This research proposes a framework for the negative impacts of artificial intelligence (AI) in government by classifying 14 topics of its dark side into five socio technical categories. The framework is based on a systematic literature review and highlights that the dark side is predominantly driven by political, legal, and institutional aspects, but it is also influenced by data and technology. Lack of understanding of AI outcomes, biases, and errors, as well as manipulation of intelligent algorithms and cognitive machines are contributing factors. The public sector should create knowledge about AI from an ethical, inclusive, and strategic perspective, involving experts from different areas.
Points for practitioners
Government officials and other decision-makers should be aware of the potential benefits of artificial intelligence, but also of the dark side, and try to avoid those potential negative consequences.
Al-SaggafY (2016) Understanding online radicalisation using data science. International Journal of Cyber Warfare and Terrorism (IJCWT)6(4): 13–27.
2.
AndrewsL (2019) Public administration, public leadership and the construction of public value in the age of the algorithm and ‘big data. Public Administration97(2): 296–310.
3.
AsaroPM (2019) AI Ethics in predictive policing: From models of threat to an ethics of care. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine38(2): 40–53.
4.
BanerjeeSSinghPKBajpaiJ (2018) A comparative study on decision-making capability between human and artificial intelligence. In: PanigrahiBK, et al. (eds) Nature Inspired Computing. Poland: Springer, 203–210.
5.
BatemanW (2020) Algorithmic decision-making and legality: Public law dimensions. Australian Law Journal94(7): 1–14.
6.
Bennett-MosesL (2007) Why have a theory of law and technological change. Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology8(2): 589–606.
7.
Bloch-WehbaH (2019) Access to algorithms. Fordham Law Review88(4): 1265–1314.
8.
BughinJSeongJManyikaJ, et al. (2018) Notes from the AI Frontier: Modeling the Impact of AI on the World Economy. McKinsey Global Institute.
9.
ButcherJBeridzeI (2019) What is the state of artificial intelligence governance globally?The RUSI Journal164(5–6): 88–96.
10.
CalvoP (2019) Democracia algorítmica: consideraciones éticas sobre la dataficación de la esfera pública. Revista CLAD Reforma y Democracia74(June): 5–30.
11.
CarterD (2020) Regulation and ethics in artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies: Where are we now? Who is responsible? Can the information professional play a role?Business Information Review37(2): 60–68.
12.
CasaresAP (2018) The brain of the future and the viability of democratic governance: The role of artificial intelligence, cognitive machines, and viable systems. Futures103(October 2018): 5–16.
13.
ChattopadhyayMSenRGuptaS, et al. (2018) A comprehensive review and meta-analysis on applications of machine learning techniques in intrusion detection. Australasian Journal of Information Systems22(Jun 2018): 1–27.
14.
CoglianeseCLehrD (2016) Regulating by robot: Administrative decision making in the machine-learning era. Georgetown Law Journal105(June 2017): 1147–1223.
15.
GaonAStedmanI (2018) A call to action: Moving forward with the governance of artificial intelligence in Canada. Alberta Law Review.56(2018): 1137–1165.
16.
GarciaM (2016) Racist in the machine: The disturbing implications of algorithmic bias. World Policy Journal33(4): 111–117.
17.
Garcia-MurilloMMacInnesI (2019) AI’s path to the present and the painful transitions along the way. Digital Policy, Regulation and Governance21(3): 305–321.
18.
GerardsJ (2019) The fundamental rights challenges of algorithms. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights37(3): 205–209.
19.
Gil-GarciaJRPardoTA (2005) E-government success factors: Mapping practical tools to theoretical foundations. Government Information Quarterly22(2): 187–216.
20.
GreimanV (2019) The winds of change in world politics and the impact on cyber stability. International Journal of Cyber Warfare and Terrorism (IJCWT)9(4): 27–43.
21.
GuptaKP (2019) Artificial intelligence for governance in India: Prioritizing the challenges using analytic hierarchy process (AHP). International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering8(2019): 3756–3762.
22.
JamshidiMLalbakhshATallaJ, et al. (2020) Artificial intelligence and COVID-19: Deep learning approaches for diagnosis and treatment. IEEE Access8: 109581–109595.
23.
JanssenMHartogMMatheusR, et al. (2022) Will algorithms blind people? The effect of explainable AI and decision-Makers’ experience on AI-supported decision-making in government. Social Science Computer Review40(2): 478–493.
24.
KatzenbachCUlbrichtL (2019) Algorithmic governance. Internet Policy Review8(4): 1–18.
25.
KimYJKimKLeeS (2017) The rise of technological unemployment and its implications on the future macroeconomic landscape. Futures87(2017): 1–9.
26.
KolkmanD (2020) The usefulness of algorithmic models in policy making. Government Information Quarterly37(3): 101488.
27.
KuziemskiMMisuracaG (2020) AI Governance in the public sector: Three tales from the frontiers of automated decision-making in democratic settings. Telecommunications Policy87(March 2017): 1–9.
28.
LeeNT (2018) Detecting racial bias in algorithms and machine learning. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society16(3): 252–260.
29.
LimS (2019) Re-thinking bias in the age of automation. Australian Journal of Administrative Law26(1): 35–44.
30.
LiuH-WLinC-FChenY-J (2019) Beyond state v loomis: Artificial intelligence, government algorithmization and accountability. International Journal of Law and Information Technology27(2): 122–141.
31.
McEvoyFJ (2019) Political machines: Ethical governance in the age of AI. Moral Philosophy and Politics6(2): 337–356.
32.
McLeanJMackenzieR (2019) Digital justice in Australian visa application processes?Alternative Law Journal44(4): 291–296.
