From Execution to Evaluation-And Maybe Leadership
Artificial intelligence has moved from task runner to critic, and is edging into planner. As systems take on deeper reasoning, a hard question lands on the table: what comes after assessment? The next frontier looks like leadership-project managers, coordinators, CEOs, even heads of state.
This article maps the upside (efficiency, data-first policy, reduced bias) and the risks (algorithmic skew, unchecked surveillance, loss of accountability). The punchline isn't AI replacing people. It's a hybrid: AI that brainstorms, plans, and executes alongside decentralized human governance that sets goals and guardrails.
AI in Science: From Assistant to Co-Author and Assessor
Research has already crossed the line from "helpful tools" to systems that critique and plan. Protein structure and design took a leap with learning-based models, and automated labs now test molecules at scale with human-in-the-loop oversight. Competitions among protein designers show how far generative and reasoning models can go when paired with high-throughput experiments.
One timely experiment: events featuring papers and peer review produced by AI agents. These "sandbox" trials let the community benchmark AI-led science against human baselines, stress-test methods, and surface failure modes early.
Evaluation is getting more formal too. Platforms like QED break manuscripts into claims, trace the logic, and flag weak links. It's not flawless, but it points to a future where triage, critique, and consistency checks are handled at machine speed-freeing reviewers to focus on novelty and big-picture judgment. See the project page at qedscience.com.
Hard Lessons Matter
Meta's Galactica collapsed because it produced plausible nonsense with high confidence. That failure still teaches the right lesson: keep validation, provenance, and human oversight close to the core, especially as trust rises.
From "Coder Fellow" to Manager
AI-assisted coding is standard now: code generation, bug fixing, test writing, and natural-language explanations. The throughput gains are obvious to anyone shipping software week to week.
The pattern doesn't stop at code. In project work, AI can forecast blockers, auto-generate schedules from historical data, and keep status current without manual chasing. Some forecasts suggest a large share of data collection, tracking, and reporting in project management could be automated by 2030. That frees managers to set strategy, handle trade-offs, and align stakeholders-work that benefits from human judgment.
Could AI Govern?
In public policy, AI could process huge datasets, test scenarios, and surface options with quantified trade-offs. Some nations already apply AI chat interfaces for citizen services, predictive systems for natural hazards, and digital infrastructure that shortens service times.
The flip side is serious. Algorithmic bias can lock in past unfairness. One well-known case: a major bank's model gave women lower credit limits than men with similar finances. Black-box reasoning reduces transparency. At scale, surveillance creep is a real threat. And when an automated decision harms someone, who answers for it?
A Realistic Path: Decentralized Human-AI Councils
We have a working template for distributed leadership. Switzerland's seven-member Federal Council shares executive duties, with a rotating presidency that limits concentration of power. The setup prioritizes consensus and stability; details are public at the Swiss Federal Council.
Translate that idea to human-AI governance. Picture a council of domain experts, paired with a suite of AI "governors" specialized in health, infrastructure, finance, and climate. Humans set objectives, constraints, and ethics. AI systems propose plans, quantify trade-offs, execute workflows, and report back with evidence and uncertainty.
Blockchains add another piece. DAOs encode rules in smart contracts, enabling transparent proposals, votes, and treasury actions without a single authority. While early and imperfect, this structure spreads decision rights and makes process auditable-useful features if AI is part of the loop.
Guardrails That Make This Safe-and Useful
- Transparency by default: publish data sources, assumptions, and uncertainty for every major recommendation.
- Contestability: any affected group can trigger review, with documented reasoning for overrides.
- Human-in-the-loop checkpoints: clear hold points for ethical review, high-impact trade-offs, and emergency stops.
- Bias testing as a routine: run fairness audits on datasets, features, and outcomes before deployment and on a schedule.
- Privacy first: strict data minimization, differential privacy where feasible, and clear retention windows.
- Plural models: use diverse architectures and training sets; require consensus or weighted voting to reduce shared failure modes.
- Simulation and "red team" trials: stress-test policies in agent-based or system-dynamics models before touching real people.
- Provenance and audit trails: cryptographic logs for inputs, code versions, prompts, and decisions to enable traceable accountability.
- Clear liability: predefined responsibility for model owners, operators, and supervising agencies.
What Researchers Can Do This Year
- Set up an AI review tier: use claim extraction and logic mapping for manuscript screening, then route edge cases to senior reviewers.
- Run "AI PM" pilots: let an AI agent own scheduling, dependency tracking, and weekly updates on one low-risk project; measure cycle time and defect rates.
- Adopt two-model checks: require agreement between different models (or a model and a rules engine) for high-stakes calls.
- Bias hygiene: write a short, living doc that lists sensitive attributes, known skews, and mitigation plans for each dataset.
- Pre-mortems: before deployment, write the failure headline you'd hate to read; design tests to make that headline less likely.
- Skills plan: upskill staff on prompt design, agent workflows, and evaluation methods. A curated starting point: AI courses by job role.
Open Questions Worth Studying
- Legitimacy: what counts as consent for AI participation in public decisions?
- Metrics: which outcomes matter most-growth, health, equity, resilience-and who sets the weights?
- Constitutions for AI: what binding rules and red lines should sit above any model or agent?
- Model drift: how do we detect value drift in long-running agents and reset safely?
- Compute budgets: who allocates resources across competing social goals?
Closing Thought
AI leadership will happen in pockets before it shows up in policy. If we keep ethics, transparency, and accountability close, we get faster progress without losing human judgment. If we don't, we trade speed for trust-and that trade rarely ends well.
Your membership also unlocks:
