Participatory AI

In this paper, we motivate the need for a participatory speech dataset creation framework through a case study of the LGBTQIA+, or queer, community - a community with documented concerns about AI and reported harms, including attempts to develop 'gaydar' technologies that purportedly identify individuals as queer. We review common speech data collection practices, why these methods may be unsuitable for engaging with queer speakers, and discuss previous efforts in participatory AI with queer community engagement, as well as participatory endeavours specific to speech data collection for other marginalized communities. From this review, we develop a conceptual framework for participatory speech data curation by, for, and with marginalized communities drawing on insights from co-design and knowledge sharing. We propose a framework comprising overlapping and two-way processes of defining a community, project formulation, modes of participation, and personal autonomy.

The emergence of LLM-driven information services is reshaping the conditions under which public knowledge institutions operate, threatening to absorb the editorial function these institutions exist to exercise. While LLMs offer powerful new affordances for knowledge dissemination, editorial authority is challenged by pretrained LLMs that arrive already aligned with the values and dissemination strategies of their commercial developers. This paper investigates editor participation in re-aligning LLM interfaces to editorial standards through design workshops, in a case study where we design and implement an LLM-enabled encyclopedia interface with a Nordic public knowledge institution. We introduce editorial alignment as a design practice within Participatory AI, framing AI alignment as a design process and positioning the editorial standard as a design artefact that translates editorial practice and values into alignment objectives for technical implementation. Last, we discuss how editorial alignment can create space for ongoing participation and give editors agency in LLM-mediated knowledge dissemination.

AI pluralism is often framed as a problem of representing diverse values, preferences, users, or outputs. This paper argues that this framing is incomplete because AI systems also impose ontologies: they define what counts as an entity, relation, feature, harm, benefit, and valid form of evidence. We define ontological flattening as the conversion of situated, contested, and historically specific meanings into a restricted technical category, proxy, aggregation rule, or benchmark target that is treated as neutral and difficult to contest. The paper develops a bounded conceptual and qualitative synthesis across value pluralism, pluralistic alignment, participatory and democratic AI, procedural justice, science and technology studies, accountability research, aggregate themes from 11 expert interviews, and three urban AI companion cases. The cases illustrate how pluralistic methods can improve or structure model behavior while still compressing categories, proxies, aggregation rules, and revision rights before affected actors have procedural standing. We introduce Pluralistic Lifecycle Governance (PLG) as a preliminary qualitative audit scaffold for documenting ontological openness, epistemic inclusion, procedural authority, evaluation pluralism, and lifecycle accountability. PLG is not presented as a validated scoring instrument; it is a framework for making the evidence and governance conditions of pluralistic AI explicit.

Humanity is a mosaic of multifaceted talents and needs, and any truly intelligent AI must reflect that richness. Yet the LLMs used by all are built by the few -- a centralized market of monolithic AI models structurally ill-suited to capture the diversity of human knowledge, reasoning, and values. Here we introduce scaling participation, a new paradigm in which modular, community-sourced AI systems are built from the bottom up through the contributions of diverse stakeholders. Participants contribute small models trained on their own interests and priorities; these models then collaborate in modular frameworks as compositional AI systems, repurposing existing collaboration algorithms for this bottom-up paradigm. Participatory AI systems outperform monolithic LLMs by up to 15.42% (95% CI: [10.09%, 21.13%]) across 15 tasks, such as reasoning and factuality, surpassing models with more parameters than all contributed components combined. Further experiments show that these systems are especially strong at representing diverse cultures, values, and communities, benefit from contributor diversity, substantially improve on each contributor's original priorities, and exhibit emergent capabilities that allow them to solve over 15% of problems where all individual models fail. Scaling participation provides a technical foundation, demonstrated here with academic contributors and benchmark evaluations, for transitioning from the monolithic status quo toward an open, bottom-up, and collaborative AI future.

Artificial intelligence (AI) can reproduce and amplify the structural inequities faced by minoritized communities. Participatory AI has been proposed as a response, but participation typically starts after problem definitions and success criteria have been set, leaving limited room for minoritized communities to reshape what an AI system is for. We propose AI From the Margins (AIM): a methodological stance that articulates the conditions under which lived experiences of minoritized communities can be elicited, centered, and carried forward to inform participatory AI design. AIM is not a fixed protocol; it articulates a set of preconditions that can be enacted through different techniques in different settings. We applied AIM in a Dutch healthcare context in eight sessions with 13 women and non-binary people of color and five municipal policy workers, namely through (1) narrative elicitation using the Biographic Narrative Interpretive Method (BNIM); (2) co-constructed rule-making; (3) participants' determination of whether, where, and how AI should be involved; and (4) translating lived experience into AI policy through dialogue with policymakers. In their reflections on the sessions, participants described the engagement as substantive and called for its continuation, demonstrating how preparatory orientation fundamentally grounded in lived experience shapes what participatory AI design is for.

