Tim Davies

@timdavies.org.uk

3169 Followers 890 Following

Director of Research & Practice at @ConnectedByData.org working on participatory and open governance of tech. Adoptive parent.

Components of a citizens' track. A stack diagram starting with docking points (AI Summit Series, UN Global Dialogue on AI Governance; Thematic Institutions; Industry and Public AI), and then Institutional interface (Governance, Expert advice, Capacity Building, Communication), followed by Coordination Hubs (National, Regional, Thematic), and Community assemblies at the grassroots. The stack indicates a flow of communication between these layers.
Screenshot of a map of participatory processes around the world, showing 83 case studies, > 200,000 participants, across 95 countries and 6 continents.
Long list of the session recordings available at the URL in the post.
MacAlister recognised that it is "challenging to get money" from the fund and it's only a short-term support system. "We need to get to the point where families don't get to this point," he said.
MacAlister said that "for too long" the current system had focused on "late-stage crisis intervention rather than getting in early with support without judging you." He added that he had increased the budget for the Adoption Support Fund in England by 10% this year "so more families can get support", despite it being cut in 2025. The Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund (ASGSF) provides government money for therapeutic treatment.
Photo from room watching PAIRs opening plenary in New Delhi.
An image of a station through a grubby train window as the dusk falls. Not quite the approach to Delhi: it's already too dark. I promised a thread of high quality participatory AI insight and low quality transit photos. I hope I have delivered. Please complete the feedback form on your seat and leave it on the desk as you leave.
Image of TukTuk in traffic. I didn't capture photos of the really intense bits as I was holding on tight rather than taking shots with my phone.
A train platform and bridge.
Picture of e-reader and paper on participatory AI design justice, taken looking out (rather dusty) window of an Indian express train. Tracks, trash and tower blocks complete the view.
AI impact Summit banner. accelerating AI for social and global good. 3 guiding sutras. People, planet, progress
Logos of PAIRS and Jindal Global Law School
It is an essential prerequisite for ethical and effective information use that the multiple voices of children, young people, families and practitioners are heard both within and about their information and its use. Their voices need to be integrated within children’s information at the aggregate and individual levels, in ways that are meaningful and that can be accessed, analysed, understood and used.
A circular infographic titled "Figure 1: A Framework for the implementation of ethical and effective information use." The diagram is organized into three concentric layers: Outer Ring: Divided into two semi-circles labeled Infrastructure and Governance (top-right) and Behaviours and Culture (bottom-left). Middle Ring: A color-coded wheel with eight segments detailing specific actions: Infrastructure & Governance side: "Bring voice into co-design of information systems" (orange), "Using theory of change" (light orange), "Mapping information" (red), and "Mapping systems" (purple). Behaviours & Culture side: "Drawing on national datasets" (lime green), "Improving voice in operational information use" (mint green), "Integrating children's and families' voices into information use" (teal), and "Using broad sources of local information" (blue). Inner Core: A smaller circle divided by a cross into four quadrants, labeled clockwise as Best use of information, Integrating Voice, Understanding Needs, and Appropriate Action. Arrows indicate a continuous, cyclical flow between the segments and rings.
8: Mandate public participation with “hard law” requirements with concrete enforcement mechanisms. It is not enough for public participation to be advisory or recommended—or delivered by the benevolence of corporate entities. Rather, hard law requirements mandating public participation and creating enforceable rights to participation are foundational to ensuring that decision-makers take participatory requirements seriously and that the public has real influence. Hard law requirements ensure continuity within organizations over time, help build institutional norms around participation, and increase trust with affected communities. An ideal statute for public participation in AI would incorporate the preceding guidelines by: • mandating public participation; • defining meaningful participation and the goals of participation; • describing the public’s role at various stages of the AI life cycle; • requiring two-way forms of deliberation at specific stages; • directing culturally appropriate outreach to affected communities; • identifying obligations to increase access for marginalized communities; • committing funds for public participation and specialized support on technological issues; and • setting forth enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance with public participation requirements.
Photos from the Hopes and Fears Lab that took place as part of the 2023 People's Panel on AI. Hopes and Fears lab format by Kavli Centre.
Figure from AI in the Streets report showing 'Types of AI and AI 'proxies' identified in the five study locations (by category).' Including images of phones, drones, bikes, traffic lights, screens and sensors.
