Michiel Bakker

Christopher Summerfield, Lisa Argyle, Michiel Bakker et al. · stanford

Advanced AI systems capable of generating humanlike text and multimodal content are now widely available. In this paper, we discuss the impacts that generative artificial intelligence may have on democratic processes. We consider the consequences of AI for citizens' ability to make informed choices about political representatives and issues (epistemic impacts). We ask how AI might be used to destabilise or support democratic mechanisms like elections (material impacts). Finally, we discuss whether AI will strengthen or weaken democratic principles (foundational impacts). It is widely acknowledged that new AI systems could pose significant challenges for democracy. However, it has also been argued that generative AI offers new opportunities to educate and learn from citizens, strengthen public discourse, help people find common ground, and to reimagine how democracies might work better.

Joe Edelman, Tan Zhi-Xuan, Ryan Lowe et al.

Beneficial societal outcomes cannot be guaranteed by aligning individual AI systems with the intentions of their operators or users. Even an AI system that is perfectly aligned to the intentions of its operating organization can lead to bad outcomes if the goals of that organization are misaligned with those of other institutions and individuals. For this reason, we need full-stack alignment, the concurrent alignment of AI systems and the institutions that shape them with what people value. This can be done without imposing a particular vision of individual or collective flourishing. We argue that current approaches for representing values, such as utility functions, preference orderings, or unstructured text, struggle to address these and other issues effectively. They struggle to distinguish values from other signals, to support principled normative reasoning, and to model collective goods. We propose thick models of value will be needed. These structure the way values and norms are represented, enabling systems to distinguish enduring values from fleeting preferences, to model the social embedding of individual choices, and to reason normatively, applying values in new domains. We demonstrate this approach in five areas: AI value stewardship, normatively competent agents, win-win negotiation systems, meaning-preserving economic mechanisms, and democratic regulatory institutions.

Joseph Low, Oscar Duys, Claude Formanek et al.

Deliberative democracy arguably leads to better collective decisions, but is fundamentally constrained by human attention and bandwidth. While recent AI-mediated deliberations scale participation by synthesizing inputs from many humans, they remain time-intensive for individual users. As AI models become increasingly capable, AI systems are being deployed not only to mediate deliberation between humans, but to represent humans in it: where AI agents deliberate on behalf of human users. We call this paradigm AI-delegated deliberation. While it promises unprecedented scale for democratic participation, it introduces qualitatively new design and alignment challenges that are poorly understood and under-theorized. To study these dynamics empirically, we deploy Habermolt, a public platform for AI-delegated deliberation. We evaluate its effectiveness along three dimensions that we use to organize any deliberative system: representation, aggregation, and revision. We use these observations to illuminate the design decisions future AI-delegated deliberation platforms must confront, contributing to the broader research agenda for scalable yet trustworthy AI representatives.

Suyash Fulay, Prerna Ravi, Emily Kubin et al.

AI is increasingly used to scale collective decision-making, but far less attention has been paid to how such systems can support procedural legitimacy, particularly the conditions shaping losers' consent: whether participants who do not get their preferred outcome still accept it as fair. We ask: (1) how can AI help ground collective decisions in participants' different experiences and beliefs, and (2) whether exposure to these experiences can increase trust, understanding, and social cohesion even when people disagree with the outcome. We built a system that uses a semi-structured AI interviewer to elicit personal experiences on policy topics and an interactive visualization that displays predicted policy support alongside those voiced experiences. In a randomized experiment (n = 181), interacting with the visualization increased perceived legitimacy, trust in outcomes, and understanding of others' perspectives, even though all participants encountered decisions that went against their stated preferences. Our hope is that the design and evaluation of this tool spurs future researchers to focus on how AI can help not only achieve scale and efficiency in democratic processes, but also increase trust and connection between participants.

Gheorghe Comanici, Eric Bieber, Mike Schaekermann et al. · amazon-science, baidu

In this report, we introduce the Gemini 2.X model family: Gemini 2.5 Pro and Gemini 2.5 Flash, as well as our earlier Gemini 2.0 Flash and Flash-Lite models. Gemini 2.5 Pro is our most capable model yet, achieving SoTA performance on frontier coding and reasoning benchmarks. In addition to its incredible coding and reasoning skills, Gemini 2.5 Pro is a thinking model that excels at multimodal understanding and it is now able to process up to 3 hours of video content. Its unique combination of long context, multimodal and reasoning capabilities can be combined to unlock new agentic workflows. Gemini 2.5 Flash provides excellent reasoning abilities at a fraction of the compute and latency requirements and Gemini 2.0 Flash and Flash-Lite provide high performance at low latency and cost. Taken together, the Gemini 2.X model generation spans the full Pareto frontier of model capability vs cost, allowing users to explore the boundaries of what is possible with complex agentic problem solving.

