NATURE
Researchers in low- and middle-income countries show that home-grown artificial-intelligence technologies can be developed, even without large external investments.
Category: Jake Okechukwu Effoduh, L.L.B.
Jake Okechukwu Effoduh, LLB
Biography
LinkedIn
Google Scholar
-
Options and Motivations for International AI Benefit Sharing
Advanced AI systems could generate substantial economic and other societal benefits, but these benefits may not be widely shared by default. For a range of reasons, a number of prominent actors and institutions have called for efforts to expand access to AI’s benefits. In this report, we define the concept of international AI benefit sharing (“benefit sharing”) as efforts to support and accelerate international access to AI’s economic or broader societal benefits. Calls for benefit sharing typically invoke at least one of three motivations: 1) supporting inclusive economic growth and sustainable development, 2) fostering technological self-determination in low- and middle-income countries, and 3) advancing geopolitical objectives, including strengthening international partnerships on AI governance. Notably, as a subset of the third motive, some powerful actors – like the US government – may support benefit sharing as a tool to further their economic and national security interests. Benefit sharing could be implemented by (1) sharing AI resources (e.g., computing power or data), (2) expanding access to AI systems, or (3) transferring a portion of the financial proceeds from AI commercialisation or AI-driven economic growth. Depending on the objective that benefit sharing is intended to achieve, each of these approaches offers distinct opportunities and implementation challenges. These challenges include the potential for some benefit-sharing options to raise security concerns and increase certain global risks. Actors interested in benefit sharing may consider implementing low-risk forms of benefit sharing immediately, while launching cooperative international discussions to develop more comprehensive, mutually-beneficial initiatives.
-
Africa’s Energy Poverty in An Artificial Intelligence (AI) World: Struggle for Sustainable Development Goal 7
Energy poverty remains a significant challenge in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), where approximately 600 million people lack proper access to electricity. This paper examines the region’s current state of energy poverty, highlighting its socio-economic impacts and the barriers to achieving Sustainable Development Goal 7 (SDG7), which aims for affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all by 2030. Despite the region’s rich renewable energy potential, inadequate infrastructure, economic constraints, and governance issues continue to impede progress. This work employs a doctrinal research methodology, focusing on the critical analysis of existing legal and policy frameworks relevant to energy poverty and the integration of AI in energy management. This paper presents an overview of energy poverty in SSA, underpinned by current statistics and trends. It then examines the dual role of artificial intelligence (AI) and how it impacts this area: while AI technologies, through its data centre s, for example, significantly increase energy consumption, AI also offers innovative solutions for energy management, efficiency, and the integration of renewable energy sources. This paper critically analyzes these dynamics using Marxist and Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) frameworks to understand the broader socio-economic inequalities and global power dynamics at play. Major findings indicate that current policy frameworks are inadequate in addressing the unique challenges of energy poverty and the growing role of AI in the energy sector. The paper reviews existing policy and regulatory frameworks, identifying gaps and proposing actionable recommendations for integrating AI into policies to address energy poverty. It concludes with actionable policy recommendations to achieve a just and inclusive energy transition, contributing to the broader discourse on sustainable development and technological equity.
-
Explaining the Comparatively Less Robust Human Rights Impact of the ECOWAS Court on Legislative and Judicial Decision-making, Process, and Action in Nigeria
This article outlines and tackles two inter-related puzzles regarding the comparatively much less robust human rights impact that the ECOWAS Court (in effect, West Africa’s international human rights court) has had on the generally more democratic legislative/judicial branch of decision-making and action in Nigeria vis-à-vis the generally more authoritarian executive branch within Nigeria, the country that is the source of most of the cases filed before the court. The article then discusses and analyzes the examples and extent of the court’s human rights impact on legislative/judicial branch decision-making and action in that key country. This is followed by the development of a set of analytical, multi-factorial, explanations for the two inter-connected puzzles that animate the enquiry in this article. In the end, the article argues that several factors have combined to produce the comparatively much less robust human rights impact that the ECOWAS Court has had on domestic legislative and judicial decision-making, process, and action in Nigeria, through restricting the extent to which the latter could mobilize more robustly the court’s human rights-relevant processes and rulings.
