This article explores the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) and platform technologies on the concept of human agency in the context of the transformation of the public administration system. The aim was to analyse the risks of delegating decision-making to algorithms and to search for ways to preserve human subjectivity in the new technological conditions. The foundation was the idea of “responsible research and innovation” and the concept of “technological mediation”. The use of AI in public administration creates risks of “algorithmic governance” and loss of human control. The opacity of AI systems calls into question the principles of democratic accountability. In response, regulatory and ethical principles for the use of AI are being developed, but doubts remain about the system’s readiness to operate under conditions of opacity. The article analysed the impact of AI and platforms on key dimensions of human agency. It explored the risks of narrowing the space for individual initiative and self-regulation due to passive reliance on the advice of AI assistants. At the same time, the potential of AI in structuring human self-reflection by identifying unconscious emotional and behavioral patterns was noted. These effects were illustrated using the hypothetical integration of AI capabilities into the work of the Ukrainian state-owned platform “Diia” under the “government as a platform” model. The analysis demonstrates that while personalised AI assistants may expand civic engagement by easing administrative burdens, they can also confine citizens’ choices by actively “nudging” them toward specific behaviors. The danger of technocratic distortion of the democratic process was noted in the case of large-scale delegation of aspects of political participation to algorithmic systems. Finally, the article concluded that AI development, combined with decentralised platform solutions, may profoundly affect multiple dimensions of human agency. Whether these changes expand or limit personal autonomy largely depends on the values and objectives that developers embed in the system’s architecture. An orientation towards the public good and the development of human potential can make such solutions emancipatory technologies. The practical value of this study lies in the development of recommendations for adapting the public governance system to the challenges posed by the implementation of artificial intelligence and platform technologies, with a focus on preserving human agency, democratic accountability, and ethical decision-making
public administration; public policy; artificial intelligence; platforms, human agency; digital ethics; digital humanism; human-centeredness; self-regulation; personalisation
Received 13.12.2024, Revised 10.03.2025, Accepted 28.05.2025
Retrieved from Volume 18, No. 1, 2025
https://doi.org/10.56318/dg/1.2025.5
Pages 5-17
[1] Adamson, J., Ali, S., Santhouse, A., Wessely, S., & Chalder, T. (2020). Cognitive behavioural therapy for chronic fatigue and chronic fatigue syndrome: Outcomes from a specialist clinic in the UK. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 113(10), 394-402. doi: 10.1177/0141076820951545.
[2] Angwin, J., Larson, J., Mattu, S., & Kirchner, L. (2016). Machine Bias. Retrieved from https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing.
[3] Barrinha, A., & Christou, G. (2022). Speaking sovereignty: The EU in the cyber domain. European Security, 31(3), 356-376. doi: 10.1080/09662839.2022.2102895.
[4] Bitbon System (2021). Bitbon system: Social network of economic relations. Retrieved from https://www.bitbon.space/ua.
[5] Blancato, F.G., & Carr, M. (2024). The trust deficit. EU bargaining for access and control over cloud infrastructures. Journal of European Public Policy, 1-32. doi: 10.1080/13501763.2024.2441418.
[6] Burrell, J. (2016). How the machine “thinks”: Understanding opacity in machine learning algorithms. Big Data & Society, 3(1). doi: 10.1177/2053951715622512.
[7] Carapinha, J.L., Botes, D., & Carapinha, R. (2024). Balancing innovation and ethics in AI governance for health technology assessment. Journal of Medical Economics, 27(1), 754-757. doi: 10.1080/13696998.2024.2352821.
[8] Centaur AI Institute. (2024). Neuro-Symbolic AI: Toward safer and smarter AI. Retrieved from https://centaur-ai.github.io/.
[9] De la Roche, M. (2024). AI regulations and blockchain: Bridging ethics and governance (policy recommendations). Retrieved from https://inatba.org/policy/ai-regulation-and-blockchain-bridging-ethics-and-governance/.
[10] Dunayev, I., Byelova, L., Kud, A., & Rodchenko, V. (2023a). Implementing the “government as a platform” concept: The assessment method and an optimal human-centered structure to address technological challenge. Eastern-European Journal of Enterprise Technologies, 2(13(122)), 6-16. /doi: 10.15587/1729-4061.2023.275613.
[11] Dunayev, I., Gavkalova, N., & Kud, A. (2023b). Designing a platform-based model of civic participation within the smart-city concept for post-war Ukrainian cities. Eastern-European Journal of Enterprise Technologies, 4(13(124)), 46-56. doi: 10.15587/1729-4061.2023.285448.
[12] Floridi, L. (2014). The 4th revolution: How the infosphere is reshaping human reality. Oxford University Press.
