Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Aligning AI with Public Values: Deliberation and Decision-Making for Governing Multimodal LLMs in Political Video Analysis

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2410.01817 v2 pith:OC7S6F7F submitted 2024-09-15 cs.CV cs.AIcs.CY

classification cs.CVcs.AIcs.CY
keywords governancevotingdecision-makingdeliberationmechanismspoliticalpublicbetter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

How AI models should deal with political topics has been discussed, but it remains challenging and requires better governance. This paper examines the governance of large language models through individual and collective deliberation, focusing on politically sensitive videos. We conducted a two-step study: interviews with 10 journalists established a baseline understanding of expert video interpretation; 114 individuals through deliberation using InclusiveAI, a platform that facilitates democratic decision-making through decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) mechanisms. Our findings reveal distinct differences in interpretative priorities: while experts emphasized emotion and narrative, the general public prioritized factual clarity, objectivity, and emotional neutrality. Furthermore, we examined how different governance mechanisms - quadratic vs. weighted voting and equal vs. 20/80 voting power - shape users' decision-making regarding AI behavior. Results indicate that voting methods significantly influence outcomes, with quadratic voting reinforcing perceptions of liberal democracy and political equality. Our study underscores the necessity of selecting appropriate governance mechanisms to better capture user perspectives and suggests decentralized AI governance as a potential way to facilitate broader public engagement in AI development, ensuring that varied perspectives meaningfully inform design decisions.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Signals of Provenance: Practices & Challenges of Navigating Indicators in AI-Generated Media for Sighted and Blind Individuals

    cs.HC 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Both sighted and blind/low-vision users frequently overlook platform AI labels and rely on titles, comments, and other content cues, with blind users further hindered by inaccessible label design.

  2. A Multimodal, Multilingual, and Multidimensional Pipeline for Fine-grained Crowdsourcing Earthquake Damage Evaluation

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Multimodal LLMs infer earthquake damage levels from social media with city-level correlations up to 0.78 against USGS crowd-reported intensity, with strong language and modality dependence.

Pith tools