Society and Democracy Panel
Artificial intelligence is changing the way we make decisions, access information and participate in collective life. Among the different thematic areas to which the SIpEIA 2026 Conference will be dedicated, the one on Society and Democracy opens a debate around several issues of extraordinary relevance for the public sphere.
A first issue concerns who truly controls AI. Today, the most powerful systems are in the hands of a few large companies and some States, creating an imbalance that risks concentrating decision making power far from citizens. But there is an alternative, imagining shared rules in which local communities, public institutions and civil society have a say in how these tools are designed and used. The idea is as simple as it is revolutionary, to make AI governance an open process, in which technical choices are not imposed from above but democratically negotiated, taking into account the real needs of people and territories. It is therefore a matter of rediscovering and revaluing the role of people in AI, to paraphrase the title of the Keynote Speech that Prof. Daniel Innerarity (AI and Democracy Chair, EUI) will deliver at the opening of the second day of the conference.
The second issue touches the heart of our life in society, how public opinion and collective debate are formed. AI based social media and search engines do not merely show us content, but decide which news we see, which voices we hear, which topics enter the public agenda. This can create “information bubbles” in which debate becomes impoverished. Yet AI could do the opposite, helping us discover different perspectives, making marginalized voices visible, expanding rather than narrowing the space of confrontation. This requires, however, that these systems be transparent and that they preserve space for dissent and plurality.
The third issue concerns our autonomy of thought. When we ask an AI system for advice on moral questions, when we accept without verification the information it provides, when we let algorithms decide what is true or right, we risk delegating our critical capacity. The point is not to reject these tools, but to design them, and use them, in ways that help us think better, not instead of us. An AI that acknowledges its own limits, that invites us to verify, that preserves the right to doubt and personal reflection can become a valuable ally for aware and informed citizens.
These three fronts outline a concrete possibility, to build AI systems that strengthen, rather than weaken, our ability to participate, decide together and keep alive the democratic breath of our societies.
Luca Tenneriello