5. The Question of AI and Democracy: Four Categories of AI Governance (draft)

    Philosophy & Technology (forthcoming)

 

This paper examines the integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into democratic governance, focusing on the tension between democracy’s epistemic shortcomings—often manifested as voter ignorance—and AI’s capacity to improve decision-making. Building on the Input-Process-Output (IPO) model, the paper distinguishes AI applications into four categories based on the democratic source of their inputs (i.e., whether they originate from the citizenry) and the binding nature of their outputs (i.e., whether AI decisions carry legal or authoritative weight). Each category—democratic binding AI, undemocratic binding AI, democratic unbinding AI, and undemocratic unbinding AI—is then evaluated against core democratic elements: inclusive and equal participation, quality of decisions, deliberation, and the autonomy of citizens to set the political agenda. While some undemocratic binding AI risks centralizing power into the hands of a few, certain forms of AI, such as AI advisers, AI delegates with deliberative consent, and AI nudger, can enhance democratic processes by helping citizens overcome epistemic barriers, refine their political views, and participate more effectively in governance. The paper concludes that carefully implemented AI has the potential to enhance democratic governance while preserving its core ideals.

 

 

4. Democracy for Busy People by Kevin Elliott (Book review)
    Journal of Moral Philosophy (forthcoming)

 

 

3. Exploring a Role of Mini-Public in the Just War Theories (link)

    Syndicate Philosophy (2025)

 

 

2. Beyond Flexibility: The Case for Identity Plurality in Democratic Politics (article)

    Politikon: The IAPSS Journal of Political Science 58 (2024): 72-81

 

While Derrick Darby and Eduardo Martinez's "Making Identities Safe for Democracy" proposes flexible identities as a solution to reconciling social identity with democratic politics, this paper argues that flexibility alone is insufficient to address contemporary challenges to democracy. Through a critical examination of their work, I identify two significant limitations in their argument. First, their primary example of veteran status as a flexible identity is problematic, as empirical evidence shows it remains significantly aligned with Republican partisan identity and may be grounded in potentially restrictive forms of national identity. Second, their framework fails to adequately address how identity flexibility can counter the phenomenon of partisan sorting, where partisanship has evolved into a mega-identity that increasingly structures both political and social life. In response to these limitations, I argue that emphasizing the plurality of social identities, rather than merely their flexibility, offers a more effective approach to treating—rather than just preventing—the challenges that identity poses to democratic practice. While flexibility remains important, cultivating multiple, distinct social identities that coexist and interact within individuals and communities may better dilute the dominance of partisan mega-identities and foster more inclusive democratic engagement.

 

1. What is Epistemology? by Stephen Hetherington (Book review)

    Teaching Philosophy 43 (2020): 93-94