commbox Artificial Intelligence & Algorithms

Artificial Intelligence & Algorithms

Filter

413

Sort by:

Direction:

External Link (61)

Whose responsibility? Deconstructing global responsible AI from the African lens: a review

Damian Eke, Makuochi Nkwo, Ibifuro Robert Jaja, Muhammad Adamu, Simisola Akintoye, Michael Ugom, Sarah Kiden

AI and Ethics, volume 6 (2026), 19 pp.

"This paper uses the theory of decoloniality to critically examine how African scholars have interrogated the dominant, global narratives surrounding responsible Artificial Intelligence (AI). Through a multivocal literature review, the paper reveals a range of critical perspectives that expose syste ... more

External Link (207)

AI in the media: Kenya and South Africa

Karen Allen, Herman Wasserman, Nande Mbekela

Bonn; Stellenbosch (ZA): Deutsche Welle DW Akademie; Centre for Information Integrity in Africa (CINIA) (2026), 27 pp.

"This study shows that AI remains largely an underexplored, and often misunderstood, topic for journalism in South Africa and Kenya. Stories can be framed in overly positive terms, such as the potential AI holds for development and social change, or negative terms, by highlighting the extractive nat ... ure of big tech firms or the potential of AI to foster disinformation. Either way, these reports frequently lack a more nuanced understanding of the impacts of AI in African contexts. Fear of the impact of AI on the media workforce may also explain why reporters say they often face resistance by editors when seeking to get AI and tech stories commissioned. AI articles tend to be siloed and reactive, framed as business, security or technology stories. Seldom is AI presented in terms of its multidimensional, layered impact on society. Furthermore, the geopolitical aspect of AI rarely gets interrogated in mainstream media. Journalists interviewed for the study admitted that many of their stories were reactive, and identified areas where synergies could be harnessed from other parts of the world. On issues of AI and social media regulation, for example, where precedents have been set by countries such as Australia, South African and Kenyan media could use such precedents to develop locally focused stories. AI reporting often adopts a framing promoted by technology vendors who derive interest from presenting a one-dimensional, optimistic view of AI. The unintended consequences often go unreported unless supported by an investigation, such as the CCTV camera surveillance reportage by Swart referenced above. Furthermore, the topic is often presented through a Global North lens, with little contextualisation or interrogation of these issues from an African point of view amid resource and access constraints. This occurs against a background of under-developed policy frameworks for AI on the continent generally, and in newsrooms in particular. Consequently the playing field can be tilted in favour of AI and tech vendors who fill the vacuum with hyperbole and hype about what the technology is capable of delivering. At the same time, more nuanced and specialised reporting on AI is constrained by the familiar obstacles of journalism, such as lack of resources, over-stretched newsrooms and story competition. To enhance coverage of AI in Africa, a multifaceted strategy is needed. While training and AI literacy programmes can deepen the knowledge needed by African journalists to investigate the topic more comprehensively, increased investment in newsrooms can provide the structural support to provide more context-specific coverage of AI on the continent. Crucially, training and education of African journalists should be done from within the African context, as solutions cannot be imposed from newsroom contexts in the Global North." (Conclusions, page 21) more

External Link (266)

Why Silicon Valley is turning to the Catholic Church: Priests and theologians want to shape the future of AI. Big Tech is listening

Elias Wachtel

The Atlantic, April 25 (2026)

"Silicon Valley and the Vatican may “seem like strange bedfellows”—but they each have something to gain from the other, @EliasWachtel argues. He examines why Big Tech is listening to priests and theologians who want to shape the future of AI." (Publisher description)

External Link (201)

Principled caution: How AI is used in public-interest media in Asia

James Gomez

Bonn: Deutsche Welle DW Akademie (2026), 52 pp.

"In conclusion, this research has provided a systematic understanding of AI adoption within public-interest media across Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, Indonesia, Myanmar, Pakistan and Uzbekistan. By identifying concrete areas for strategic intervention, this research seeks to strengthen ... journalistic quality and prepare the sector for an AI-integrated future. The findings reveal that the AI adoption is currently taking place within public-interest media, but it is one of “principled caution” where adoption is careful, selective and highly varied. This evolution unfolds within a structurally precarious media environment where AI regulation is often absent or actively restrictive. While adoption remains cautious to protect journalistic credibility from risks such as hallucinations and biases, newsrooms are increasingly embracing AI as a powerful toolset to alleviate severe capacity and resource constraints. Currently, organizations primarily utilize AI for assistive, routine tasks such as translation, transcription, summarization, and early-stage content ideation and the final language editing stage rather than for broader organizational transformation. The research highlights deep capacity deficits in the governance framework, institutional training, and leadership. These gaps often prevent individual AI literacy from translating into consistent, organization-wide policy formulation and enforcement. This challenge is further exacerbated by the funding instability and resource constraints that characterize the region’s independent media, restricting the long-term investment necessary for ethical and responsible AI adoption. Despite these legal, political, technical, capacity, and operational constraints, localized and innovative AI workflows are emerging. While AI has not yet generated entirely new, revenue-generating business models, strategic investments in customized AI infrastructures, such as in-house dashboards and media monitoring systems, present a critical pathway toward long-term operational resilience. To support this trajectory, the report recommends coordinated action among media organizations, governments, technology companies, donors and media development funders to invest in long-term AI capacity, governance frameworks, and secure technological infrastructure." (Conclusion, page 39) more

