Lost in Translation: Policymakers are not really listening to Citizen Concerns about AI

Susan Ariel Aaronson; Michael Moreno

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2510.20568

Lost in Translation: Policymakers are not really listening to Citizen Concerns about AI

Susan Ariel Aaronson·Michael Moreno

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The worlds people have strong opinions about artificial intelligence (AI), and they want policymakers to listen. Governments are inviting public comment on AI, but as they translate input into policy, much of what citizens say is lost. Policymakers are missing a critical opportunity to build trust in AI and its governance. This paper compares three countries, Australia, Colombia, and the United States, that invited citizens to comment on AI risks and policies. Using a landscape analysis, the authors examined how each government solicited feedback and whether that input shaped governance. Yet in none of the three cases did citizens and policymakers establish a meaningful dialogue. Governments did little to attract diverse voices or publicize calls for comment, leaving most citizens unaware or unprepared to respond. In each nation, fewer than one percent of the population participated. Moreover, officials showed limited responsiveness to the feedback they received, failing to create an effective feedback loop. The study finds a persistent gap between the promise and practice of participatory AI governance. The authors conclude that current approaches are unlikely to build trust or legitimacy in AI because policymakers are not adequately listening or responding to public concerns. They offer eight recommendations: promote AI literacy; monitor public feedback; broaden outreach; hold regular online forums; use innovative engagement methods; include underrepresented groups; respond publicly to input; and make participation easier.

Explore related subjects

cs.AI

Keep this discovery

BibTeX RIS

Susan Ariel Aaronson, Michael Moreno. 2025-10-23. Lost in Translation: Policymakers are not really listening to Citizen Concerns about AI. https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.20568

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Decoupling Readiness from Release for Tail-Aware Scheduling of Agentic LLM Workflows

Agentic LLM workflows consist of sequences of model turns interleaved with tool interactions, so their end-to-end completion time depends not only on inference speed but also on when ready turns are released. Most runtimes release each turn immediately upon readiness. Under contention, this eager release policy can accumulate released but unfinished work; once submitted, those turns can no longer be reordered by the workflow-level policy, increasing tail latency. We present a tail-risk-aware turn release scheduling method that jointly decides which ready turn to release next and how much released but unfinished work to maintain. The method uses a mean--Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR) objective to capture the evolving tail risk of unfinished workflows, incorporates online estimates of turn work when prioritizing ready turns, and adapts the released work budget to observed queue pressure. We evaluate the method using real agent execution traces from software engineering tasks across multiple LLMs and workflow arrival rates. The method performs comparably to eager release under light load and substantially reduces the P95 of workflow flow time under contention, achieving up to a \(3.50\times\) speedup.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Demystifying the Privacy-Utility Trade-off in LLM Interactions

The integration of Large Language Models into daily tasks relies on context-rich instructions, inevitably exposing sensitive user information. Current privacy-preserving methods typically employ context-agnostic static rules, causing severe utility degradation. However, the specific mechanisms governing how sanitization impacts downstream performance remain largely underexplored. To address this, we conduct a systematic analysis to deconstruct the privacy-utility trade-off, uncovering three underlying mechanisms: (1) Context-Dependent Utility, which first establishes when to sanitize by revealing that data value shifts from critical constraints to dispensable noise based on user intent; (2) Strategic Adaptation, which subsequently determines how to sanitize by dictating that the choice between removal and replacement depends on the task's reliance on factual integrity versus structural coherence; and (3) Combinatorial Interplay, which finally extends the protection scope by demonstrating that attributes form a semantic web of synergistic dependencies or antagonistic redundancies. Guided by these insights, we introduce an intent-driven local protection framework. By distilling a lightweight model Veilmind-4B to drive a dynamic extraction-sanitization-restoration pipeline, our approach reaches a low-leakage privacy point while preserving substantially higher response utility than existing privacy-oriented baselines, advancing the privacy-utility trade-off toward the Pareto frontier.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Defining AI Agents: A Compendium of Criteria, Metrics, and Benchmarks

The term agent in artificial intelligence lacks a standard definition, complicating the evaluation, comparison, and reproducibility of AI agent research. We address this ambiguity through a survey organized around five dimensions of agenticness: environmental interaction, learning and adaptation, autonomy, goal-directed behavior, and temporal coherence. For each dimension, we examine how the underlying capability has been conceptualized across prior work and synthesize the metrics, benchmarks, and evaluation frameworks used to assess it. This review provides a structured account of the current landscape of agent evaluation, highlighting both established approaches and areas where evaluation remains limited or inconsistent. We additionally introduce the Agent Compendium, a public-facing digital resource that organizes and extends the evaluation methods identified through this review. Together, the survey and compendium provide a common structure for evaluating and comparing agent capabilities across AI systems, supporting more reproducible research, clearer communication, and more systematic study of artificial agents.

cs.AI↗