Report on the Urban Conversation on Ethical Use of AI in Urban Planning at the 60th World Planning Congress in Siena, Italy on 11 OCTOBER 2024

Important is Russel’s indication that he is ‘fairly confident that we have some breathing space because there are several major breakthroughs needed between here and superintelligence’ which is confirmed by other AI researchers. There are so many insecurities regarding AI that the IMF recommends governments to prepare for both, massive disruption, in the case that AI should impact an estimated 40 percent of global employment, and for business as usual in case that the current AI hype should pass and just leave some technical tools as earlier innovation waves did. It is also too early to answer the guiding questions of the Urban Conversation on the impact AI will have on the future of cities. However, panellists concurred that AI is an important new subject for urban and regional planning and for cooperation within ISOCARP to lead the Global Dialogues on AI in Future Cities.

Sunil presented a strong case with Innovation examples on Riyadh leading the Urban Innovation AI campaign for the Middle Est Region in promoting Peace, Progress & Prosperity through capacity building and City Leadership campaigns led by Mayor Dr Faisal. He further pursued the role of Riyadh in leading the ISOCARP Innovation and AI global campaigns and establishing AI focused City Leadership Lab in collaboration with global institutions like IMF, World Bank and WEF. It is time to act now and to ensure we are on a socially beneficial path with AI in cities, we must start with a broader discussion, encompassing many more stakeholders than just the most powerful tech leaders, on what we can achieve with these new tools and what we want from them.

As an Urban Conversation (in contrast to a general dialogue on AI) it was important that Sarah Hill in the first part of her keynote presented some context to the case of Bradfield, why Australia is building a new city and the aim to enhance social equity and inclusion across Greater Sydney. In the second part she focused on how she and her team are using smart technology to help achieve these objectives. The third part of her speech provided commentary on the role AI could play, perhaps should play and certainly should not play in planning new cities and community infrastructure.  In her current role she and her team are pushing AIs design capability even further to help ideate what our cities could deliver with unique building design. Equally they are testing the practical function and Their masterplans and what outcomes they could achieve.

Sarah Hill has no doubt that AI will bring a transformative force – but the question is whether we can harness this force for good and ultimately whether the change will have positive or negative consequences to social inclusion. According to her and other discussants at the panel and in the audience, this is one of many topics concerning AI that is of heated debate. Indeed, there are some extreme theories about the potential negative effects to humanity as a result of AI. Also relevant, by AIs own admission, if its algorithms are written by homogenous teams that do not represent the mix of communities they serve, decision bias can in fact be exacerbated to disastrous effect. For example, when bias facial recognition systems are used to determine access to public spaces, airports or schools or when it is used for surveillance.

Digital literacy is also a matter of debate in the context of AI and social inclusion. As she and her team identified during our research in Greater Sydney, the digital divide is a real and present issue, that was exacerbated by the ability of some families to afford technology during Covid19 and for older or more marginalized communities to feel comfortable using it.

Despite their best intentions with designing Bradfield with social inclusion as a foundational principle, she would not be surprised if this divide between the early and later adopters of this technology grows before it improves owing to the sheer rate of change.

There are also notable debates about ownership and control of big data, let alone who writes the algorithms that feed AI. The communications centre in Bradfield is live example of this honeypot of data. The potential to work with the centre to design and run this facility secured significant interest from global firms wanting to use it to showcase their new technology and systems and get a stronghold in the market.

And finally, the predicative capability of AI and its ability to iterate its thinking and thereby decision making independently is both a positive if you think about applications to managing carbon and energy loads or the effective operation of our cities, but also a likely terrifying negative. Particularly given the inability for humans now to track, let alone keep up with how AI derived solutions or decisions.

In wrapping up, Sarah Hill congratulated ISOCARP for putting the Planning and AI agenda as a priority for the professionals and decision makers in the room today.

My own takeaway as moderator of the session is that the new wave of innovation around AI is very dynamic and difficult to predict in detail. And because AI is expected to impact all spheres of life we need a broader discussion, encompassing many more stakeholders than just the most powerful tech leaders, on what we can achieve with these new tools and what we want from them. We'll need capacity building to increase AI literacy and then we’ll need a lot of interface management between the development of AI applications, the different user and affected stakeholder groups. AI is already entering the stage with the intention to stay. It’s up to us to assign to AI its role and function e.g. in planning and by that we also decide if AI applications remain just technical tools under our full control, turn into co-pilots influencing our perception and decision-making, or if we even allow AI to take full control over us. AI has no ethics on its own. The ethical use of AI will depend on how we use AI and how we program our objectives and ethical standards into learning machines.

T H E   P A N E L

Sarah Hill, Sunil Dubey and, on the right, the two together with ISOCARP President Elizabeth Belpaire, Ulrich Graute and Congress Director Eric Huybrecht



Picture: Speakers, Panelists, Moderator and the Delegation from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Programme of the Urban Conversation on 11 October 2024 in Siena, Italy

11 October 2024
Time:    10:45 - 13:15
Room:  Accademie. Fisiocritici

Session Organizers   

            Dr Ulrich Graute, Chair of the ISOCARP Scientific Committee, Berlin

            Dr Sunil Dubey, The UNSW Cities Institute, Sydney.

1.    Introduction to the theme of the session by Ulrich Graute

2.    The making of inclusive, prosperous and sustainable cities and the new challenges and opportunities provided

       by AI and Data

2.1 The case of Australia 

-      Key note by Dr Sarah Hill, CEO Greater Sydney Commission and Western Parkland City Authority (New       

       South Wales Govt, former) ‘Planning New Cities and Inclusive economic development’

2.2  -Western Sydney Aerotropolis – Australia’s 22nd Century City Making through Community, Creativity and               Innovation.

       - The case of Saudi Arabia - Progress, Peace & Prosperity 2030 – How Saudi Cities are transforming using               data and power of Ai.     

       Presentation by Dr Sunil Dubey

4.    Roundtable moderated by Ulrich Graute

 Panellists:

Sarah Hill, Executive Project Director (Public Investment Fund PIF, Saudi Arabia)

Eric Huybrecht, Congress Director ISOCARP’s 60^th WPC, Institute Paris   

Region

Elisabeth Belpaire, ISOCARP President

 Ulrich Graute, Chair of ISOCARP Scientific Committee

 Sunil Dubey, Smart Cities thought leader.

Thanks to the Congress team for the organization, to Dr Sunil Dubey for co-organizing the session with me and thanks to Siena for the excellent hospitality.