External Link (249)

Toward AI Governance Alignment in Africa, Middle East, and Türkiye (AMET) Region

Emma Ruttkamp-Bloem, Fola Adeleke, Jake Effoduh, Kebene Wodajo, Nagla Rizk, Olubayo Adekanmbi, Rachel Adams, Rami Alkarmi, Seani Rananga, Seydina Ndiaye, Shikoh Gitau, Tami Koroye

Global Center on AI Governance (GCG) (2026), 54 pp.

"The analysis begins by identifying the core “centric approaches” that guide Artificial Intelligence (AI) national strategies. These include security-anchored models driven by state control, innovation-led frameworks that prioritise competitiveness, rights-based regimes centred on fundamental pr ... otections, and developmental approaches focused on public service delivery and technological catch-up. Each approach expresses incentives, risk perceptions and administrative capacities. Out of these foundational choices, there are different groupings. Various regions within AMET are adopting recognisable patterns of regulation that reflect their political economies, institutional structures and geopolitical positions. These groupings are not static categories, but evolving alignments shaped by domestic pressures, supply-chain dependencies and shifting global power dynamics. Across all regions, a set of cross-cutting issues consistently shapes the regulatory landscape. Data protection and interoperability remain central, alongside growing demands for accountability, explainability and robust auditing. Standards and certification are emerging as tools for both trustbuilding and geopolitical influence. Sector-specific rules in finance, health, education and public administration are increasingly decisive. Capacity constraints, fiscal limits and uneven institutional strength continue to define what is realistically possible for many governments. Geopolitical tensions and cloud concentration reinforce questions around sovereignty, infrastructure control and long-term strategic autonomy. This report translates these insights into practical implications for states, regional bodies and technology firms. It highlights workable pathways for reconciling innovation with safety, managing cross-border data flows, and building resilient digital infrastructure. It also identifies areas where architecture choices such as regional cloud centres, culturally calibrated testing layers and tiered sovereignty models can support both regulatory goals and developmental priorities. The recommendations emphasise flexible alignment, cooperation through standards, and the need for shared mechanisms that accommodate political diversity while reducing fragmentation. Taken together, the framework provides a stable and operational way of understanding global AI regulation. It clarifies the interests driving different jurisdictions, the pressures that shape convergence or divergence, and the strategic considerations that technology firms and policymakers must navigate as the regulatory environment continues to evolve." (Executive summary) more

External Link (220)

Google Scholar (237)

WorldCat (224)

Communicating Sustainable Development Goals in the Age of Artificial Intelligence

Muhammad Jameel Yusha'u

Palgrave Macmillan (2026), xlvii, 523 pp.

"This book is the first scholarly work dedicated to examining the complex relationship between artificial intelligence and communicating the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Moving beyond techno-optimist narratives, the book advances a critical theoretical intervention: the AI Sustainability Exclus ... more

External Link (70)

Google Scholar (45)

WorldCat (36)

Sustaining hyperlocal journalism with generative AI: Business model innovation and ethical tensions in Indonesian digital newsrooms

Ansar Suherman, Harry Fajar Maulana, Hasrullah Hasrullah

Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society (2026), pp. 1–28

"This article connects GenAI adoption to the financial and editorial pressures facing small Indonesian newsrooms. Its key contribution is showing that productivity and revenue gains can be real but modest, and do not resolve deeper structural precarity. It also gives practical options for responsibl ... more

Download (150)

Artificial Intelligence for Older Adults: Concepts, Needs and Practices of Use

Diana Dutsyk

Kyiv: Ukrainian Media and Communication Institute (2026), 18 pp.

"To better understand the attitudes of older adults toward artificial intelligence, as well as to identify their needs in using it, we conducted focus group discussions, the results of which are presented in this analytical report. Overall, these discussions showed that there is often a stereotypica ... more

Download (177)

Reinventing Humanitarian Aid Procurement for the Age of AI

Giulio Coppi

Access Now (2026), 59 pp.

