Part 1 of an exploration of Meta’s giant deliberative process. What worked. What didn't. What we could be doing differently.
Wouldn't one or more exceedingly well checked AI facilitators find a reduction in human bias and polarisation false or not from all parties?
Those deliberating could decide their level of privacy and have plenty of time to deliberate and present their views. These could be summarised and the summary reviewed by the person?
The conclusions through all stages could also be reviewed by those deliberating and moderators or however you and others are described ?
These are impressively high figures.
"... the experience was still positive enough that 82% of the participants said they would “recommend this event to Meta as a way to make decisions in the future” and ‘78% thought the members of their group “participated relatively equally”’.)