TY - RPRT A1 - Darius, Philipp A1 - Stockmann, Daniela A1 - Bryson, Joanna A1 - Cingolani, Luciana A1 - Griffin, Rachel A1 - Hammerschmid, Gerhard A1 - Kupi, Maximilian A1 - Mones, Haytham A1 - Munzert, Simon A1 - Riordan, Rónán A1 - Stockreiter, Simona T1 - Implementing Data Access of the Digital Services Act: Collaboration of European Digital Service Coordinators and Researchers in Building Strong Oversight over Social Media Platforms N2 - The EU Digital Service Acts signals a move away from self-regulation towards co-regulation of social media platforms within the European Union. To address online harms and rising platform power the DSA clarifies responsibilities of platforms and outlines a new technology regulatory framework to increase oversight. One key oversight instrument constitutes Article 40 of the DSA, which lays out data access for vetted researchers, who add value to regulators and the broader public as creators of knowledge, educators, advisors, innovators, and watchdogs. Currently, the EU Commission and national governments make important decisions regarding Digital Service Coordinators (DSCs) that play a key role in implementation. Based on expertise on European public administration and political science we lay out key challenges and success factors of DSCs that will play a role in promoting successful cooperation between DSCs and researchers. We provide three recommendations: First, we recommend to strengthen transfer of scientific knowledge into policy-making by processing publicly accessible publications within public administrative bodies. To this end, capacities of DSCs need to be increased. In addition, we also point towards the database of vetted researchers collected by the Board of DSCs as important resource in order to strengthen knowledge transfer. Second, the DSC network requires agile institutions with fast response time in order to enable researchers to play a constructive role in implementation. This also includes institutional procedures between DSCs and the Intermediary Body and Data Protection Agencies. To avoid delay in implementation agile institution-building needs to start now. Finally, institutional safeguards will help to avoid strategic choice of companies of the DSC of establishment. At the same time, the Irish DSC's capacity should be strengthened compared to other national DSCs since most large intermediary services providers have their European headquarters in Ireland. Y1 - 2023 UR - https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:kobv:b1570-opus4-49479 U6 - https://doi.org/10.48462/opus4-4947 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Baum, Kevin A1 - Bryson, Joanna A1 - Dignum, Frank A1 - Dignum, Virginia A1 - Grobelnik, Marko A1 - Hoos, Holger A1 - Irgens, Morten A1 - Lukowicz, Paul A1 - Muller, Catelijne A1 - Rossi, Francesca A1 - Shawe-Taylor, John A1 - Theodorou, Andreas A1 - Vinuesa, Ricardo T1 - From Fear to Action: AI Governance and Opportunities for All JF - Frontiers in Computer Science Y1 - 2023 U6 - https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomp.2023.1210421 VL - 5 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Backovsky, David A1 - Bryson, Joanna T1 - Going Nuclear? Precedents and Options for the Transnational Governance of AI JF - Horizons Y1 - 2023 UR - https://www.cirsd.org/en/horizons/horizons-summer-2023--issue-no24/going-nuclear SN - 2406-0402 IS - Summer 2023, No.24 SP - 84 EP - 95 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Bryson, Joanna T1 - Margaret Boden obituary: cognitive scientist who explored how machines might emulate human imagination JF - Nature Y1 - 2025 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-02548-0 VL - 644 IS - 8077 SP - 603 EP - 603 PB - Springer Science and Business Media LLC ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Bryson, Joanna T1 - Human Experience and AI Regulation: What European Union Law Brings to Digital Technology Ethics JF - Weizenbaum Journal of the Digital Society N2 - Although nearly all artificial intelligence (AI) regulatory documents now reference the importance of human-centering digital systems, we frequently see AI ethics itself reduced to limited concerns, such as bias and, sometimes, power consumption. Although their impacts on human lives and our ecosystem render both of these absolutely critical, the ethical and regulatory challenges and obligations relating to AI do not stop there. Joseph Weizenbaum described the potential abuse of intelligent systems to make inhuman cruelty and acts of war more emotionally accessible to human operators. But more than this, he highlighted the need to solve the social issues that facilitate violent acts of war, and the immense potential the use of computers offers in this context. The present article reviews how the EU’s digital regulatory legislation—well enforced—could help us address such concerns. I begin by reviewing why the EU leads in this area, considering the legitimacy of its actions both regionally and globally. I then review the legislation already protecting us—the General Data Protection Regulation, the Digital Services Act, and the Digital Markets Act—and consider their roles in achieving Weizenbaum’s goals. Finally, I consider the almost-promulgated AI Act before concluding with a brief discussion of the potential for future enforcement and global regulatory cooperation. Y1 - 2023 U6 - https://doi.org/10.34669/WI.WJDS/3.3.8 SN - 2748-5625 VL - 3 IS - 3 ER - TY - CHAP A1 - Mellmann, Heinrich A1 - Arbuzova, Polina A1 - Kontogiorgos, Dimosthenis A1 - Yordanova, Magdalena A1 - Haensel, Jennifer X. A1 - Hafner, Verena V. A1 - Bryson, Joanna T1 - Effects of Transparency in Humanoid Robots - A Pilot Study T2 - Companion of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction N2 - Transparency is recognized as a vital feature for understanding and predicting robot behavior. Another feature that affects interaction with robots is their anthropomorphism. The relationship between these remains under-explored but is