Participatory approaches to artificial intelligence are increasingly documented across public, civic, and humanitarian settings, but evidence about how participation is organized remains fragmented. This paper reports on the construction of an open repository and interactive atlas of participatory AI initiatives, using records harmonized from Maga~na and Shilton's Trustworthy AI corpus, and additional audited cases from research and practice. We contribute three elements. First, we specify a reproducible protocol for discovery, vetting, harmonization, geocoding, provenance tracking, and release-based publication of participatory AI records. Second, we report corpus-level patterns in geography, participation tiers, lifecycle loci, organizational form, verification status, and remaining documentation gaps. Documented initiatives remain concentrated in a small number of countries, while participation is most often coded at problem formulation, evaluation, and governance rather than model development or training. Third, we show how the atlas operationalizes a design and governance framework for participatory-by-default AI infrastructures through versioned releases, record-linked issue and annotation channels, schema feedback workflows, and redaction or restricted-disclosure requests. The atlas is intended to support comparative research, policy learning, and community scrutiny through a living inventory that can be updated, contested, and reused.

As the rapid proliferation of AI systems and harms spurs efforts in AI governance around the world, prioritizing among competing policy options has become increasingly challenging for policymakers and researchers. We introduce a methodology for identifying viable policy options to mitigate specified AI harms, helping policymakers and researchers target areas that warrant greater time and resource investment. This method combines participatory evaluation of policies, expert assessment of implementation costs, and an LLM-based assessment of perceived harm mitigation under each policy option. We leverage a genetic algorithm-based simulation study to explore a vast solution space of potential policy combinations, and examine how outcomes change under different weightings of cost, participatory input, and harm mitigation. We find that this method enables exploration of different balances between participatory and expert components, allowing policymakers and researchers to assess how much weight to assign to each. We argue that the diversity of viable policy combinations found by the genetic algorithm could be a useful starting point for deliberation. This method operationalizes existing work on participatory AI by integrating it directly into practical policy development pipelines.

Climate-driven wildfires are intensifying, particularly in urban regions such as Southern California. Yet, traditional fire risk communication tools often fail to gain public trust due to inaccessible design, non-transparent outputs, and limited contextual relevance. These challenges are especially critical in high-risk communities, where trust depends on how clearly and locally information is presented. Neighborhoods such as Pacific Palisades, Pasadena, and Altadena in Los Angeles exemplify these conditions. This study introduces a community-led approach for integrating AI into wildfire risk assessment using the Participatory AI Literacy and Explainability Integration (PALEI) framework. PALEI emphasizes early literacy building, value alignment, and participatory evaluation before deploying predictive models, prioritizing clarity, accessibility, and mutual learning between developers and residents. Early engagement findings show strong acceptance of visual, context-specific risk communication, positive fairness perceptions, and clear adoption interest, alongside privacy and data security concerns that influence trust. Participants emphasized localized imagery, accessible explanations, neighborhood-specific mitigation guidance, and transparent communication of uncertainty. The outcome is a mobile application co-designed with users and stakeholders, enabling residents to scan visible property features and receive interpretable fire risk scores with tailored recommendations. By embedding local context into design, the tool becomes an everyday resource for risk awareness and preparedness. This study argues that user experience is central to ethical and effective AI deployment and provides a replicable, literacy-first pathway for applying the PALEI framework to climate-related hazards.

Across the Global North, calls for participatory artificial intelligence (AI) to improve the responsible, safe, and ethical use of AI have increased, particularly efforts that engage citizens and communities whose well-being and safety may be directly impacted by AI and other algorithmic tools. These initiatives include surveys, community consultations, citizens' councils and assemblies, and co-designing AI models and projects. Far fewer efforts, however, have been made in the Global South, particularly in contexts related to humanitarian crises and forced displacement, where the deployment of AI and algorithmic tools is accelerating. In this paper, we critically examine participatory AI methods and their limitations in these contexts and explore the opinions and perceptions of AI held by displaced and crisis-affected communities. Based on a pilot exercise with communities living in Kakuma Refugee Camp in northwestern Kenya, we find important limitations in some participatory AI approaches which, if used in humanitarian contexts, could increase risks of so-called 'participation washing' and algorithmic harm. We argue that these risks are not predominantly driven by varying levels of understanding and awareness of AI but more closely linked to the fundamental power dynamics embedded within the humanitarian sector: between humanitarian aid recipients, service providers, donor governments, and host nations, as well as the power differentials and incentives that exist between AI companies and humanitarian actors. These structural conditions make the case not only for more rigorous participatory methods, but for independent governance architecture capable of holding humanitarian AI to account.