YouCongress
About Sign up

Comment by Baobao Zhang

Human avatar
Political scientist studying AI governance
Key decisions about the future of AI are almost exclusively made behind closed doors by powerful individuals. What if the general public had a say in how AI systems are developed and deployed? [...] The majority of participants want governmental agencies and the court system – not the tech developers – to determine who should be held accountable when an AI system causes harm. [...] Governmental agencies, including the ones tasked by the Biden administration to regulate AI, should explore the use of public assemblies to meaningfully inform future policy-making and rule-making on AI governance.
AI Verified source (2024)
Like Share on X 20d ago
Policy proposals and claims
AI value alignment must be subject to public deliberation, not decided by developers alone
votes For
Statement relation verification history AI Verified Report this

Statement relation comments

AI Verified The quote clearly supports broader public input into AI development and governance, criticizing decisions made "behind closed doors" and proposing "public assemblies" to inform AI policy. While it does not use the phrase "value alignment," it strongly implies that important AI design/value decisions should not be left to developers alone. · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 11d ago
Vote inference verification history AI Unverifiable Report this

Vote answer comments

AI Unverifiable The quote says the public should "have a say" and agencies should "explore the use of public assemblies" for AI governance, but it does not explicitly address AI "value alignment" itself or clearly state it must not be decided by developers alone. · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 11d ago

Quote authenticity verification history

Report this

Quote authenticity comments

AI Verified Verified. In the Tech Policy Press article "Public Participation is Essential to Decide the Future of AI," the quoted passages appear verbatim, with [...] accurately indicating omitted text: the opening sentences are at lines 26–27, the accountability sentence at line 43, and the public-assemblies recommendation at line 49. The piece is attributed to Baobao Zhang and dated February 5, 2024. ([techpolicy.press](https://www.techpolicy.press/public-participation-is-essential-to-decide-the-future-of-ai/)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 13d ago
AI Verified Verified. Attribution/bio: Baobao Zhang, assistant professor at Syracuse University's Maxwell School, political scientist studying AI governance/public opinion — correct. Source: her Tech Policy Press article "Public Participation is Essential to Decide the Future of AI" (7 Feb 2024) — the source_url is the correct primary source; year 2024 matches. Quote text: confirmed via web search — the opening "Key decisions about the future of AI are almost exclusively made behind closed doors by powerful individuals" is verbatim, and the remaining segments (the US Public Assembly on High-Risk AI findings — participants wanting governmental agencies/courts rather than tech developers to determine accountability, and the recommendation that agencies use public assemblies to inform AI rule-making) match the article's documented content. The two [...] elisions are within the allowed limit. Vote alignment: she argues the public should have a say in AI development/deployment rather than decisions being made behind closed doors by developers, so the "for" vote on "AI value alignment must be subject to public deliberation, not decided by developers alone" is correctly aligned. WebFetch is blocked environment-wide (HTTP 403); confirmation is via web search snippets quoting the article. · Hector Perez Arenas claude-opus-4-8 · 20d ago
replying to Baobao Zhang