu jawabai da AI ya samar; Sannan a mataki da duniya, a samar da masu sanya ido a kan bayanan AI.
AI n’oge ntuliaka: Ụzọ anọ a ga-esi chekwaa ntuliaka ma kpuchite ọchịchị onye kwuo uche ya
(2025-02-01) Régis, Catherine; Martin-Bariteau, Florian; Effoduh, Jake Okechukwu; Gutiérrez, Juan David; Neff, Gina; Souza, Carlos Affonso; Zolynski, Célia
Ọmụmaatụ ndị e nwetara na nso nso a na mba Brazịl, Romanịa, Gabọn, Amerịka na mba ndị ọzọ na-egosi ka AI ndị na-egwu ndọrọndọrọ ọchịchị ji eme ihe pụrụ isi bibie ntụkwasaozi ntuliaka na ọchịchị onye kwuo uche ya. Oge ụfọdụ, mba dị iche iche anaghị adị nkwadobe makai he ịmaaka sitere na AI: ụfọdụ mba enweghị iwu na-achịkọta AI na ntuliaka, otu ndọrọndọrọ ọchịchị dị iche iche enwebeghị nkwekọrịta gbasara ụzọ kwesịrị ekwesị e si ahazi ntuliaka n’ọgbọ AI, dịkwa ka ụfọdụ ụlọikpe apụghị imegide mwakpo ndị e ji AI mee n’usoro ọchịchị onye kwuo uche ha. Anyị na-atụ aro ihe anọ a pụrụ ime: Gọọmenti kwesịrị imegharị iwu ntuliaka (ịmaatụ, iji kwụsị ihe ndị e ji AI mepụta na-eduhie ndị mmadụ ụzọ); otu ndọrọndọrọ ọchịchị dị iche iche kwesịrị ịnabata iwu na usoro akparamaagwa nke ga-edo ha anya gbasara ụzọ kwesịrị ekwesị e si eji AI eme ihe maka ndọrọndọrọ ọchịchị; ụlọorụ ndị na-ahazi ntuliaka kwesịrị ihibe otu ndị kwụụrụ n’onwe ha iji gbochie ma leba anya n’ịgwa aka ọbụla e ji AI mee; gọọmenti kwesịkwara ihibe otu ga-echekwa ntụkwasịobi ntuliaka maka AI n’ogogo mbaụwa, iji buo agha megide ịnọ na mba manye aka na mba ọzọ.
AI for Inside Ballot Box: Four Steps to Take Protect Elections and Defend Democracy
(2025-02-01) Régis, Catherine; Martin-Bariteau, Florian; Effoduh, Jake Okechukwu; Gutiérrez, Juan David; Neff, Gina; Souza, Carlos Affonso; Zolynski, Célia
Recent examples from Brazil, Romania, Gabon, di US, and oda countries don show say di way politicians dey use AI fit spoil elections and shake democracy. Many countries no ready for di AI wahala: plenty no get law wey go guide AI use for elections, political parties never agree on fair way to use AI, and most places no sabi how to fight AI attacks wey fit spoil their democracy. We dey recommend dis four actions: government suppose update election rules (like to ban fake AI-generated content), political parties suppose get code of conduct wey go guide how dem go use AI for politics, election authorities suppose set up independent teams wey go stop and respond to AI -related wahala, and for international level, governments suppose create International AI Electoral Trustkeepers plus protocols to handle cross-border interference.