[13] Floridi, L. et al. (2018). AI4People-an ethical framework for a good AI society: Opportunities, risks, principles, and recommendations. Minds and Machines, 28(4), 689-707. doi: /10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5
[14] GREAT. (2022). Guidelines for responsible research and innovation. Retrieved from https://www.great-project.eu/Deliverables10
[15] Gunkel, D.J. (2020). Perspectives on ethics of AI: Philosophy. In M.D. Dubber, F. Pasquale & S. Das (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of ethics of AI (pp. 539-553). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[16] Habermas, J., & McCarthy, T. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Reason and the rationalisation of society (Vol.1). Boston: Beacon Press.
[17] Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019). The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1, 389-399. doi: 10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2.
[18] Kissinger, H., Schmidt, E., & Huttenlocher, D. (2023). The age of AI and our human future. Boston: Little, Brown & Company.
[19] Kissinger, H.A., Schmidt, E., & Mundie, C. (2024). genesis: artificial intelligence, hope, and the human spirit. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
[20] Kud, A.A. (2021). Decentralized information platforms in public governance: Reconstruction of the modern democracy or comfort blinding? International Journal of Public Administration, 46(3), 195-221. doi: 10.1080/01900692.2021.1993905.
[21] Kud, A.A. (2024). The mechanism of tokenisation of currency values for modernisation of a national infrastructure of financial settlements. Pressing Problems of Public Administration, 1(64), 56-81. doi: 10.26565/1684-8489-2024-1-04.
[22] Kuziemski, M., & Misuraca, G. (2020). AI governance in the public sector: Three tales from the frontiers of automated decision-making in democratic settings. Telecommunications Policy, 44(6), article number 101976. doi: 10.1016/j.telpol.2020.101976.
[23] Kvitka, S., Novichenko, N., & Bardakh, O. (2021). Artificial intelligence in municipal governance: Development vectors. Public Administration Aspects, 9(4), 85-94. doi: 10.15421/152140.
[24] OECD. (2019). Artificial Intelligence in society. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1787/eedfee77-en.
[25] OECD. (2021). Good practice principles for data ethics in the public sector. Retrieved from http://surl.li/lhhtbw.
[26] Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: How the new personalized web is changing what we read and how we think. New York: Penguin Books.
[27] Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
[28] Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council No. COM(2021)206final “Laying down Harmonised Rules on Artificial Intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) and Amending Certain Union Legislative Acts”. (2021, April). Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1623335154975&uri=CELEX%3A52021PC0206.
[29] Rahwan, I. et al. (2019). Machine behaviour. Nature, 568, 477-486. doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1138-y.
[30] Scholta, H., Mertens, W., Kowalkiewicz, M., & Becker, J. (2019). From one-stop shop to no-stop shop: An e-government stage model. Government Information Quarterly, 36(1), 11-26. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2018.11.010.
[31] Shahin, J. (2024). Dancing to the same tune? EU and US approaches to standards setting in the global digital sector. Journal of European Integration, 46(7), 1111-1131. doi: 10.1080/07036337.2024.2398430.
[32] Sun, T., & Medaglia, R. (2019). Mapping the challenges of artificial intelligence in the public sector: Evidence from public healthcare. Government Information Quarterly, 36(2), 368-383. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2018.09.008.
[33] Topol, E.J. (2019). High-performance medicine: The convergence of human and artificial intelligence. Nature Medicine, 25, 44-56. doi: 10.1038/s41591-018-0300-7.
[24] Van Rijmenam, M., & Logue, D. (2020). Revising the “science of the organisation”: Theorising AI agency and actorhood. Innovation, 23(1), 127-144. doi: 10.1080/14479338.2020.1816833.
[35] Veale, M., Van Kleek, M., & Binns, R. (2018). Fairness and accountability design needs for algorithmic support in high-stakes public sector decision-making. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (paper No. 440, pp. 1-14). Montreal: ACM. doi: 10.1145/3173574.3174014.
[36] Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359(6380), 1146-1151. doi: 10.1126/science.aap9559.
[37] Willson, M. (2016). Algorithms (and the) everyday. Information, Communication & Society, 20(1), 137-150. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2016.1200645.
[38] Wirtz, B. W., Weyerer, J. C., & Geyer, C. (2018). Artificial intelligence and the public sector – applications and challenges. International Journal of Public Administration, 42(7), 596-615. doi: 10.1080/01900692.2018.1498103.
[39] Xu, J., Lee, T., & Goggin, G. (2024). AI governance in Asia: Policies, praxis and approaches. Communication Research and Practice, 10(3), 275-287. doi: 10.1080/22041451.2024.2391204.