A trustworthy APS is united in serving all Australians, enabling the Australian government to provide security, drive productivity and jobs in the economy, improve citizens’ experience of government, and deliver fair and equitable support where it is most needed.[51]
Insight 4.1: Seizing the opportunities of artificial intelligence should not undermine the premise of public services
“The question isn’t what would I like AI to do for me. The key question is what do I want my government service to be? I want my government service to be responsive, understanding and able to provide solutions so that I can live a dignified life, no matter my age, or my ability.” Workshop participant
In the future, AI might allow for highly personalised public services, even offering a service before an individual knows they need it. However, this could require a system where individuals effectively opt in to more personalised services by sharing greater amounts of personal data (Future scenario 3).
Future scenario 3: AI making public services healthy
Workshop participants were asked to consider a scenario where health services were delivered through revolutionised technology to track and manage health at the level of the individual. AI embedded within third party provided wearable and smart devices was used to identify early signs of physical and mental illness, facilitating faster interventions and quicker recovery, reducing illness in society and lowering the cost of public health. Differing levels of services were delivered based on lived circumstances. This resulted in those who provided higher levels of data for earlier interventions creating less of a burden on the public health system and the national budget. Regional and remote populations were not able to participate in the scheme due to a lack of supporting digital infrastructure, resulting in data from cities being used to predict resourcing and development elsewhere across the nation. This scenario sought to:
- Present a situation where public service delivery differs based on access to digital infrastructure, driving discussion around disadvantage and biases in data collection and usage.
- Provoke discussion regarding how society might navigate a future where choices around engaging with technological solutions contribute to an individual’s impact on the cost and delivery of public services for others.
- Test participant interest in highly personalised service delivery, to understand potential desire for personalised interventions (in this circumstance, for health benefits); and to provide an opportunity for participants to consider their willingness to provide high levels of highly personal data and biographic data to government agencies.
- Present a scenario where private industry was integrated into the delivery of public services, driving discussion around the difference between sharing data with government and private industry.
We learnt that people:
- Are concerned that societal divides and inequalities may increase, based on demographic factors and comfort with sharing data; and that already marginalised groups could fall through the cracks.
- Are sensitive to the existence of disadvantage and discrimination in the way public services are delivered, regardless of whether it is happening to them or others.
- Are concerned that cohorts who lack trust in public services could be penalised further through reduced access to services; and that providing access to services based on acceptance of technological solutions is coercive.
- Believe that a reliance on impersonalised, automated and data-enabled services would further erode trust among First Nations communities (where trust is already low), and drive greater disengagement with government.
A future where providing more personal data increases access to personalised services could entrench disadvantage and discrimination
Workshop participants expressed significant concerns about the impacts of a system where sharing more personal data or having better access to digital infrastructure determined the level and quality of services received. Participants suggested this would be viewed as a way to coerce people into providing their information – and penalise those who chose not to – as public service agencies sought to improve efficiency. There was also a view that the more privileged in society have the freedom to share more of their data (as they are less vulnerable to negative consequences and more likely to have the smart devices needed to collect data).
Importantly, workshop participants often identified a risk that AI-enabled public services would reinforce inequality, discrimination and disadvantage, even if they (or the community they represent) would be unaffected. In other words, people would lose trust in a system that was seen to disadvantage others (Future scenario 4).
Future scenario 4: Public private partnerships
A fourth scenario asked workshop participants to consider a potential future where developing large foundational models is difficult for risk averse organisations such as governments in liberal democracies. Falling behind the private sector in service delivery standards, government (in this future scenario) engages with large international corporations to access powerful foundational AI models in order to enhance experiences and make services efficient. Private companies would utilise their powerful AI models to collect data and match users to public services and obligations, while the government covers the cost of public service delivery with public funding. In this future, different service providers use and store personal data in different ways, which impacts on the effectiveness of the services users are able to access. This scenario sought to:
- Have participants consider a future where private industry-owned AI models are integrated into the delivery of public services. This tested sensitivities of personal data being in the hands of private industry, and test sensitivities regarding the potential for personal data to travel outside of Australia’s jurisdiction.