"Our research reveals that the organisational use of AI and algorithmic systems often happens through a process of unstructured integration rather than formal adoption. More precisely, cloud-based, algorithmic-enhanced functionalities and processes are making their way into humanitarian entitiesʼ t ... ech stack through updates and add-ons to preexisting products, slowly but inexorably seeping into most internal systems. A price-based procurement process designed around the static idea of digital asset purchase is inadequate to ensure adequate protection from hyperdynamic tech product development. This is especially evident looking at the growing power imbalances between private actors and nonprofits, and among nonprofits themselves. Digital technology is often heralded as key to democratise and equalise the playing field between humanitarian actors, by finally unlocking local actorsʼ access to resources traditionally reserved for international entities. But emerging trends seem to disprove such claims. The lack of adequate legal frameworks and safeguards, lagging investments in humanitarian funding for information and communication technology (ICT) resources and connectivity, and inadequate dedicated funding for digital programmes are thwarting these opportunities. More broadly, virtuous and responsible procurement practices are proving inadequate for protecting human rights alone, as tech companiesʼ commitments to human rights are replaced by defence-oriented pitches and the size of their human rights teams keeps shrinking. Preexisting digital divides are enhanced by several deep and subtle changes in traditional tech business models, resulting from the gradual cloudification of most common digital systems and the fast-paced, distributed nature of modern digital development. Even more worryingly, we are seeing new forms of digital divide well beyond the traditional gaps in digital capacity between local and small non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and international non-governmental organisations (INGOs) or UN entities. Cloud-based companiesʼ takeover of generic coordination platforms creates a constantly broadening chasm between the few organisations that are digitally mature, those who are barely retrofitting their processes to fit the new reality, and the broad majority forced to access the promised land of digital humanitarianism through the predatory gates of algorithmic and cloud servicesʼ free tech licensing. Our findings highlight how organisation-led digital development, building on open-source systems (despite some “openwashing” practices) and trusted external providers, remains the best option for risk reduction when it comes to algorithmic systems. However, in the short to medium term, this might not be financially and technically feasible for the majority of humanitarian actors, especially considering the catastrophic funding environment. To fill this gap, we propose a toolkit in an appendix to this report. This is a foundational governance model for transforming digital procurement from a transactional into a strategic business function, integrated across key organisational departments. By doing so, protection-mandated aid groups could move from running purchase-centred processes, to adopting a dynamic, proactive, and rights-based approach to tech management. This report also contains a set of recommendations for states and donors, the humanitarian community, tech companies, local aid actors and communities, research centres, and cyber experts." (Executive summary, pages 2-3) more

Download (132)

European AI Competitiveness Beyond Frontier Models: Insights From AI Startups in Five Strategic Markets

Nicole Lemke

Berlin: Interface – Tech Analysis and Policy Ideas for Europe (2026), 37 pp.

"AI development is frequently described as a race for frontier models. But considerable economic value will also be generated by AI development and adoption in existing markets. This data brief examines where EU competitiveness stands in the five applied markets where most of the EU’s AI startup a ... ctivity in our dataset takes place – horizontal enterprise software, healthcare and life sciences, manufacturing and supply chain, finance and insurance, and research and development tools. Drawing on data from Dealroom.co covering 24,468 active AI startups launched between 2012 and 2025 across the EU, Switzerland, the UK, and the U.S., we compare geographic patterns at the level of regions, countries, and cities through original analysis [...] Manufacturing and supply chain is the only market where the EU accounts for a larger share of AI startups than the U.S., though our data likely underestimates the number of U.S. startups in general. This suggests the competitiveness gap across applied AI markets may be even larger than our data indicates [...] AI startup activity in the EU is geographically dispersed: 75 percent of analysed EU AI startups are spread across 95 cities, with no single hub dominating any market. Paris, Berlin, Amsterdam, Munich, and Stockholm are the largest hubs but together account for only a quarter of EU AI startups. EU city rankings across markets largely reflect general AI startup hub sizes rather than genuine market specialisation – but specialised niches do begin to emerge at the local level, e.g. Munich in manufacturing and supply chain and Barcelona in healthcare and life sciences. As our data skews towards larger startup hubs, specialisation patterns in smaller cities and regions may not be fully captured. Our findings have important implications for policymakers. Europe's challenges in AI competitiveness extend well beyond frontier models. The manufacturing and supply chain market, a strategic priority for the European Commission, presents grounds for cautious optimism, where existing industrial strengths align with national and regional specialisation signals based on AI startup activity, especially in Germany and Munich. The geographically distributed startup activity in the EU can support AI adoption across diverse regional economies and existing industrial strengths. At the same time, it raises questions about whether European hubs can achieve the scale and specialisation needed to compete globally. The technological diversity of AI also presents competitive opportunities that go beyond market specialisation alone. Whether the emerging specialisation patterns identified in this analysis develop into globally competitive positions will depend on continued access to growth capital, compute resources, and cross-border market integration." (Executive summary, pages 3-4) more

External Link (235)

Building an Open and Responsible Voice Technology Ecosystem: Policy Recommendations for Digital Inclusion in India

Bhashini; Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ); FAIR Forward – Artificial Intelligence for All (2026), 57 pp.

