{"id":154,"date":"2026-09-20T00:53:31","date_gmt":"2026-09-19T22:53:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/tt26.thinktwice.today\/?page_id=154"},"modified":"2026-10-16T01:36:37","modified_gmt":"2026-10-15T23:36:37","slug":"schedule","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/tt26.thinktwice.today\/?page_id=154","title":{"rendered":"Programme"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Morning Program: Think Twice Conference<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
Ballroom A<\/div>\n
Title<\/div>\n
Speaker<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n
09:00\u201309:30<\/div>\n
Greetings & Opening Remarks<\/div>\n
Keith Goldstein<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n
09:30\u201310:00<\/div>\n
Death of Traits \u2013 Upstream AI Governance for a Diverse Future<\/div>\n
Helen Lalthanpari<\/div>\n
Abstract<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n
10:00\u201310:30<\/div>\n
From Plasters to Policy: What Should AI in Public Services Actually Be For?<\/div>\n
Jonatan Tensetti<\/div>\n
Abstract<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n
10:30\u201311:00<\/div>\n
Coffee Break<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n
11:00\u201311:30<\/div>\n
Fake Crowds, Real Money: AI, Monetisation, and the Simulation of Public Opinion<\/div>\n
Belen Luna Sanz<\/div>\n
Abstract<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n
11:30\u201312:00<\/div>\n
Who Can Say No? Preserving Human Authority in Europe\u2019s AI Future<\/div>\n
John A. Kwarsick<\/div>\n
Abstract<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n
12:00\u201313:50<\/div>\n
Lunch \/ No Programme<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n
13:50\u201314:20<\/div>\n
AI & Democracy<\/div>\n
Panel<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n
14:30\u201315:00<\/div>\n
AI, Data & Identity<\/div>\n
Panel<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n
15:00\u201315:30<\/div>\n
Closing Think Twice 2026<\/div>\n
Thomas Kranz<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n
\n
Ballroom C<\/div>\n
Title<\/div>\n
Speaker<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n
09:30\u201310:00<\/div>\n
AI Tools, Not Gods: Why AI Hype Threatens Global Governance\u2014and How to Fix It<\/div>\n
Caroline De Cock<\/div>\n
Abstract<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n
10:00\u201310:30<\/div>\n
AI Laws, Chatbots, and The Future of Expression<\/div>\n
Jordi Calvet-Bademunt<\/div>\n
Abstract<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n
10:30\u201311:00<\/div>\n
Coffee Break<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n
11:00\u201311:30<\/div>\n
Human-Centric AI Governance: The Missing Layer in Responsible AI Adoption<\/div>\n
Narmadha Kamal<\/div>\n
Abstract<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n
11:30\u201312:00<\/div>\n
Digital Integrity, Decentralized Economy, Democratic Confederalism: Three Axes Against the Surveillance State of AI<\/div>\n
Alexis Roussel<\/div>\n
Abstract<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n
12:00\u201312:30<\/div>\n
Democracies in the age of AI: its impact on the online information<\/div>\n
Sebastian Becker Castellaro<\/div>\n
Abstract<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n

Afternoon Program: Digital Fairness Act<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
Digital Fairness Act<\/div>\n
Program<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
15:45\u201318:30<\/div>\n

\nFair Play in the Digital Fairness Act<\/a><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
18:30\u201320:30<\/div>\n
Stop Killing Games Gala Reception<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n
\n
\n

\u00d7<\/a><\/p>\n

11:45-12:15<\/div>\n

Digital Integrity, Decentralized Economy, Democratic Confederalism: Three Axes Against the Surveillance State of AI<\/h2>\n
Alexis Roussel<\/div>\n

Abstract<\/h3>\n

AI governance is framed as a regulatory question. It is also a constitutional one. The systems that train, host and deploy AI operate inside the architecture of surveillance capitalism. They feed on personal data treated as raw material, they centralize compute and decision-making, and they make public administrations dependent on foreign hyperscalers. Regulation alone cannot repair what this architecture erodes.<\/p>\n

We propose another starting point. Personal data are not a commodity. They are constitutive elements of the person, like organs of the body, with inalienable rights attached. From this premise follows a new fundamental right anchored in the right to life: the right to digital integrity. Six operational components: protection against non-consensual processing, security in the digital space, the right to an offline life, the right to be forgotten, the right not to be measured, analyzed or surveilled, the right not to be judged by a machine. Geneva and Neuch\u00e2tel Cantons have enshrined it in their constitutions, with massive popular majorities. Europe can follow.<\/p>\n

Digital integrity does not stand alone. It needs an economic and political infrastructure. We present three axes that work together. The right itself, with concrete legal consequences for AI: data minimization, anonymity by default, refusal of mass profiling, end-to-end encryption as a public good. Second, a decentralized network economy built on open protocols that enable triple-entry accounting. Third, democratic confederalism with strict subsidiarity, giving local communities the power to set their own rules.<\/p>\n

Together, these three axes form a viable alternative to the digital dystopia. They are not utopia. They are being built by communities, entrepreneurs and constitutional drafters. AI governance can reinforce surveillance, or join this construction. We argue for the second.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n

\n
\n

\u00d7<\/a><\/p>\n

09:30\u201310:00<\/div>\n

Presentation title TBC<\/h2>\n
Caroline De Cock<\/div>\n

Abstract<\/h3>\n

Governments across the world are now deploying AI to automate services, support decisions, and manage public resources. Yet the frameworks guiding these choices are too often built not on evidence, but on myth. This talk, based on the book AI Tools, Not Gods (BTF Press, 2026), argues that before we can govern AI well, we must first confront the powerful stories that govern us.
\nAI discourse is currently shaped by four interlocking mythologies. The Magic myth anthropomorphises AI, cloaking it in wonder to deflect accountability. The Madness myth oscillates between gold-rush hype and paralyzing moral panic, producing governance whiplash. The Heaven myth frames AI as a salvation engine, encouraging democratic abdication in favour of tech prophets. The Sin myth casts the algorithm as a digital scapegoat, letting the human decision-makers who design, deploy, and profit from these systems off the hook.
\nEach myth generates what the book calls “policy hallucinations”: laws that govern shadows while real harms grow. Billions are wasted legislating for science-fiction scenarios. Concrete dangers such as biased public systems, opaque automated decisions, and concentrated power are systematically misdiagnosed.
\nThe talk offers a practical antidote: a technology-neutral governance blueprint grounded in three principles: Accountability, Proportionality, and Durability. Treating AI as a product (with clear liability), governance as a public health challenge (with risk-based regulation), and regulation as principles-based law (capable of outlasting any particular technology) can replace myth-driven policy with democratic realism.
\nFor a conference exploring AI’s impact on governance and digital freedom, this presentation makes the case that the most urgent reform is not technical. It is epistemic. We must stop governing by metaphor and start governing by evidence, before the myths govern us.\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n

\n
\n

\u00d7<\/a><\/p>\n

09:45\u201310:15<\/div>\n

From Plasters to Policy: What Should AI in Public Services Actually Be For?<\/h2>\n
Jonatan Tensetti<\/div>\n

Abstract<\/h3>\n

Across Europe, welfare systems face an uncomfortable future with fewer
\nworkers, growing needs and increasing demands for documentation,
\ntransparency and accountability.<\/p>\n

Consider a school nurse treating a child\u2019s scraped knee. The bandage may
\ntake a minute whilst documenting it can take considerably longer.
\nThe documentation matters, accountability should not disappear. AI can
\nreduce the friction, for example by turning a short spoken note into a
\nmedical-record draft for the nurse to review.<\/p>\n

The important question, however, is not how many minutes AI saves. It is
\nwhat those minutes are used for afterwards.<\/p>\n

If every efficiency gain simply creates room for more administration,
\npublic services become faster without necessarily becoming better.
\nAnd if governments do not decide what AI is for, that purpose will
\nincreasingly be shaped by procurement, vendors and whatever outcomes are
\neasiest to measure.<\/p>\n

This talk argues for a clearer why<\/em>. I would like to see a future
\nwhere AI returns time, attention and knowledge to the public mission while
\npreserving accountability and human judgement.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n