UK digital sovereignty strategy EDM (Early Day Motion)2650: tabled on 20 January 2026 Tabled in the 2024-26 session. This motion has been signed by 3 Members. It has not yet had any amendments submitted. Motion text That this House notes that government services, democratic functions and critical infrastructure increasingly depend on a small number of external digital suppliers; further notes that excessive concentration and inadequate exit or substitution planning expose the public sector to risks including service withdrawal, sanctions, commercial failure, geopolitical disruption and unilateral changes in service terms; also notes that existing government policy, including the Technology Code of Practice and Open Standards Principles, promotes interoperability, portability, reuse, access to source code and open source approaches to reduce supplier dependency, but that these principles are not applied consistently or in a binding way across government; believes that long-term resilience, continuity of public services and value for money require the Government to retain effective control over digital systems it funds or relies upon, including the ability to maintain, modify, and replace them without dependence on a single supplier; further believes that reducing supplier concentration through interoperable systems would strengthen competition, support UK technology firms and SMEs, and increase the proportion of public digital expenditure retained in the UK economy; and calls on the Government to publish a comprehensive UK digital sovereignty strategy with binding effect across central government, arm’s-length bodies, and the wider public sector, setting out how continuity of service and operational autonomy will be ensured in the event of supplier withdrawal, sanctions or external state action.
Take the time to get generative AI in education right. Students want assurance that AI is accurate, and that bias and safety risks of AI are well addressed before it is deployed in the classroom. Focus on limited classroom and homework uses of AI, rather than AI everywhere. The Department for Education’s updated “Generative AI: product safety standards” reflect many of the concerns raised by students during the distributed dialogue. More at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/generative-ai-product-safety-standards
Results image showing a graph of student 'top and bottom tools' for Gen AI in Education. We asked students to think about different AI tools for education. Top tools were those that put students in control of their own research, allow students to work at their own pace, and focus on personalised revision or reminders of the key things you need to learn. “[these] would support us without feeling like it was cheating or we weren't learning the information.“ AI for lesson planning and marking featured most commonly in the ‘bottom three’ of the rankings. “Work is something we put a lot of effort into and we feel it needs to be read by a teacher.“
Screenshot of gov.uk page. Guidance: Generative AI: Product Safety Standards - Updated 19 January 2026. Applies to England.
Slide image: This is a small cluster, with few unanimous defining statements. However: * it is the only cluster where a majority agree it is ok to AI to give incorrect answers, and for AI to sounds like it has feelings * it is the only cluster to dismiss environmental concerns * it is the cluster most likely to be positive about AI image generation * it is the cluster most likely to object to requirements that students should tell teachers when they’ve used generative AI, and to be comfortable with AI ‘teaching to the test’ This cluster included a higher representation of independent schools. It may represent a group of students more assured of their own ability, or the ability of their teachers to support them to navigate the use of current AI systems well.
Image of Cluster 2 slide. This cluster voted unanimously that: * sometimes AI use could be mandatory in class * it is not ok for AI to give pupils incorrect information There was strong support in this cluster to schools to have AI systems that students can use independently to support their learning, and for the idea that AI tools should support students in being accountable for their AI use. This group either assume that AI tools are already accurate and safe, or are focussed on targeted use of AI to support particular aspects of learning.
Slide from the report Students are concerned about the mental health impacts of AI. They do not want AI tools to be involved in personal, emotional and social support. A clear majority of groups agreed that: “AI tutors should never be able to have conversations with pupils about personal issues, like friendships or family problems.” They opposed AI tools pretending to have feelings, though some suggested it could help if AI tools offered light encouragement. Students were generally in favour of the statement that: “Children from a young age should be educated on how to use AI most effectively and safely in their learning” The slide also contains a student cartoon, and worksheet responses, sharing views on education with and without AI.
Voting and Clusters Slide: After learning about potential tools for AI in education, and exploring different issues with AI we asked student groups to vote on a set of statements, and to suggest their own. Statements were shown in a random order. Groups could agree, disagree, or pass if unsure. We used the pol.is platform to record responses, and cluster results: building a picture of different student perspectives on AI in education. Almost everyone agreed that AI tools should be officially checked for safety, accuracy and bias before deployment in education and that AI should never replace face-to-face time with teachers. Cluster 1: AI sceptics 24 groups – 49% AI use should not be compulsory. There should be restrictions on data sharing with AI, and on where AI is used. Cluster 2: Trusting users 16 groups – 33% AI must be accurate, and AI tools tailored for educational use. Then it can be a useful part of learning. Cluster 3: Self-assured users 9 groups – 18% Students should be allowed or encouraged to use AI and should take responsibility for being aware of its limitations.
**Who is PAIRS for?** We seek to create a space that is equally open to contributions from civil society, academia and industry, and that welcomes both presentation of practice, and empirical or theoretical work. This call is open to all applicants regardless of geographic location or institutional affiliation. However we are especially interested in receiving applications from civil society organisations based in India; South Asia; Most Affected People and Areas (MAPA); members of the Global Majority or Global South; Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color; women, transgender, non-binary, and/or gender-diverse applicants; migrant and diasporic communities; and/or persons coming from climate displaced/impacted communities, etc. We strongly encourage all such contributors to submit an abstract. We welcome submissions that represent cross-sector and cross-country collaboration. We will prioritise work that has not been previously published or presented in research venues.