"This report examines key barriers to building open and responsible speech systems in India—from data collection and model development to infrastructure and responsible practices. It proposes policy recommendations and governance mechanisms to support an innovative and equitable voice-technology e ... cosystem. Key Recommendations: A. TREATING FOUNDATIONAL DATASETS AS PUBLIC GOODS: Foundational datasets for speech technologies are large, reusable corpora of audio, text, and metadata. They are curated to support a wide array of downstream applications, including automatic speech recognition (ASR), text-to-speech (TTS), and speech translation. Making foundational datasets available as digital public goods addresses market failures in voice-technology ecosystems and promotes local economic innovation. The report identifies challenges arising from the linguistic diversity and nuance of Indian languages, infrastructural barriers, the absence of common data standards that create governance gaps, and unresolved intellectual property and privacy issues. Policy recommendations for building foundational language datasets include clarifying and revisiting existing laws to enable the use of publicly available material, ensuring sustainable investments supported by government and blended finance techniques, and instituting strong governance systems with shared standards, coordinated repositories, and independent quality assurance. B. BUILDING OPEN AND REPRESENTATIVE MODELS: India’s success in inclusive voice technologies depends on whether speech systems perform well across the country’s linguistic and social diversity. Today, limited openly available datasets, inadequate evaluation benchmarks, and uneven access to compute have resulted in models that perform inconsistently across languages, accents, and demographic groups, especially those from rural, low-resource, or marginalised communities. Strengthening India’s ecosystem requires further investment in data, evaluation, and infrastructure. Benchmarking should be built around open evaluation datasets and transparent leaderboards providing common baselines for developers, improving procurement standards, and helping assess performance across diverse languages and speaker groups. On the infrastructure side, platforms such as Bhashini, ULCA, and AI Kosh offer strong foundations although effective operation hinges on sustained governance, clear access protocols, and long-term funding models. C. INSTITUTIONALISING SUSTAINABLE OPEN-SOURCE INFRASTRUCTURE: Speech datasets place far greater demands on storage, bandwidth, and compute than text data, making the financing and governance of longterm hosting a central challenge for India’s voice-tech ecosystem. A fragmented licensing landscape adds further uncertainty: overlapping or incompatible terms across data, code, model weights, and evaluation sets impose substantial compliance burdens on small actors, while enforcement gaps allow misuse with little recourse. Sustaining open, equitable development requires treating dataset hosting as durable public digital infrastructure rather than grant-based, project-specific assets. By international standards, India’s emerging platforms, such as AI Kosh, provide a remarkable foundation. However, they require longterm funding, transparent governance, and clear access pathways for non-government contributors. Collaborative stewardship models, such as the Mozilla Data Collective, can help establish shared quality norms and consistent metadata conventions. D. STRENGTHENING RESPONSIBLE DEPLOYMENT: Deploying speech technologies responsibly requires more than high-performance models; it depends on safe systems, contextually appropriate use, and clear accountability. Existing data practices lack value-sharing mechanisms, leaving communities and researchers without recognition or benefitsharing, even as their contributions fuel commercial products. Risks of misuse, including voice cloning, phishing, and deepfake-driven misinformation, are rising, and unintended harms like linguistic exclusion, biased performance across accents and genders, and the erosion of regional language identities remain widespread. Addressing these gaps requires structural guardrails that embed fairness, transparency, and accountability into deployment workflows. Preventing misuse demands a combination of technical safeguards, stronger legal pathways, and widespread public literacy efforts to help users recognise risks and exercise their rights. The report argues that a strong ecosystem requires more than innovation funding. Building open-source foundations—including language datasets, standards, collection protocols and responsible AI frameworks—promotes demand-driven local innovation. It is therefore essential that the state plays an active, shaping role, much as it has in the development of digital public infrastructure. In the context of voice technology, this involves both investing in commercially viable languages and sustaining low-resource languages that are vital for inclusion but unlikely to attract private capital. Open-source assets can reduce costs for the public and private sector alike. However, they demand long-term planning and financing for hosting, maintenance, and updates. These assets can be supported through blended-finance models that pool public, philanthropic, and commercial resources. Emerging national initiatives, such as the proposed AI marketplaces, can further structure participation, transparency, and value-sharing across data, annotation, and deployable models." (Executive summary, pages 9-11) more