-
Toward a trustworthy and inclusive data governance policy for the use of artificial intelligence in Africa
This article proposes five ideas that the design of data governance policies for the trustworthy use of artificial intelligence (AI) in Africa should consider. The first is for African states to assess their domestic strategic priorities, strengths, and weaknesses. The second is a human-centric approach to data governance, which involves data processing practices that protect the security of personal data and the privacy of data subjects; ensure that personal data are processed in a fair, lawful, and accountable manner; minimize the harmful effect of personal data misuse or abuse on data subjects and other victims; and promote a beneficial, trusted use of personal data. The third is for the data policy to be in alignment with supranational rights-respecting AI standards like the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights, the AU Convention on Cybersecurity, and Personal Data Protection. The fourth is for states to be critical about the extent to which AI systems can be relied on in certain public sectors or departments. The fifth and final proposition is for the need to prioritize the use of representative and interoperable data and ensure a transparent procurement process for AI systems from abroad where no local options exist.
-
AI Governance for the Global Majority: Understanding Opportunities and Challenges
Artificial intelligence (AI) will impact individuals, communities, and institutions worldwide in both unique and universal ways. While public and private sector actors have begun to build the foundations for achieving more secure and trustworthy AI, the voices shaping the AI governance agenda are primarily from the Global North. To govern AI in a way that reflects a global range of contexts, it is imperative to adopt a more inclusive lens in defining its harms and opportunities. Broadly accepted AI governance principles may struggle to translate into practice without a more explicit focus on how priorities and challenges prevalent in the Global Majority intersect with AI.
-
A Global South Perspective on Explainable AI
A context-driven approach is necessary to translate principles like explainability into practice globally. These vignettes illustrate how AI can be made more trustworthy for users in the Global South through more creative, context-rooted approaches to legibility.
-
Strengthening Data Protection: Ensuring Privacy and Security for Nigerian Citizens
This Policy Brief examines the existing data protection regime both in Nigeria and globally and suggests ways to improve the data protection efforts in Nigeria. It considers Nigeria’s principal data protection laws, generally applicable across all sectors (including public and private institutions). By examining and juxtaposing some of the exemptions in legislation, an opportunity for abuse of data subjects’ rights may have been inadvertently created by laws that were enacted to do otherwise. This Policy Brief proffers preferable outcomes that may guide engagement with policymakers to rectify this situation.
-
Unveiling AI Concerns for Sub-Saharan Africa and its Vulnerable Groups
In Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), artificial intelligence is still in its early stages of adoption. To ensure that the already existing class imbalance in SSA communities does not hinder the realization of the Sustainable Development Goals, such as data security, safety, and equitable access to AI technologies, acceptable reliability measures must be put in place (as policies). This paper identifies some of the vulnerabilities in AI and adds a voice to the risks and ethical concerns surrounding the use of AI and its impact on SSA and its vulnerable groups. Our systematic literature review of related research between January 2014 and June 2024 shows the current state of AI adoption in SSA and the socio-political challenges that impact its development, revealing key concerns in data Governance, safety privacy, educational and skill gaps, socioeconomic impacts, and stakeholder influence on AI adoption in SSA. We propose a framework for designing data governance policies for the inclusive use of AI in SSA.
-
Book Review: Litigating Artificial Intelligence by Jesse Beatson, Gerold Chan, and Jill R. Presser
It is no longer news that artificial intelligence (AI) is being deployed across the board in the legal industry, although the extent of AI use varies by jurisdiction.