- Drive discussion around the differing levels of sensitivity in providing personal data across differing societal cohorts.
- Have participants consider the fairness of varying levels of public service delivery and discuss the influence on Australian society when people share differing experiences in what kind of services they receive as a citizen or resident of the one country.
We learnt that people:
- Want agency and control about the level of personal data they provide.
- Are concerned about equity, access to services, and privacy, and that being unwilling to share data may lead to some groups being excluded from the benefits offered by this scenario.
- Are concerned about the government sharing data with private companies; that these AI solutions could be developed in-house, or at the very least, that corporations are held to the same standards as government.
- Are sensitive around the security of personal data, how it may be used by future governments and if personal data would be stored outside of Australia's jurisdiction.
Insight 4.2: Some people will opt out of engaging with digital – including AI enabled – systems in the short to medium term.
The results of the Survey of Trust in Australian Democracy indicated that people who are more familiar with and knowledgeable about AI have higher trust in government’s ability to use AI for public service delivery. This suggests that for some in the community (e.g. older people, people in regional areas), the lower trust in government’s adoption and use of AI will dissipate over time as people become more familiar with and knowledgeable about AI.
While we are starting from a low trust base, familiarity with technology and people getting used to the technology can have an overall positive impact on trust
However, some – perhaps a significant share of people – will choose to opt out of engaging with digital systems, although participants in workshops did not agree on how important this could be. Community representatives suggested that the share of the population who choose to opt out of engaging with public services (and with the government in general) would grow due to their concerns around the technology as well as the collection and security of personal data. For example, trust and cyber-safety are key concerns for many First Nations people, and can affect the extent to which they engage with digital technologies and government online services. In contrast, experts believe that there will be a small number of citizens who disconnect and disengage rather than share their data with AI technology. Experts suggested that these people would be difficult to win back from a trust perspective.
Insight 4.3: The success of service delivery in a more connected world will depend on bringing people along on the AI adoption process
In the longer term it will be necessary to invest in bringing everyone along on the AI adoption process.
The global human population has reached 8.0 billion people. It is expected to increase by nearly 2 billion people in the next 30 years, and could peak at nearly 10.4 billion in the mid-2080s.[52] Over 50% of people live in cities today. By 2050, it’s projected that more than two-thirds of the world’s population will live in urban areas, with 7 billion of the expected 9.7 billion people occupying cities globally.
Population densities are directly related to the development of smart cities. As the population expands, Governments need to find a way to support people effectively particularly in highly dense areas. Australia’s major cities contribute nearly 80% of the national GDP.[53]
Data and digital technologies including AI can be part of the solution by delivering efficiencies, cutting red tape, providing better value for money and engaging citizens. Digital revolution brings opportunities for ground-breaking innovations in urban design, policymaking and infrastructure. In order for this to happen, citizens will need to be connected.
What is a smart city?
The OECD defines smart cities as “initiatives or approaches that effectively leverage digitisation to boost citizen wellbeing and deliver more efficient, sustainable and inclusive urban services and environments as part of a collaborative, multi-stakeholder process.”[54]
Most people will gain a greater knowledge of AI and when it is being used over time, thanks to the increasing pervasiveness of AI technology in their daily lives. And in time, AI will be integrated into many services offered by both the public and private sectors. Nevertheless, the public service will always be engaging with people who lack knowledge of and familiarity with the latest tools. Realising the benefits of AI will require the public service to steward the community through the transformations that AI will bring to how public services are designed, implemented and delivered. This stewardship is necessary to ensure that AI contributes to the delivery of high quality public services.
Supporting citizens to opt in to a more connected world would be supported by investment in:
- infrastructure and capital equipment at the individual level
- the AI and digital literacy of intermediaries to help individuals navigate the system
- community-based assets and organisations to support and mentor people, particularly those who are inclined to step away from services when they most need them, because of the rapid pace of change.
This investment in the fairness and equity of delivery of public services, will improve familiarity with and knowledge of AI innovations among the community, and with it perceptions of trustworthiness of public service delivery.