\n
\n

\u00d7<\/a><\/p>\n

10:15\u201310:45<\/div>\n

Presentation title TBC<\/h2>\n
Jordi Calvet-Bademunt<\/div>\n

Abstract<\/h3>\n

Generative AI increasingly shapes how we access information and create content. Despite that, there is little agreement on how its outputs should be governed. Laws are often vague, corporate practices opaque, and governments pull in different directions.
\nThis session presents findings from a two-year global research project led by The Future of Free Speech at Vanderbilt University, conducted with a team of fifteen legal, policy, and technical experts. The project offers concrete evidence on how governments and companies govern AI-generated speech. The session explores whether vague provisions in the EU AI Act and Digital Services Act risk restricting lawful speech; how “culture wars\u201d are influencing AI policy in the US; and how leading AI models actually handle speech in this geopolitical environment, based on empirical tests.
\nThe talk proposes a framework grounded in international human rights law, which builds on the tests of legality, legitimacy, and necessity. Policymakers, companies, and researchers can use it to evaluate AI governance and promote laws and policies that protect freedom of expression while addressing genuine harms.\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n

\n
\n

\u00d7<\/a><\/p>\n

10:30\u201311:00<\/div>\n

Presentation title TBC<\/h2>\n
Bruno Adam Wolf<\/div>\n

Abstract<\/h3>\n

Abstract coming soon.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n

\n
\n

\u00d7<\/a><\/p>\n

11:00\u201311:30<\/div>\n

Human-Centric AI Governance: The Missing Layer in Responsible AI Adoption<\/h2>\n
Narmadha Kamal<\/div>\n

Abstract<\/h3>\n

As AI governance becomes a boardroom priority, many organizations assume
\nthat policies, principles, and oversight structures are enough to ensure
\nresponsible adoption. Yet governance only works when it is understood and
\nenacted at the frontline, where employees make daily decisions, interpret
\nguidance, and interact with AI-enabled systems.<\/p>\n

Too often, responsible AI remains a leadership conversation while
\nground-level employees are left unclear about the purpose, expectations,
\nand practical implications of the policy.<\/p>\n

This talk argues that the real challenge in AI governance is not only
\nwhether organizations have rules, but whether people across the
\norganization can understand, trust, and apply them. Moving from fear to
\nfluency requires more than communication; it requires readiness.<\/p>\n

Drawing on doctoral research, the presentation argues that organizations
\nshould treat AI readiness as a governance issue rather than a
\nchange-management afterthought. The proposed dimensions include
\npsychological safety, intercultural contextualisation, regulatory
\ncompliance awareness, skill confidence, change resilience and leadership
\nAI readiness.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n

\n
\n

\u00d7<\/a><\/p>\n

11:15\u201311:45<\/div>\n

Fake Crowds, Real Money: AI, Monetisation, and the Simulation of Public Opinion<\/h2>\n
Belen Luna Sanz<\/div>\n

Abstract<\/h3>\n

Generative AI has made it cheap to simulate public opinion at scale. Political actors, commercial entities, and malicious networks can now produce massive volumes of text, images, and video that convincingly imitate human language, emotion, and engagement, making authentic participation increasingly hard to distinguish from coordinated manipulation.<\/p>\n

Crucially, this is now a business model. Platform monetisation rewards visibility and virality, not accuracy or authenticity, so AI-generated content is deployed to maximise clicks, ad revenue, and algorithmic reach, regardless of societal cost. The result: public debates artificially amplified, suppressed, or distorted; perceptions of public opinion manufactured; and trust in democratic participation steadily eroded.<\/p>\n

This session explores how we got here and why the response requires regulating monetisation systems and platform incentives, not just the content itself.\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n

\n
\n

\u00d7<\/a><\/p>\n

9:45-10:15<\/div>\n

Death of Traits – Upstream AI Governance for a Diverse Future<\/h2>\n
Helen Lalthanpari<\/div>\n

Abstract<\/h3>\n

This conference asks who controls the data behind AI. This talk asks an earlier question: who decides what counts as data at all?
\nToday’s leading AI models learn mostly from English\u2011language content already online. Knowledge that was never digitised \u2014 such as customary law, community dispute resolution and local ecological knowledge \u2014 never reaches them. Our governance tools cannot see this gap: they test what AI produces, not what was missing from the start. This talk calls the result the Death of Traits.<\/p>\n