Maximilian Negele, Daan Juijn, Afek Shamir et al.

Artificial general intelligence (AGI)--defined here as AI systems that match or exceed humans at most economically useful cognitive work--has moved from speculation to the centre of political and strategic debate. This paper examines three questions: how soon AGI might emerge, how it could reshape geopolitics, and whether Europe is adequately prepared. Drawing on empirical trends in AI capabilities, expert forecasting surveys, and policy analysis, we find that a plausible window for AGI emergence falls between 2030 and 2040, or potentially earlier, though substantial uncertainty remains. Our analysis of the geopolitical implications suggests that AGI could fundamentally alter the global distribution of economic and military power, intensify interstate competition, and strain existing governance frameworks. Assessing Europe's current positioning, we identify critical gaps: limited strategic awareness of frontier AI progress, structural weaknesses in compute infrastructure and talent retention, low rates of industrial AI adoption, and fragmented policy responses at both EU and Member State levels that do not match the potential scale of disruption.These findings point to a need for a coordinated European preparedness agenda. We outline policy options centred on building institutional capacity for AGI situational awareness, strengthening Europe's position in the AI value chain, and developing frameworks for international stability in an era of increasingly capable AI systems.

Taylor Sorensen, Pushkar Mishra, Roma Patel et al. · uw

Modelling human variation in rating tasks is crucial for personalization, pluralistic model alignment, and computational social science. We propose representing individuals using natural language value profiles -- descriptions of underlying values compressed from in-context demonstrations -- along with a steerable decoder model that estimates individual ratings from a rater representation. To measure the predictive information in a rater representation, we introduce an information-theoretic methodology and find that demonstrations contain the most information, followed by value profiles, then demographics. However, value profiles effectively compress the useful information from demonstrations (>70% information preservation) and offer advantages in terms of scrutability, interpretability, and steerability. Furthermore, clustering value profiles to identify similarly behaving individuals better explains rater variation than the most predictive demographic groupings. Going beyond test set performance, we show that the decoder predictions change in line with semantic profile differences, are well-calibrated, and can help explain instance-level disagreement by simulating an annotator population. These results demonstrate that value profiles offer novel, predictive ways to describe individual variation beyond demographics or group information.

Beth Goldberg, Diana Acosta-Navas, Michiel Bakker et al.

Two substantial technological advances have reshaped the public square in recent decades: first with the advent of the internet and second with the recent introduction of large language models (LLMs). LLMs offer opportunities for a paradigm shift towards more decentralized, participatory online spaces that can be used to facilitate deliberative dialogues at scale, but also create risks of exacerbating societal schisms. Here, we explore four applications of LLMs to improve digital public squares: collective dialogue systems, bridging systems, community moderation, and proof-of-humanity systems. Building on the input from over 70 civil society experts and technologists, we argue that LLMs both afford promising opportunities to shift the paradigm for conversations at scale and pose distinct risks for digital public squares. We lay out an agenda for future research and investments in AI that will strengthen digital public squares and safeguard against potential misuses of AI.

Suyash Fulay, Prerna Ravi, Emily Kubin et al.

Deliberative democratic theory suggests that civic competence: the capacity to navigate disagreement, weigh competing values, and arrive at collective decisions is not innate but developed through practice. Yet opportunities to cultivate these skills remain limited, as traditional deliberative processes like citizens' assemblies reach only a small fraction of the population. We present Agora, an early-stage AI-powered platform that uses LLMs to organize authentic human voices on policy issues, helping users build consensus-finding skills by proposing and revising policy recommendations, hearing supporting and opposing perspectives, and receiving feedback on how policy changes affect predicted support. In a preliminary study with 44 university students, participants using the full interface (with access to voice explanations) reported higher levels of problem-solving skills, internal deliberation, and produced higher quality consensus statements compared to a control condition showing only aggregate support distributions. These initial findings point toward a promising direction for scaling civic education.

