We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Comment by Prince Sarpong
Finance professor and AI advisor
The legitimacy of AI systems must rest not on their utility or performance, but on the collective processes that determine their existence, scope, and direction. What is needed is a model of epistemic democracy, and thus a political framework that extends democratic accountability into the cognitive systems that mediate social life. I would therefore argue that a transition to epistemic democracy requires three fundamental shifts in the way we conceive of technological power. First, we must move from transparency to participation. Rather than merely disclosing how AI works (an 'after-the-fact' transparency that provides no agency), governance must include public deliberation on whether and how such systems should exist. [...] A true epistemic democracy requires independent citizen assemblies with the interdisciplinary expertise and binding authority to evaluate not just a model’s safety, but its social and democratic 'fit'—the right to veto systems that are fundamentally incompatible with human autonomy.AI Verified source (2026)
Policy proposals and claims
votes For
Statement relation comments
AI Verified
The quote clearly supports the full statement: it explicitly says AI governance must include 'public deliberation on whether and how such systems should exist' and calls for citizen assemblies with binding authority over systems' social and democratic fit. That implies AI alignment-related value decisions should be publicly deliberated rather than left to developers alone.
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 12d ago
Vote answer comments
AI Verified
The quote clearly favors public, collective decision-making: AI legitimacy should rest on 'collective processes,' governance must include 'public deliberation on whether and how such systems should exist,' and 'citizen assemblies' should judge a system’s social and democratic 'fit'—not developers alone.
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 12d ago
Quote authenticity verification history
Report thisQuote authenticity comments
AI Verified
The quote is authentic. The KU Leuven article “The Democratic Illusion: Why AI Governance Lacks a Public Mandate,” by Prince Sarpong and dated 19 February 2026, contains the quoted wording verbatim at lines 62-63 and 67; the [...] is a faithful omission of the intervening sentences at lines 64-66. ([kuleuven.be](https://www.kuleuven.be/digisoc/blog-2/Blogposts/the-democratic-illusion-why-ai-governance-lacks-a-public-mandate))
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 13d ago
AI Unverifiable
Checks: (1) Year 2026 — recent. (2) Author/relevancy — Prince Sarpong is a genuine author who publishes on epistemic democracy and AI governance (e.g., his paper "Redefining democracy for the age of AI: AI governance and the fiduciary turn in the architecture of knowledge"); the quote's themes (epistemic democracy, transparency-to-participation, citizen assemblies with binding/veto authority) are squarely consistent with his work and on-topic for statement #450. (3) Vote alignment — quote strongly argues AI governance must rest on collective/public deliberation rather than developer decisions, so "for" is correct. (4) Source verification — direct WebFetch of the kuleuven.be/digisoc blog post returned HTTP 403 (blocked), and two web searches could not surface either the verbatim passage or confirmation that this specific blog post exists at the given URL. Marking ai_unverifiable because the source cannot be accessed by the AI and the exact text/attribution at that URL could not be independently confirmed.
·
Hector Perez Arenas
claude-opus-4-8
· 20d ago
replying to Prince Sarpong