External Link (175)

#DesIgual: Jóvenes, radios y plataformas entre la digitalización y la IA

Judith Gerbaldo, Hugo N. Mamani, Daniela Vuirli, María Sofía Ahumada, Jesica Colazo, Candela Reales, María José Farías, Luisa Loza

Córdoba: Cecopal ; Radio Sur 90.1 FM (2026), 173 pp.

"El libro propone una mirada crítica sobre la libertad de expresión y el derecho a la comunicación, analizando las tensiones, desigualdades y disputas que atraviesan el mapa mediático contemporáneo, partiendo desde la ciudad de Córdoba, Argentina. Asimismo, pone el foco en la situación de las ... more

External Link (207)

Encyclical Letter Magnifica Humanitas of His Holiness Pope Leo XIV on Safeguarding the Human Person in the Time of Artificial Intelligence

Leo XIV (Pope)

Vatican City: Holy See (2026)

"Divided into five chapters, Magnifica humanitas has an underlying premise: technology is not “a force antagonistic to humanity” (paragraph 4), nor is it “inherently evil” (9). However, “technology is never neutral, because it takes on the characteristics of those who devise, finance, regu ... late, and use it. Therefore, Pope Leo XIV appeals for people to build “for the common good” and to “remain human,” following a courageous mentality of shared responsibility and communion, so that the world “will come to recognize the human heart as the place where God desires to dwell” (16). [...] An ethical code for AI: The third chapter—Technology and Dominance. The Grandeur of Humanity in Light of the Promises of AI stresses the need to approach artificial intelligence with vigilance. Pope Leo warns about the “technocratic paradigm” already denounced by Pope Francis and how it can require that every choice be dictated exclusively by measuring efficiency and profits (92). On the contrary, the most powerful technology is not necessarily the best. AI can imitate and simulate the person, but it does not possess a moral conscience, empathy, or affective, relational or spiritual capabilities. The Pope urges clarity about responsibilities and accountability at every stage of the development process, focusing on adequate AI policies and legal frameworks, independent oversight, and user education. Above all, Pope Leo calls for an ethical code subject to shared standards of social justice, because “a more moral AI is not enough if that morality is determined by a few” (107). Nor, he adds, should the environmental impact of new technologies be overlooked, since they require large quantities of energy and water, affecting Creation (101). Disarming AI: AI must be “disarmed,” Pope Leo XIV continues, in order to free it from the mentality of military, economic, and cognitive competition. “To disarm means discrediting the assumption that technical power automatically confers the right to govern,” he says. “To disarm does not mean rejecting technology, but preventing it from dominating humanity” (110). He devotes ample space to a critique of transhumanism and posthumanism, which interpret progress as the overcoming of human limits. Instead, limitations are not defects to be eliminated, but a constitutive dimension of the human person, because it is in fragility and finitude that relationship and openness to God and to others mature. He says we must remember that “humanity flourishes not despite limitations, but often through them” (118). Technological progress without regression of the heart: Pursuing technological innovation at the expense of eliminating human limitations, he says, would cause an anthropological regression. “Humanity—in all its grandeur and woundedness—must never be replaced or surpassed,” he says. Technology can alleviate humanity’s sufferings and open new possibilities, but it must not deny the essence of humanity, which is our “capacity for relationship and love” (126). In the face of AI, says the Pope, “the true alternative is not between enthusiasm and fear, but between two paths of development: a progress that serves individuals and peoples, or a progress that subjects them to the mentality of power” (129). An ecology of communication and the centrality of schools: In the fourth chapter—Safeguarding Humanity at a Time of Transformation. Truth, Work, Freedom—the Pope calls for an “ecology of communication” based on truth. He urges transparency in how content is selected, protection of personal data, serious journalism founded on argumentation and verification, a new awareness in the “proper and critical” use of digital tools, and the integration of different forms of knowledge. The Church must also embody transparent and honest communication, especially in cases of injustice and abuse. The Pope also appeals for a renewed educational alliance, so that the “desire to ask questions” may not be extinguished in young people by perfect machines that make human thought seem useless (140). Pope Leo XIV, therefore, calls for renewed attention to schools as places where people learn to “seek and love the truth” (147). The dignity of work: In the “fourth industrial revolution” represented by the digital transition, the Pope emphasizes the importance of protecting the dignity of work by designing systems centered on the person and not only on performance. “The ‘new ways’ of working are not necessarily better,” he writes, “while AI promises to boost productivity by taking over mundane tasks, it frequently forces workers to adapt to the speed and demands of machines, rather than machines being designed to support those who work” (150). Technology can certainly free human beings from burdensome or repetitive tasks, but it must not lead to unemployment in the name of reducing costs and increasing profit. In this regard, the Pope expresses his hopes for a renewal of labor organizations (155). Peace and development: Pope Leo then notes the need to move beyond GDP as the measure of a country’s level of development, focusing instead on the dignity of work, shared prosperity, the reduction of inequalities, and environmental protection. Finance, he says, must focus on the development, creation, and evolution of work (159-160). Following in the footsteps of Pope St. Paul VI, the encyclical underscores the interdependence between peace and development. It calls for international cooperation capable of defining shared strategies, especially in favor of the most vulnerable countries and groups, because prosperity contributes to peace “only if it is widespread, inclusive, and sustainable” (163). The family, “primary social good”: The Pope upholds the role of the family, saying it is founded on the stable union between a man and a woman. The family is a “primary social good” and the “fundamental and irreplaceable cell of every community organization” (165), which must be supported, including through labor policies that favor stability and humane rhythms, so as to protect society’s ability to “build the future.” ‘Architecture of visibility’ and risks for freedom: Pope Leo XIV then discusses the theme of human freedom in an age when digital platforms are designed to capture users’ time and exploit their vulnerabilities. He reiterates the need to strengthen each person’s interior freedom, while also confronting the risk of social control arising from the mass collection of data and the use of algorithmic systems. Profiling, predicting, and directing behavior, he says, is “a new form of power” (171) that risks discriminating against the weakest. The Pope particularly criticizes the “architecture of visibility,” which amplifies only what is visible and shapes opinions. New forms of slavery and colonialism: AI also generates new forms of slavery, such as that of the “scarred, injured, and worn down” bodies (173) of those who work in the extraction of the “rare earth elements” needed for technology. Therefore, the Pope upholds the importance of combating new forms of slavery as another “decisive test for ethical discernment” in the digital transformation. Pope Leo XIV stresses that “the Church renews her firm condemnation of every form of slavery, trafficking, and commodification of persons” and he underscores that to not react or to tolerate grave violations of human dignity means becoming accomplices to them. At the same time, the Pope “sincerely asks forgiveness” for the delay with which the Church in the past condemned “the scourge of slavery” (174-176). The encyclical also refers to the vital information—for example, on health and demographics—used to guide economic strategies. He calls this a new face of colonialism that turns personal lives into exploitable information, making the digital environment a “space of exploitation” (178-179). Overcoming ‘just war’ theory: In the fifth chapter—The Culture of Power and the Civilization of Love—Pope Leo XIV turns his gaze to war, saying “the digital revolution is changing the nature of conflict.” The Pope calls for an ethical approach, without which decisions about the life and death of persons will become increasingly impersonal due to a use of force regarded as an “immediate and viable option” (182-183). At the root of all this is a “culture of power” that normalizes war and rehabilitates it as an “instrument of international politics,” favoring rearmament. Today, he says, public opinion is burdened by polarizing media narratives, as well as by “a disconcerting loss of historical memory,” which leaves people without a long-term vision (191). Consequently, he says, peace today is no longer understood as a task to be undertaken, but as an interval between conflicts. For this reason, Pope Leo XIV reiterates that—while preserving the right to legitimate defense in the strictest sense—the theory of “just war” must be overcome, and dialogue, diplomacy, and forgiveness must instead be promoted (192). Algorithms do not make war morally acceptable: Pope Leo expresses criticism of the growth in the arms industry, the nuclear arms race, and the emergence of new armed actors—including jihadist groups—who aim to perpetuate conflicts as a source of power and profit. He also warns against the use of weapons linked to AI, because “there is no algorithm that can make war morally acceptable.” The Pope writes, “AI does not remove the intrinsic inhumanity of conflict; indeed, it can only bring about conflict more quickly and render it more impersonal, lowering the threshold for resorting to violence, transforming defense into threat prediction and thus reducing victims to data. In this way, it will accustom us to the idea that violence is inevitable and needs only to be optimized.” The Pope urges strict ethical limits, which are shared at the international level and based on personal responsibility and the protection of civilians. “Any technology that facilitates attacks without seeing the face of human beings lowers the moral threshold of conflict” (199). Crisis of multilateralism: The culture of power also emerges from the crisis of multilateralism and the emergence of “a disorderly and conflict-ridden multipolarism” with a prevailing sense of mistrust (201). The Pope laments that the rule of law has been replaced by the law of the strongest, while the logic of power prevails over peace building and institutions established to safeguard the common destiny of peoples have now been weakened. In this regard, the Pope hopes for “profound reforms” of the UN that can overcome the current crisis of values in favor of the common good (226). An irresponsible Realpolitik: The encyclical notes that today “hybrid” wars are fought “also on the economic, financial and cyber fronts, where disinformation and campaigns that feed people’s fears are used to manipulate public opinion” so that increases in military expenditures are seen as the “only response” to an uncertain future. But all of this is only a “false realism”, an irresponsible Realpolitik that sows in people’s consciences and cultures a resignation to an unavoidable war and describes peace as a utopia (204-205). He notes that there is the possibility that some “may consider armed conflict as an effective way of diverting attention from domestic problems and a cynical tool for managing difficulties (208). The civilization of love: Christians, says Pope Leo, are called to respond to the culture of power by building “the civilization of love” and by choosing whether to feed the logic of force or safeguard peace. He recalls the memory of the saints, “righteous people and the oft-forgotten peacemakers, show us that grace does not magically eliminate conflict, but instead it inspires active resistance to evil and an astonishing creativity in doing good” (211). The Pope indicates five paths of responsibility, which include disarming words by speaking the truth; building peace in justice; adopting the perspective of victims by taking a stand, because there are conflicts in which “it is unjust to remain neutral”; cultivating “a healthy realism” that seeks practicable paths of peace through deeds, not only words. Importance of interreligious dialogue: Finally, relaunching dialogue by moving from a culture of power to a culture of negotiation is highlighted. And of decisive importance is “interreligious dialogue”, being bearers of a message of peace. He writes that “those who use the name of God to legitimize terrorism, violence or war betray his true nature, for to fight in the name of religion means attacking religion itself” (223). The diplomacy of the Holy See, he notes, “adopts the Gospel’s principle of mercy as a concrete criterion for political action.” And from this, the exhortation to prayer, since peace comes above all from God (227-228)." (https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2026-05/pope-leo-xiv-encyclical-magnifica-humanitas-ai.html) more

