AI-Powered Policymaking: Behavioral Nudges and Democratic Accountability

Thank you for submitting your work on ‘AI-Powered Policymaking: Behavioral Nudges and Democratic Accountability’ - it was interesting to read. Please see below for some feedback on your project:

1. Strengths of your proposal/ project:

- The abstract (and paper generally) is clear and well structure - it is immediately clear to me what you are working on, why it is deemed important, and what your project is looking to do.

- Clear definitions are provided from the offset, which helps aid read comprehension (e.g., ‘nudge’).

2. Areas for improvement:

- Large sections of the paper are unreferenced, so I would encourage the use of more evidence-based statements.

- Could you back up statements with examples? e.g., ‘AI-enhanced nudging offers unprecedented precision and scalability’ - how? Why?

- Key terms should be defined. E.g., you mention that ‘Transparency thus becomes a non negligible consideration’ (p.2) - how are you defining transparency?

- Overall, a clearer methodology (explicitly outlined), more critical analysis (vs descriptive language) and the insertion of a threat model(s) would greatly strengthen this paper.

Nicely described and motivated introduction to past research on nudging. Raise important concerns and risks with AI driven / personalized nudging. This is a nicely written overview of the issues in this area. The paper does not present a research project proposal, however.

Hi Michel and Jana, I thought your project idea is good and relevant, and could be published as a peer-reviewed article, after further polishing. A few recommendations to strengthen your work:

(1) Overall, this is a very comprehensive paper, that touches upon many aspects of the subject; for the future, I’d suggest going more in depth into each section. I’m aware you had limited time to achieve this during the hackathon, but I’m mentioning in case you want to progress your work.

(2) Add citations in text, especially as you’re introducing a lot of definitions/concepts. Citations also help to clearly distinguish between what might be your perspective and that of the others/what is backed up by evidence.

(3) For section 1, there were a lot of examples used which I’d only suggest keeping in if you’re gonna extend the section and go more in-depth.

(4) For section 2, start first by explain why you chose Europe vs. Singapore specifically, it is easier for the reader to understand when they go through that section. In the same section, it’s great that you added a table and mentioned a summary of the comparison.

(5) I’d suggest more integration and transition between sections, for example: While I understand the comparison, I’d like to see that integrated into section 3 - and based on it, the implications to flow more naturally.