33.
McQuillanD (2018) People’s councils for ethical machine learning. Social Media+ Society4(2): 1–10.
34.
NishiA (2019) Privatizing sentencing: A delegation framework for recidivism risk assessment. Columbia Law Review119(6): 1671–1710.
35.
O’DonnellRM (2019) Challenging racist predictive policing algorithms under the equal protection clause. NYU Law Review.94(2019): 544–580.
36.
OrlikowskiWJIaconoCS (2001) Research commentary: Desperately seeking the ‘IT’ in IT research—A call to theorizing the IT artifact. Information Systems Research12(2): 121–134.
37.
OswaldMGraceJUrwinS, et al. (2018) Algorithmic risk assessment policing models: Lessons from the Durham HART model and ‘experimental’ proportionality. Information & Communications Technology Law27(2): 223–250.
38.
PageMJMcKenzieJEBossuytPM, et al. (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews10(1): 1–11.
39.
ParkSHumphryJ (2019) Exclusion by design: intersections of social, digital and data exclusion. Information, Communication & Society22(7): 934–953.
40.
PatersonTHanleyL (2020) Political warfare in the digital age: Cyber subversion, information operations and ‘deep fakes.’. Australian Journal of International Affairs74(4): 439–454.
41.
PeetersRSchuilenburgM (2018) Machine justice: Governing security through the bureaucracy of algorithms. Information Polity23(3): 267–280.
42.
PenchevaIEsteveMMikhaylovSJ (2020) Big Data and AI–A transformational shift for government: so, what next for research?Public Policy and Administration35(1): 24–44.
43.
PowerDJ (2016) ‘Big brother’ can watch us. Journal of Decision Systems25(sup1): 578–588.
44.
RussellSJNorvigP (2010) Artificial Intelligence—A Modern Approach, Third International Edition. New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.
45.
Ruvalcaba-GomezEACifuentes-FauraJ (2023) Analysis of the perception of digital government and artificial intelligence in the public sector in Jalisco, Mexico. International Review of Administrative Sciences. Epub ahead of print 29 March. DOI: 10.1177/00208523231164587
46.
SætraHS (2020) A shallow defence of a technocracy of artificial intelligence: Examining the political harms of algorithmic governance in the domain of government. Technology in Society62(August): 1–10.
47.
SafranskyS (2020) Geographies of algorithmic violence: Redlining the smart city. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research44(2): 200–218.
48.
ShiZRWangCFangF (2020) Artificial intelligence for social good: A survey. ArXiv Preprint ArXiv:2001.01818.
49.
SimmlerMCanovaGSchedlerK (2023) Smart criminal justice: Phenomena and normative requirements. International Review of Administrative Sciences89(2): 415–432.
50.
SunTQMedagliaR (2019) Mapping the challenges of Artificial Intelligence in the public sector: Evidence from public healthcare. Government Information Quarterly36(2): 368–383.
51.
TaeihaghA (2021) Governance of artificial intelligence. Policy and Society40(2): 1–21.
52.
TakahashiYEvansLT (2018) An application of machine learning for predicting rearrests: Significant predictors for juveniles. Race and Social Problems10(1): 42–52.
53.
TaylorJETTaylorGW (2021) Artificial cognition: How experimental psychology can help generate explainable artificial intelligence. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review28(2): 454–475.
54.
TownsendP (2017) The Dark Side of Technology. New York: Oxford University Press.
55.
Valle-CruzDFernandez-CortezVGil-GarciaJR (2022) From E-budgeting to smart budgeting: Exploring the potential of artificial intelligence in government decision-making for resource allocation. Government Information Quarterly39(2): 1–19.
56.
Valle-CruzDFernandez-CortezVLópez-ChauA, et al. (2021) Does Twitter affect stock market decisions? Financial sentiment analysis during pandemics: A comparative study of the H1N1 and the COVID-19 periods. Cognitive Computation14(2022): 372–387.
57.
Van KralingenM (2016) Use of weapons: Should we ban the development of autonomous weapons systems?The International Journal of Intelligence, Security, and Public Affairs18(2): 132–156.
58.
VetròASantangeloABerettaE, et al. (2019) AI: From rational agents to socially responsible agents. Digital Policy, Regulation and Governance21(3): 291–304.
59.
WarrenAHillasA (2020) Friend or frenemy? The role of trust in human–machine teaming and lethal autonomous weapons systems. Small Wars & Insurgencies31(4): 822–850.
60.
WilliamsMLBurnapPJavedA, et al. (2020) Hate in the machine: Anti-Black and anti-Muslim social media posts as predictors of offline racially and religiously aggravated crime. The British Journal of Criminology60(1): 93–117.
61.
WirtzBWWeyererJCSturmBJ (2020) The dark sides of artificial intelligence: An integrated AI governance framework for public administration. International Journal of Public Administration43(9): 818–829.
62.
YeungKLodgeM(eds) (2019) Algorithmic Regulation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
63.
YeungKHowesAPogrebnaG (2020) AI governance by human rights–centered design, deliberation, and oversight. In: DubberMD, et al. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Ethics of AI. New York: Oxford University Press, 77–106.
64.
YoungMKatellMKrafftPM (2019) Municipal surveillance regulation and algorithmic accountability. Big Data & Society6(2): 1–14.
65.
ZalnieriuteMMosesLBWilliamsG (2019) The rule of law and automation of government decision-making. The Modern Law Review82(3): 425–455.
66.
ZuiderwijkAChenY-CSalemF (2021) Implications of the use of artificial intelligence in public governance: A systematic literature review and a research agenda. Government Information Quarterly38(3): 1–19.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