Download (138)

Societies at an AI Crossroads: Choices and Value Conflicts

Ignas Kalpokas, Julija Kalpokienė

London; New York: Routledge (2026), 116 pp.

"As contemporary societies undergo profound transformations driven by artificial intelligence and related technologies, a unilinear vision of inevitable ‘progress’ and development increasingly dominates public discourse. This book offers a counterpoint, challenging such deterministic narratives ... more

Download (25)

"AI is locking out Indigenous voices: Toward more equitable futures

Inti Josue Cachipuendo Contero, Justin Yeager

Big Data & Society, volume 13, issue 4 (2026), 6 pp.

"Artificial intelligence (AI) increasingly helps communities make decisions related to healthcare, agriculture, education, and climate adaptation, yet most AI systems are built for people in connected, urban settings who speak dominant languages such as English. Indigenous and rural communities are ... more

Download (106)

Step by Step: How SAFE AI contributes to trustworthy AI

CDAC Network; Alan Turing Institute; Humanitarian AI Advisory (2026), 8 pp.

"Based on the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) AI Risk Management Framework, the seven characteristics of trustworthy AI are: 1. Valid and Reliable: The AI system should perform as intended, delivering accurate results consistently across different situations. 2. Safe: The sy ... more

External Link (19)

Generative artificial intelligence and the transformation of newsroom practices in Kenya: A mixed-methods study of professional and training newsrooms

Tommy Kibera Kiilu, George Ngugi King'ara

Journal of Communication and Media Research, volume 18, issue 2 (2026), pp. 1–14

“The rapid diffusion of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is transforming newsroom practices globally, yet empirical evidence from African media contexts remains limited. This study examines how GenAI is reshaping newsroom workflows, professional roles, and ethical practices in Kenya thro ... more

External Link (21)

Google Scholar (21)

WorldCat (18)

Handbook of Communication, Media, and Digital Technologies in Iberoamerica

Lionel Ricardo Brossi, Sandra Cortesi, Leanne Alexandra Hasse

Berlin: De Gruyter (2026), ix, 414 pp.

"The chapters address current discourses and debates on digital citizenship, information quality and news literacy, privacy and identity, as well as forward-looking discourses on emerging technologies (including artificial intelligence, virtual reality, and the metaverse) and their intersection with ... more

External Link (22)

Globally, more people expect AI to cause job loss than growth: 37-country survey also finds growing awareness of AI — and growing concern in some places

Laura Silver, Richard Wike, Moira Fagan, Jordan Lippert

Pew Research Center (2026), 49 pp.

