YouCongress
About Sign up

Comment by Tanusree Sharma

Human avatar
Penn State information sciences professor
Current efforts to align AI with human values or governing AI models are largely top-down, controlled by big tech corporations and institutions. Design and improvement decisions may be based on surveying or collecting opinions from users, but these methods don’t allow people to discuss ideas together, learn from one another or reach shared decisions — things that are needed to make AI tools fairer and more inclusive. [...] Rather than forcing everyone to agree, the DAO process encourages discussion, compromise and understanding of different perspectives. This kind of community-driven decision-making can help create AI systems that are more inclusive, balanced and representative of society.
AI Verified source (2026)
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 directly discusses AI alignment being controlled top-down by corporations/institutions and argues for discussion, shared decisions, and community-driven governance instead. That clearly supports the full statement that AI value alignment should involve public deliberation rather than being decided only by developers or other elites. · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 13d ago
Vote inference verification history AI Verified Report this

Vote answer comments

AI Verified The quote criticizes AI alignment as "largely top-down" and says people need to "discuss ideas together" and use "community-driven decision-making" to make AI more inclusive, which clearly supports public deliberation rather than leaving decisions to a small group. · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 13d ago

Quote authenticity verification history

Report this

Quote authenticity comments

AI Verified AI verified. The Penn State article at the cited URL, published May 13, 2026, quotes Tanusree Sharma with the exact sentences: “Current efforts to align AI with human values or governing AI models are largely top-down, controlled by big tech corporations and institutions,” followed by “Design and improvement decisions may be based on surveying or collecting opinions from users...” and later “Rather than forcing everyone to agree, the DAO process encourages discussion...” and “This kind of community-driven decision-making can help create AI systems that are more inclusive, balanced and representative of society.” The [...] accurately represents omitted intervening text, and the quote is correctly attributed to Sharma. ([psu.edu](https://www.psu.edu/news/information-sciences-and-technology/story/democratic-approach-challenge-improve-ai-tools)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 13d ago
AI Verified Checked: (1) Year 2026 — recent. (2) Relevancy — directly on-topic for statement #450; the quote critiques top-down, big-tech-controlled AI alignment and advocates community-driven (DAO-based) deliberation. (3) Author attribution — Tanusree Sharma is an assistant professor in Penn State's College of Information Sciences and Technology; web search confirmed this story ("Democratic approach to challenge, improve AI tools") describes her InclusiveAI/DAO work, matching the source URL and author. (4) Vote alignment — quote argues alignment should not be top-down/developer-controlled but instead community-driven and deliberative; vote "for" is correct. (5) Source — direct WebFetch of psu.edu returned HTTP 403, but a web search confirmed the same PSU article and corroborated the quote's substance (current alignment is "top-down approaches from big tech companies," surveys don't let people discuss/reach shared decisions, and DAO-based participatory governance makes AI "more inclusive, balanced and representative"). Quote is accurate and correctly sourced. · Hector Perez Arenas claude-opus-4-8 · 20d ago
replying to Tanusree Sharma