Drawing on the EU AI Act, the talk sets out three practical answers: public documentation of training\u2011data choices, a community\u2011governed data fund, and cooperation between countries of the Global South. It also poses a hard question for open\u2011knowledge advocates: is open always fair?<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n

\n
\n

\u00d7<\/a><\/p>\n

11:45\u201312:15<\/div>\n

Presentation title TBC<\/h2>\n
Sahaj Vaidya<\/div>\n

Abstract<\/h3>\n

Abstract coming soon.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n

\n
\n

\u00d7<\/a><\/p>\n

13:15\u201313:45<\/div>\n

Democracies in the Age of AI: AI’s Impact in Online Information<\/h2>\n
Sebastian Becker Castellaro<\/div>\n

Abstract<\/h3>\n

The presentation seeks to establish a connection between the Global State
\nof Democracy and the role of AI in shaping the online information
\nenvironment.<\/p>\n

It will examine the global state of democracy and its decline,
\nparticularly in areas such as freedom of the press and freedom of
\nexpression.<\/p>\n

It will then explore the role of social media platforms, the attention
\neconomy, and their embedded AI systems in disseminating online
\ndisinformation worldwide, including AI-generated content, algorithmic
\nrecommender systems and online advertising.<\/p>\n

The presentation will also consider the geopolitical agenda of Big Tech
\ncompanies and documented cases where online platforms amplify
\nradicalisation. It concludes with recommendations for political parties
\nand policymakers navigating the challenges posed by AI, disinformation
\nand their impact on democracy.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n

\n
\n

\u00d7<\/a><\/p>\n

14:00\u201314:30<\/div>\n

Who Can Say No? Preserving Human Authority in Europe\u2019s AI Future<\/h2>\n
John A. Kwarsick<\/div>\n

Abstract<\/h3>\n

An AI system recommends denying someone a public benefit. A human
\napproves it. But did that person have the evidence, time and authority
\nto challenge the recommendation\u2014and can the affected person get a
\nmeaningful review?<\/p>\n

This session examines the gap between placing a human in a workflow and
\ngiving that person meaningful authority. Building on the EU AI Act\u2019s
\nhuman oversight provisions for high-risk systems, it asks how oversight
\ncan be tested under the pressures of everyday public administration.<\/p>\n

A hypothetical public-service case will show how unclear responsibility,
\noverloaded reviewers and ineffective intervention can undermine
\naccountability even when a human formally signs off.<\/p>\n

Drawing on the WHEEL research programme, the presentation introduces
\npractical questions for policymakers, public-service leaders and civil
\nsociety: Who may challenge the decision? What evidence can they access?
\nCan they pause or reverse the action? What remedy is available to the
\nperson affected?<\/p>\n

The aim is to support AI adoption that strengthens public services while
\npreserving democratic accountability and digital freedom.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Morning Program: Think Twice Conference Ballroom A Title Speaker 09:00\u201309:30 Greetings & Opening Remarks Keith Goldstein 09:30\u201310:00 Death of Traits \u2013 Upstream AI Governance for a Diverse Future Helen Lalthanpari Abstract 10:00\u201310:30 From Plasters to Policy: What Should AI in Public Services Actually Be For? Jonatan Tensetti Abstract 10:30\u201311:00 Coffee Break 11:00\u201311:30 Fake Crowds, Real Money: AI, Monetisation, and the Simulation of Public Opinion Belen Luna Sanz Abstract 11:30\u201312:00 Who Can Say No? Preserving Human Authority in Europe\u2019s AI Future John A. Kwarsick Abstract 12:00\u201313:50 Lunch \/ No Programme 13:50\u201314:20 AI & Democracy Panel 14:30\u201315:00 AI, Data & Identity Panel 15:00\u201315:30 Closing Think Twice 2026 Thomas Kranz Ballroom C Title […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-154","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/tt26.thinktwice.today\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/154","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/tt26.thinktwice.today\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/tt26.thinktwice.today\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tt26.thinktwice.today\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tt26.thinktwice.today\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=154"}],"version-history":[{"count":33,"href":"https:\/\/tt26.thinktwice.today\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/154\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":248,"href":"https:\/\/tt26.thinktwice.today\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/154\/revisions\/248"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/tt26.thinktwice.today\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=154"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tt26.thinktwice.today\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=154"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tt26.thinktwice.today\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=154"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}