postulated to be negative. We present a pilot study investigating the effects of robot transparency in human-robot interactions, where the robot has an anthropomorphic appearance. We asked participants to evaluate and interact with the humanoid robot Pepper to examine whether visualizing the robot's goals and behavior affects perceived intelligence, anthropomorphism, and robot agency. Our preliminary findings suggest that users may attribute higher ratings of agency when interacting with a robot visualizing its goals. In this late-breaking report, we propose our experiment on the interplay between transparency and anthropomorphism in human-robot interaction and summarize insights from our preliminary pilot study. Y1 - 2024 SN - 9798400703232 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1145/3610978.3640613 SP - 750 EP - 754 PB - Association for Computing Machinery CY - New York, NY, USA ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Bryson, Joanna T1 - Governing society with flexible AI JF - Science N2 - Policy that prioritizes human agency is possible, even in an age of artificial intelligence Y1 - 2024 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adn6814 SN - 0036-8075 VL - 383 IS - 6688 SP - 1185 EP - 1185 ER - TY - RPRT A1 - Schmitz, Chris A1 - Bryson, Joanna T1 - A Moral Agency Framework for Legitimate Integration of AI in Bureaucracies N2 - Public-sector bureaucracies seek to reap the benefits of artificial intelligence (AI), but face important concerns about accountability and transparency when using AI systems. In particular, perception or actuality of AI agency might create ethics sinks — constructs that facilitate dissipation of responsibility when AI systems of disputed moral status interface with bureaucratic structures. Here, we reject the notion that ethics sinks are a necessary consequence of introducing AI systems into bureaucracies. Rather, where they appear, they are the product of structural design decisions across both the technology and the institution deploying it. We support this claim via a systematic application of conceptions of moral agency in AI ethics to Weberian bureaucracy. We establish that it is both desirable and feasible to render AI systems as tools for the generation of organizational transparency and legibility, which continue the processes of Weberian rationalization initiated by previous waves of digitalization. We present a three-point Moral Agency Framework for legitimate integration of AI in bureaucratic structures: (a) maintain clear and just human lines of accountability, (b) ensure humans whose work is augmented by AI systems can verify the systems are functioning correctly, and (c) introduce AI only where it doesn’t inhibit the capacity of bureaucracies towards either of their twin aims of legitimacy and stewardship. We suggest that AI introduced within this framework can not only improve efficiency and productivity while avoiding ethics sinks, but also improve the transparency and even the legitimacy of a bureaucracy. Y1 - 2025 U6 - https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2508.08231 IS - v3 PB - arXiv ER - TY - CHAP A1 - Bryson, Joanna ED - Raue, Benjamin ED - von Ungern-Sternberg, Antje ED - Kumkar, Lea Katharina ED - Rüfner, Thomas T1 - From Definition to Regulation: Is the European Union Getting AI Right? T2 - Artificial Intelligence and Fundamental Rights: The AI Act of the European Union and its implications for global technology regulation Y1 - 2025 SN - 9783565013197 U6 - https://doi.org/10.25353/ubtr-dab1-9b5c-1ec6 VL - 4 SP - 11 EP - 34 PB - Verein für Recht und Digitalisierung e.V. Institute for Digital LawTrier (IRDT) CY - Trier ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Evans, Katie D. A1 - Robbins, Scott A. A1 - Bryson, Joanna T1 - Do We Collaborate With What We Design? JF - Topics in Cognitive Science N2 - The use of terms like “collaboration” and “co-workers” to describe interactions between human beings and certain artificial intelligence (AI) systems has gained significant traction in recent years. Yet, it remains an open question whether such anthropomorphic metaphors provide either a fertile or even a purely innocuous lens through which to conceptualize designed commercial products. Rather, a respect for human dignity and the principle of transparency may require us to draw a sharp distinction between real and faux peers. At the heart of the concept of collaboration lies the assumption that the collaborating parties are (or behave as if they are) of similar status: two agents capable of comparable forms of intentional action, moral agency, or moral responsibility. In application to current AI systems, this not only seems to fail ontologically but also from a socio-political perspective. AI in the workplace is primarily an extension of capital, not of labor, and the AI “co-workers” of most individuals will likely be owned and operated by their employer. In this paper, we critically assess both the accuracy and desirability of using the term “collaboration” to describe interactions between humans and AI systems. We begin by proposing an alternative ontology of human–machine interaction, one which features not two equivalently autonomous agents, but rather one machine that exists in a relationship of heteronomy to one or more human agents. In this sense, while the machine may have a significant degree of independence concerning the means by which it achieves its ends, the ends themselves are always chosen by at least one human agent, whose interests may differ from those of the individuals interacting with the machine. We finally consider the motivations and risks inherent to the continued use of the term “collaboration,” exploring its strained relation to the concept of transparency, and consequences for the future of work. Y1 - 2025 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12682 N1 - Open Access publication is funded by the Hertie School Library. First published: 15 August 2023 VL - 17 IS - 2 SP - 392 EP - 411 ER -