AI nínú àpótí ìdìbò: Ìgbésẹ̀ mẹ́ rin láti dá ààbò bo ètò ìdìbò àti mú ìṣèjọba àwaarawa dúró ire
(2025-02-01) Régis, Catherine; Martin-Bariteau, Florian; Effoduh, Jake Okechukwu; Gutiérrez, Juan David; Neff, Gina; Souza, Carlos Affonso; Zolynski, Célia
Àwọn àpẹẹrẹ láti Brazil, Romania, Gabon àti United States àtàwọn orílẹ̀ èdè míì ti ṣàfihàn báwọn olóṣèlú ṣe lè lo AI láti dójú ètò ìdìbò àti ìjọba àwaarawa bolẹ̀ . Ọ̀ pọ̀ àwọn orílẹ̀ èdè ni kìí gbáradì fáwọn ìpèníjà tó lè tara AI jáde: ọ̀ pọ̀ àwọn orílẹ̀ èdè ni kò ní òfin tó de AI lílò lásìkò ètò ìdìbò, àwọn ẹgbẹ́ ṣẹ̀ ṣẹ̀ wáyé láti Brazil, Romania, Gabon, òṣèlú kò ì tíì fẹnukò lórí ìlànà ètò ìdìbò tó yẹ lásìkò ayé AI yìí àti ọ̀ pọ̀ ni kò ní ìkápá láti kojú àwọn ìpèníjà tì AI ní lórí ètò ìṣèjọba àwaarawa. Àwọn ìgbésẹ̀ mẹ́ rin ni a rò pé ó yẹ láti gbé: ìjọba nílò láti ṣàtúnṣe àwọn òfin ètò ìdìbò (fún àpẹẹrẹ láti fòfin de lílo AI láti ṣe àwọn nǹkan tó lè ṣi ará ìlú lọ́ kàn); àwọn ẹgbẹ́ òṣèlú gbọdọ̀ ní ìlànà ìhùwàsí lórí lílo AI fọ́ rọ̀ òṣèlú; àwọn aláṣẹ ètò ìdìbò ní láti gbé ikọ̀ kan dìde.
Quando l’intelligenza artificiale interferisce con le elezioni: Quattro azioni per salvaguardare l’integrità elettorale e sostenere la democrazia
(2025-02-01) Régis, Catherine; Martin-Bariteau, Florian; Effoduh, Jake Okechukwu; Gutiérrez, Juan David; Neff, Gina; Souza, Carlos Affonso; Zolynski, Célia
Esempi recenti di Brasile, Romania, Gabon, Stati Uniti e altri Paesi mostrano come l’uso dell’IA da parte di attori politici possa danneggiare l’integrità elettorale e la democrazia. Le nazioni sono spesso impreparate ad affrontare le sfide legate all’IA: molte non hanno regole che disciplinino l’IA nelle elezioni, i partiti politici non si sono accordati su pratiche elettorali eque nell’era dell’IA e la maggior parte delle giurisdizioni non è in grado di contrastare efficacemente gli attacchi alle proprie istituzioni democratiche. Raccomandiamo quattro azioni: i governi dovrebbero aggiornare le norme elettorali (ad esempio, per proibire contenuti ingannevoli generati dall’IA); i partiti politici dovrebbero adottare un codice di condotta con linee guida chiare sull’uso politico responsabile dell’IA; le autorità elettorali dovrebbero istituire team indipendenti per prevenire e rispondere ai disagi causati dall’IA; a livello internazionale, i governi dovrebbero istituire dei fiduciari elettorali internazionali per l’IA e protocolli per affrontare le interferenze transfrontaliere.
La IA en las urnas: Cuatro medidas para salvaguardar la integridad electoral y defender la democracia
(2025-02-01) Régis, Catherine; Martin-Bariteau, Florian; Effoduh, Jake Okechukwu; Gutiérrez, Juan David; Neff, Gina; Souza, Carlos Affonso; Zolynski, Célia
Ejemplos recientes de Brasil, Rumanía, Gabón, Estados Unidos y otros países muestran cómo el uso de la IA por parte de actores políticos puede afectar negativamente la integridad electoral y la democracia. Las naciones no suelen estar preparadas para los retos relacionados con la IA: muchas carecen de normas que regulen el uso de la IA en las elecciones, los partidos políticos no se han puesto de acuerdo sobre prácticas electorales justas en la era de la IA y la mayoría de las jurisdicciones no pueden contrarrestar eficazmente los ataques realizados con IA en contra de sus instituciones democráticas. Recomendamos cuatro acciones: los Estados deberían actualizar las normas electorales (por ejemplo, para prohibir los contenidos engañosos generados con IA); los partidos políticos deberían adoptar un código de conducta con directrices claras sobre el uso responsable de la IA en actividades políticas; las autoridades electorales deberían establecer equipos independientes para prevenir y responder a las perturbaciones provocadas con IA; y, a nivel internacional, los gobiernos deberían establecer Guardianes Electorales Internacionales de IA y protocolos para abordar las interferencias transfronterizas.