Suyash Fulay, Jocelyn Zhu, Michiel Bakker

Large language models (LLMs) have shown promising accuracy in predicting survey responses and policy preferences, which has increased interest in their potential to represent human interests in various domains. Most existing research has focused on "behavioral cloning", effectively evaluating how well models reproduce individuals' expressed preferences. Drawing on theories of political representation, we highlight an underexplored design trade-off: whether AI systems should act as delegates, mirroring expressed preferences, or as trustees, exercising judgment about what best serves an individual's interests. This trade-off is closely related to issues of LLM sycophancy, where models can encourage behavior or validate beliefs that may be aligned with a user's short-term preferences, but is detrimental to their long-term interests. Through a series of experiments simulating votes on various policy issues in the U.S. context, we apply a temporal utility framework that weighs short and long-term interests (simulating a trustee role) and compare voting outcomes to behavior-cloning models (simulating a delegate). We find that trustee-style predictions weighted toward long-term interests produce policy decisions that align more closely with expert consensus on well-understood issues, but also show greater bias toward models' default stances on topics lacking clear agreement. These findings reveal a fundamental trade-off in designing AI systems to represent human interests. Delegate models better preserve user autonomy but may diverge from well-supported policy positions, while trustee models can promote welfare on well-understood issues yet risk paternalism and bias on subjective topics.

Siddarth Srinivasan, Ezra Karger, Michiel Bakker et al.

Common sense suggests that when individuals explain why they believe something, we can arrive at more accurate conclusions than when they simply state what they believe. Yet, there is no known mechanism that provides incentives to elicit explanations for beliefs from agents. This likely stems from the fact that standard Bayesian models make assumptions (like conditional independence of signals) that preempt the need for explanations, in order to show efficient information aggregation. A natural justification for the value of explanations is that agents' beliefs tend to be drawn from overlapping sources of information, so agents' belief reports do not reveal all that needs to be known. Indeed, this work argues that rationales-explanations of an agent's private information-lead to more efficient aggregation by allowing agents to efficiently identify what information they share and what information is new. Building on this model of rationales, we present a novel 'deliberation mechanism' to elicit rationales from agents in which truthful reporting of beliefs and rationales is a perfect Bayesian equilibrium.

Alex Berke, Michiel Bakker, Praneeth Vepakomma et al.

Governments and researchers around the world are implementing digital contact tracing solutions to stem the spread of infectious disease, namely COVID-19. Many of these solutions threaten individual rights and privacy. Our goal is to break past the false dichotomy of effective versus privacy-preserving contact tracing. We offer an alternative approach to assess and communicate users' risk of exposure to an infectious disease while preserving individual privacy. Our proposal uses recent GPS location histories, which are transformed and encrypted, and a private set intersection protocol to interface with a semi-trusted authority. There have been other recent proposals for privacy-preserving contact tracing, based on Bluetooth and decentralization, that could further eliminate the need for trust in authority. However, solutions with Bluetooth are currently limited to certain devices and contexts while decentralization adds complexity. The goal of this work is two-fold: we aim to propose a location-based system that is more privacy-preserving than what is currently being adopted by governments around the world, and that is also practical to implement with the immediacy needed to stem a viral outbreak.

Madelon Hulsebos, Kevin Hu, Michiel Bakker et al.

Correctly detecting the semantic type of data columns is crucial for data science tasks such as automated data cleaning, schema matching, and data discovery. Existing data preparation and analysis systems rely on dictionary lookups and regular expression matching to detect semantic types. However, these matching-based approaches often are not robust to dirty data and only detect a limited number of types. We introduce Sherlock, a multi-input deep neural network for detecting semantic types. We train Sherlock on $686,765$ data columns retrieved from the VizNet corpus by matching $78$ semantic types from DBpedia to column headers. We characterize each matched column with $1,588$ features describing the statistical properties, character distributions, word embeddings, and paragraph vectors of column values. Sherlock achieves a support-weighted F$_1$ score of $0.89$, exceeding that of machine learning baselines, dictionary and regular expression benchmarks, and the consensus of crowdsourced annotations.

Kevin Hu, Neil Gaikwad, Michiel Bakker et al.

Researchers currently rely on ad hoc datasets to train automated visualization tools and evaluate the effectiveness of visualization designs. These exemplars often lack the characteristics of real-world datasets, and their one-off nature makes it difficult to compare different techniques. In this paper, we present VizNet: a large-scale corpus of over 31 million datasets compiled from open data repositories and online visualization galleries. On average, these datasets comprise 17 records over 3 dimensions and across the corpus, we find 51% of the dimensions record categorical data, 44% quantitative, and only 5% temporal. VizNet provides the necessary common baseline for comparing visualization design techniques, and developing benchmark models and algorithms for automating visual analysis. To demonstrate VizNet's utility as a platform for conducting online crowdsourced experiments at scale, we replicate a prior study assessing the influence of user task and data distribution on visual encoding effectiveness, and extend it by considering an additional task: outlier detection. To contend with running such studies at scale, we demonstrate how a metric of perceptual effectiveness can be learned from experimental results, and show its predictive power across test datasets.