-
Leveraging responsible, explainable, and local artificial intelligence solutions for clinical public health in the Global South
In the present paper, we will explore how artificial intelligence (AI) and big data analytics (BDA) can help address clinical public and global health needs in the Global South, leveraging and capitalizing on our experience with the “Africa-Canada Artificial Intelligence and Data Innovation Consortium” (ACADIC) Project in the Global South, and focusing on the ethical and regulatory challenges we had to face. “Clinical public health” can be defined as an interdisciplinary field, at the intersection of clinical medicine and public health, whilst “clinical global health” is the practice of clinical public health with a special focus on health issue management in resource-limited settings and contexts, including the Global South. As such, clinical public and global health represent vital approaches, instrumental in (i) applying a community/population perspective to clinical practice as well as a clinical lens to community/population health, (ii) identifying health needs both at the individual and community/population levels, (iii) systematically addressing the determinants of health, including the social and structural ones, (iv) reaching the goals of population’s health and well-being, especially of socially vulnerable, underserved communities, (v) better coordinating and integrating the delivery of healthcare provisions, (vi) strengthening health promotion, health protection, and health equity, and (vii) closing gender inequality and other (ethnic and socio-economic) disparities and gaps. Clinical public and global health are called to respond to the more pressing healthcare needs and challenges of our contemporary society, for which AI and BDA can help unlock new options and perspectives. In the aftermath of the still ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the future trend of AI and BDA in the healthcare field will be devoted to building a more healthy, resilient society, able to face several challenges arising from globally networked hyper-risks, including ageing, multimorbidity, chronic disease accumulation, and climate change.
-
Artificial intelligence, law, and vulnerabilities
Social vulnerability is a measurement of the ability of communities to adequately respond to external stresses (Blaikie et al., 1994), such as the ongoing “SARS-CoV-2” – Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (Bankoff & Hilhorst, 2004). During these periods of upheaval, people with disabilities, racial, ethnic, and religious minorities, children from low-income families, the elderly, migrants and refugees, the immunocompromised and those with chronic health conditions, and the homeless among others are considered to be at greater risk from the adverse effects, and potential losses incurred by these external stressors. They are also the slowest to recover from such emergencies. For example, recent data from the COVID-19 pandemic shows that vulnerable populations were much more likely to contract the virus, were less likely to receive the vaccine because of hesitancy and distrust of “Big Pharma”, yet they were more in need of social assistance compared to other segments of society (Cheong et al., 2021; Kazemi et al., 2022; St‐Denis, 2020). Classified as “socially vulnerable” by the United Nations (n.d.), these populations are almost always economically marginalized, politically under-represented, and socially underserved. (Un)surprisingly, they are predominantly racialized (Black and other people of color), and have a long history of enduring violations of their civil rights and freedoms, even during disaster response and recovery efforts. The factors and/or characteristics that determine the social vulnerability of a group differ from country to country, however, there are some universal similarities. Risk factors that contribute to the vulnerability of these groups include poverty, unemployment, and lack of access to resources (e.g., adequate healthcare, education, housing, safe drinking water, transportation, and other social services) (Cutter et al., 2003). Socially vulnerable populations are also stigmatized and discriminated against by the wider society, and even criminalized in law, policy, and practice. Forced to live in environments of severe inequality, they are unable to thrive, feel safe, and actively participate in all aspects of society (UNDP, n.d.). When compared to the general population, the capacity of socially vulnerable groups to cope with, respond to, and recover from the adverse impacts of crises is hindered by the inordinate obstacles they encounter in their daily lives (Wisner et al., 2004). These obstacles are indicators of structural inequities and barriers that hamper fair and equitable access (for all) to the resources needed to satisfy one’s basic needs. Social vulnerability is then a combination of the risk factors and socio-cultural markers listed above, which hinder full participation in economic, social, political, and cultural life (UN DESA, 2016). The amplification of existing inequities during crises like the COVID-19 pandemic has re-ignited discussions about global inequities and the challenges they present to socially vulnerable populations.