Michael Henry Tessler et al. have published a research article titled, "AI Can Help Humans Find Common Ground in Democratic Deliberation", in Science (386, eadq2852, 2024).
In the abstract, they state:
"This research demonstrates the potential of AI to enhance collective deliberation by finding common ground among discussants with diverse views. The AI-mediated approach is time-efficient, fair, scalable, and outperforms human mediators on key dimensions. Rather than simply appealing to the majority, the Habermas Machine prominently incorporated dissenting voices into the group statements. AI-assisted deliberation is not without its risks, however; to ensure fair and inclusive debate, steps must be taken to ensure users are representative of the target population and are prepared to contribute in good faith. Under such conditions, AI may be leveraged to improve collective decision-making across various domains, from contract negotiations and conflict resolution to political discussions and citizens’ assemblies. The Habermas Machine offers a promising tool for finding agreement and promoting collective action in an increasingly divided world."
[* The human mediators that this AI system outperforms are not skilled professionals, but randomly selected participants.]
They also write: "We call this AI system the ‘Habermas Machine’ (HM), after the theorist Jürgen Habermas, who proposed that when rational people deliberate under idealized conditions, agreement will emerge in the public sphere," referencing J. Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume One: Reason and the Rationalization of Society (Beacon Press, 1981) [no page reference].
However, this book by Jürgen Habermas (published by Beacon Press in 1984) does not contain such a statement, nor does any other work by Habermas. It appears they may have named an AI system after a "theorist" whose work they have not directly consulted, drawing instead on general inspiration.
(1) Habermas does not believe that an "ideal discussion" on political issues will necessarily lead to agreement. Conflicts of interest or values will often need to be resolved by attempting to reach a fair compromise or through a majority decision. (And, of course, there are also conflicts where no solution can be found that is acceptable to all parties.)
[Habermas, A New Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere and Deliberative Politics, 2023, p. 68, 89-93; Habermas, Between Facts and Norms, 1996, pp. 165-167, 179].
(2) Habermas also argues that political agreement (or compromise) achievable in a deliberative democracy is not formed or reached in the public sphere but rather within political institutions—particularly in parliament. In the public sphere, outside these institutions, there is an exchange of opinions that is open, competitive, anarchistic, and ongoing: a continuous dissent. The deliberation in the public sphere results in a more or less informed pluralism of opinions.
[Habermas, A New Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere and Deliberative Politics, 2023, pp. 12-21, 70-71; Habermas, Between Facts and Norms, 1996, pp. 185f, 371f].
(3) In the book by Habermas, which the research article refers to, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume One, Habermas discusses a more philosophically technical concept of "discourse", distinguishing between three forms: theoretical discourses about the truth of propositions, practical discourses about the rightness of moral norms, and explicative discourses about the comprehensibility of symbolic expressions. Here, Habermas writes:
"Only in theoretical, practical, and explicative discourse do the participants have to start from the (often counterfactual) presupposition that the conditions for an ideal speech situation are satisfied to a sufficient degree of approximation. I shall speak of “discourse” only when the meaning of the problematic validity claim conceptually forces participants to suppose that a rationally motivated agreement could in principle be achieved, whereby the phrase “in principle” expresses the idealizing proviso: if only the argumentation could be conducted openly enough and continued long enough." (p. 42, my emphasis).
That said, it is an interesting study.