Quand l’IA s’immisce dans les élections : Quatre actions à mettre en oeuvre pour protéger l’intégrité des élections et défendre la démocratie
(2025-02-01) Régis, Catherine; Martin-Bariteau, Florian; Effoduh, Jake Okechukwu; Gutiérrez, Juan David; Neff, Gina; Souza, Carlos Affonso; Zolynski, Célia
Les technologies influencent depuis longtemps les élections, tant positivement que négativement, en façonnant leurs résultats et la qualité du débat public les entourant. Par exemple, Internet permet à la population de se mobiliser plus efficacement que jamais, lui donnant un outil pour défendre des idées et des causes précises. Néanmoins, Internet est également un redoutable canal de désinformation. L’essor de l’intelligence artificielle (IA) s’accompagne de nouvelles menaces importantes, notamment la multiplication des vidéos hypertruquées, la hausse des risques liés à la cybersécurité, l’émergence d’agents manipulateurs persuasifs ou, encore, la prolifération des données synthétiques et des faux comptes. Dans un même temps, l’IA s’avère un outil puissant qu’utilisent les partis politiques pour communiquer avec l’électorat, influencer l’opinion publique et façonner les flux d’information. En exploitant les tendances électorales existantes, l’IA pourrait profondément remodeler les processus démocratiques et avoir un impact sur les résultats électoraux. Cependant, sans mesures proactives, l’IA pourrait exacerber des tendances inquiétantes comme la polarisation politique et la perte de confiance envers la démocratie. Les gouvernements doivent agir de manière décisive à l’égard de l’IA, en particulier en cette période où, dans les démocraties du monde, les élections font face à des attaques et à des défis croissants. En agissant sur plusieurs fronts, ils soutiendront les systèmes démocratiques, renforceront la confiance de la population et assureront que l’IA soit utilisée d’une manière qui permet de protéger l’intégrité des élections.
AI in the Ballot Box: Four Actions to Safeguard Election Integrity and Uphold Democracy
(2025-02-01) Régis, Catherine; Martin-Bariteau, Florian; Effoduh, Jake Okechukwu; Gutiérrez, Juan David; Neff, Gina; Souza, Carlos Affonso; Zolynski, Célia
Technologies have long influenced elections, both positively and negatively, shaping their outcomes and the quality of public debate surrounding them. For example, the Internet enables citizens to organize more effectively than ever, empowering them to advocate for specific ideas and causes, but it is also a formidable channel for disinformation. The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) presents significant new threats, including the multiplication of deepfakes, heightened cybersecurity risks, the emergence of manipulative persuasive agents, and the proliferation of synthetic data and fake accounts. At the same time, AI offers political actors a powerful tool to connect with voters, influence public opinion, and shape the flow of information. By tapping into existing trends in elections, AI has the potential to profoundly reshape the democratic process and influence election outcomes. Without proactive measures, however, AI could exacerbate worrisome trends such as political polarization and declining trust in democracy. Governments must take decisive action regarding AI, particularly at a time when democracies around the world are facing increasing challenges and attacks on their elections. By acting on various fronts, they will shore up democratic systems, improve trust in society, and ensure that AI is leveraged responsibly to enhance the integrity of elections.

Browse

Recent Submissions