View from a Stone Window into a lush green garden with trees and hillside beyond
Book cover image. Standard by Jeffrey Pomerantz and Jason Griffey.
Sign pointing to Berners-Lee room (and Dawkins, Hawking and Turing rooms)
Lecture theatre full of people at SciencesPo
Here’s the alt text for the image: "Promotional poster for the Participatory AI Research & Practice Symposium, part of the Week of Paris AI Action Summit. The poster has a red and cream color scheme. Main text reads: 'Participatory AI Research & Practice Symposium' with the tagline 'Shaping Systems by Shifting Power.' Event details: February 8, 9 AM - 5:30 PM, SciencesPo, 27 Rue Saint-Guillaume, 75007 Paris, France. Logos of event partners at the bottom include Connected by Data, SciencesPo, Data & Society, Aapti Institute, Digital Trade & Data Governance Hub, ISWE Foundation, and Digital Good Network. The web address 'pairs25.notion.site' is at the top right."
Poster for Participatory AI Research & Practice Symposium. Shaping Systems by Shaping Power. 8th Feb. 9am - 5.30pm. SciencesPo, 27 Rue Saint-Guillaume, 750007 Paris, France. With partner logos: SciencesPo, Connected by Data, Digital Trade and Data Governance Hub, ISWE Foundation, Data & Society, Digital Good Network and Aapti Institute.
World cloud of the contents of papers being presented at PAIRS25 online and in-person. Large words including public, participatory, governance, research, communities, systems, data and development. Smaller words include involvement, digital, design, stakeholders, processes, healthcare, accountability and deliberation.
Participatory pilots 1 - 2 - 3: 1. Evaluate AI Capabilities & Develop an Experiment; 2. Identify affected stakeholders and ethical issues; 3. Pilot in partnership.
Slide showing text "Legitimacy and trust", "Assuring inputs", "Setting outcomes", "Evaluating Models"
Report Cover: 2024 - Artificial Intelligence Narratives: A Global Voices Report
Art Gallery room with chairs, tables and around 15 people in workshop small group discussions
Technical community eligibility criteria: Candidates must: • Be members of a technical community (collective groups of individuals, or organizations who collaborate on the development, implementation, maintenance, and governance of technical standards or digital infrastructures and their elements) actively engaged in fields relevant to data governance, including but not limited to data security, privacy engineering, internet architecture, open-source development, or information technology; • Demonstrate expertise in addressing data governance challenges and opportunities from a technical perspective; • Have a proven track record of contributions to technical projects, standards development, or community initiatives related to data governance; • Have experience with intergovernmental or multi-stakeholder processes.
Logos of the organising partners: SciencesPo, Connected by Data, Digital Trade and Governance Hub, ISWE, Data & Society, Digital Good Network,. Public Voices in AI, Aapti Institute.
Diagram 1: Examples of private and public alternatives across the AI ecosystem covering: data, compute, models, hosting, modifications, applications, tools, labour, accountability.
Image from blog post including the text: For public sector organisations that may emerge as three questions: “Who is this data from?” - and what rights do they have over it? “Who is this data about” - and how might we engage with them? and “Who does this data affect?” - and do we understand those effects and impacts?
Panel of three women and one man. Panelled room. Photo over head of audience.
Presenter (Richard Wilson) speaking in a panelled room with slides that say 'A global citizens assembly for people and planet'. Photo taken over the head of audience.
Speaker addressing audience in wood panelled room
Close up of panelist speaking under Global People's Assembly banner.
Conference room at Church Centre United Nations opposite UN HQ. Row of heads from audience and panel at the front under "Global People's Assembly" banner
UN HQ conference room facing a panel of speakers.
View of new York skyline from 33rd floor
Selfie group photo in Bryant Park of speakers and contributors having lunch after Tech Salon NYC Deliberation and public engagement group.
The image is a flowchart titled "Participant Journey," showing the steps participants take before, during, and after the forum. Before the Forum: Fill out Pre-Forum Survey Receive Education Materials Create account & log into Stanford’s platform During the Forum: Watch Welcome Video Watch Briefing Videos Deliberate on Topics Develop Questions for Expert Panel Attend Expert Panel Debrief Session After the Forum: Complete Post-Forum Survey Receive Compensation for Participation
Selfie outside UN HQ in New York on Tim wearing blue shirt (but not a suit!)