"In 34 of 37 countries Pew Research Center surveyed earlier this year, people tend to believe AI will lead to fewer jobs rather than more jobs. Still, opinion on this and other AI-related topics may still be taking shape: In many places, about a fifth of adults or more are unsure how AI will impact ... more

External Link (246)

How Russia Is Reshaping Command and Control for AI-Enabled Warfare

Kateryna Bondar

Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) (2026), 20 pp.

"This paper examines how Russia is transforming its command and control (C2) architecture under wartime pressure, how these changes shape the country’s incremental move toward battlefield-required software solutions, and what lessons U.S. policymakers can learn from Russia’s experiences. Focusin ... g on both strategic ambitions and battlefield practice, the takeaways below summarize how automated C2 systems, unmanned platform management software, and emerging AI applications are being developed, adapted, and scaled within Russia’s military ecosystem. 1. Russia is no longer prioritizing the construction of a single, comprehensive automated C2 architecture comparable to Western joint concepts; instead, it is reallocating effort toward tactical, task-specific software, driven by battlefield necessity. Prolonged, high-intensity combat in Ukraine exposed the limits of centralized, system-wide C2 modernization and elevated the importance of accelerating the tactical kill chain. The emergence of systems such as the “Svod” Tactical Situational Awareness Complex and other integrated reconnaissance-strike tools reflects a pragmatic shift in which operational control of unmanned systems and real-time battlefield management now deliver greater military value than achieving end-to-end C2 integration. 2. Because unmanned systems now conduct up to 80 percent of Russian fire missions, the center of gravity in C2 innovation has shifted toward software that manages drones and integrates them with artillery and other fire units. Civilian engineers and volunteer developers have focused on closing this gap by building tools that provide situational awareness, automate fire correction, and link unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) operators directly to firing units. Russia’s “Glaz/Groza” software complex demonstrates this trend, functioning as a unified reconnaissance-strike workflow that converts drone footage into targeting data and compresses the time from detection to impact from hours to minutes. 3. The Russian military assesses its AI capabilities for visual and audio data processing as relatively mature, placing computer vision, sensor fusion, and signal analysis at technology readiness level (TRL) 6–9, while natural-language processing remains at an early, experimental stage, TRL 1–3. This disparity reflects a deliberate prioritization of AI applications that deliver immediate battlefield utility—such as target recognition, guidance, and autonomous terminal functions for unmanned systems—and where abundant data and combat validation are available. By contrast, text analysis AI, which underpins document processing and higher-level C2 decision support, remains constrained by immature architectures, limited certified software, and organizational barriers, slowing progress toward fully AI-enabled command workflows. 4. Within Russian C2 systems, AI is primarily envisioned as a support function rather than a replacement for human decisionmaking. Russian military doctrine assigns AI two core roles: enhancing the processing and interpretation of sensor data and providing predictive decision support through forecasting, scenario generation, and recommendations for commanders. Across strategic and tactical levels, AI is intended to augment situational awareness and analytical capacity, while formal authority and responsibility for decisions remain firmly with human commanders. 5. Russia began its C2 digitalization effort by building a dense layer of standards governing terminology, system architecture, hardware-software integration, and information management. This standardization drive, coupled with the transition to the domestically controlled Astra Linux operating system, reflects an attempt to create a unified technical foundation capable of supporting data integration, interoperability, and future AI insertion across the command hierarchy. While this framework provides structural coherence, it has not, on its own, resolved deeper institutional and methodological constraints that continue to limit system-wide C2 integration. 6. To enable AI-driven tactical software, the Russian military launched a systematic data collection effort in 2025 focused on unmanned operations and strike outcomes. The emerging data infrastructure aggregates UAS video feeds, operator telemetry, strike effects, and individual pilot performance metrics, each linked to unique personal identifiers. These datasets serve multiple functions simultaneously: operational analysis, training evaluation, and the creation of labeled data for AI model development, establishing a feedback loop that ties battlefield performance directly to software refinement. 7. Despite efforts to reduce dependence on foreign commercial technologies, Russia’s military AI development remains heavily reliant on open-weight models and civilian software ecosystems. The transition from tools such as AlpineQuest and Discord toward domestic alternatives like ZOV Maps and Astra-based platforms reflects a push for security and sovereignty at the application layer. At the same time, Russian developers actively adapt open-weight and commercially available AI models, including Mistral, Qwen, LLaMA, YOLO, and related architectures, for military use, embedding them into on-premise, tightly controlled environments. This hybrid approach allows Russia to mitigate sanctions and accelerate AI adoption without building foundational models from scratch." (Executive summary) more