The question isn't whether to use AI — it's whether we let it entrench the status quo or use it to finally put government in control of its own destiny
This is a Deja Vu moment for you in a very different context shaped by a technology that is much more capable, more widely spread/adopted and moving much faster. We also have a very different social/political context.
The Overton moment created by AI seems to merit a different approach than USDigital Response taken during the previous decade. Erie’s post and your response sound like the wrong place for dialogue. We need to meet the moment. You and Governments like the UK proved that digital services were worth funding in any way possible.
Government needs to move upstream, yes and get leaner and get proactive and predictive. I have not read all your work in the last year, and bring the dialogue to algorithmic transparency , data sovereignty and surveillance; we will be meeting the moment and the future. I know these are common platforms of yours and Tim’s. I wonder what is the right way to move through this given your learning from Code for America and from watching Doge. I do not like what they did or how they did it and it showed a “blitz scaling” approach with small teams. As you know, I was hopeful they would try to fix the system in strategic ways, but that was not their mission. What if your heart could lead a blitzscaling approach? I picture that like a beautiful phoenix.
I am so interested in a healthy, functioning governments like you describe. The AI moment seems to create this possibility.
Any thought worth sharing publicly? Pointers to past work would be great too.
I’d be curious for your take on how a government squares this need while disincentivizing (or in the U.S case, mass firing) younger public servants. I think it goes without saying that the advocates that can build the policy momentum for adoption in government are the more technically savvy, and tend to be younger - I was the youngest civil servant in my office for awhile and the only one pushing for adoption of enterprise AI tools from my agency in our office’s workflows. My superiors faced their own barriers to new tech adoption/use, despite the availability of trainings.
"7,119 pages of active UI regulations" - I read that as "user interface" (as many folks would), but from the photograph it's clear that "unemployment" is what is meant.
Good points. You allude to this but many of our discussions 1) treat various AI apps and use cases together as the same “AI” and 2) this should be way more than just technology but an organization and process management issue. The technology part is almost a distraction.
This is a Deja Vu moment for you in a very different context shaped by a technology that is much more capable, more widely spread/adopted and moving much faster. We also have a very different social/political context.
The Overton moment created by AI seems to merit a different approach than USDigital Response taken during the previous decade. Erie’s post and your response sound like the wrong place for dialogue. We need to meet the moment. You and Governments like the UK proved that digital services were worth funding in any way possible.
Government needs to move upstream, yes and get leaner and get proactive and predictive. I have not read all your work in the last year, and bring the dialogue to algorithmic transparency , data sovereignty and surveillance; we will be meeting the moment and the future. I know these are common platforms of yours and Tim’s. I wonder what is the right way to move through this given your learning from Code for America and from watching Doge. I do not like what they did or how they did it and it showed a “blitz scaling” approach with small teams. As you know, I was hopeful they would try to fix the system in strategic ways, but that was not their mission. What if your heart could lead a blitzscaling approach? I picture that like a beautiful phoenix.
I am so interested in a healthy, functioning governments like you describe. The AI moment seems to create this possibility.
Any thought worth sharing publicly? Pointers to past work would be great too.
Stay tuned. I have a few pieces that speak to how I hope we can move forward in a different way from how we have in the past.
I am so very curious about this topic as so much is possible now and it is time to “jump icebergs” (nod to Otto Scharmer and Theory U)
The important distinction is not “AI in government” versus “no AI in government.”
It is whether AI increases sovereign capacity or deepens dependency.
A government that cannot understand, modify, or execute its own systems is already partially displaced.
I’d be curious for your take on how a government squares this need while disincentivizing (or in the U.S case, mass firing) younger public servants. I think it goes without saying that the advocates that can build the policy momentum for adoption in government are the more technically savvy, and tend to be younger - I was the youngest civil servant in my office for awhile and the only one pushing for adoption of enterprise AI tools from my agency in our office’s workflows. My superiors faced their own barriers to new tech adoption/use, despite the availability of trainings.
"7,119 pages of active UI regulations" - I read that as "user interface" (as many folks would), but from the photograph it's clear that "unemployment" is what is meant.
Good points. You allude to this but many of our discussions 1) treat various AI apps and use cases together as the same “AI” and 2) this should be way more than just technology but an organization and process management issue. The technology part is almost a distraction.