Making intelligence public: Thresholds of policy, demand, and AI-readiness

Ibrahimov, Oktay (2025): Making intelligence public: Thresholds of policy, demand, and AI-readiness. Published in: Journal of Modern Technology and Engineering , Vol. 10, (22 December 2025): pp. 189-212.

Abstract

AI is emerging as a general-purpose infrastructure whose technical capabilities and governance institutions co-evolve. Societies are increasingly embedding algorithmic decision support across public administration, resource allocation, and production. This produces divergence in outcomes: effective integration yields compounding improvements in efficiency and productivity; ineffective integration risks persistent capability gaps. This paper develops the Societal Intelligence Thresholds (SINT) framework, a diagnostic model that explains when AI systems—and the AI-intensive digital infrastructures surrounding them—become functionally non-optional under sustained human governance. Building on companion studies of Cultural–Technological Synergy (CTS), which conceptualizes culture as adaptive coordination infrastructure, and AI as Public Infrastructure (AIPI), which defines measurable infrastructural maturity through the Infrastructure Status Index (ISI), this paper isolates the missing transitional layer: the Policy–Demand equilibrium, modulated by AI-readiness, that governs AI threshold dynamics. SINT formalizes how policy intent, societal demand, and AI-readiness interact to determine the pace of threshold crossing and the persistence of infrastructural dependence. Societies oscillate across four characteristic quadrants—Dormant Drift, Mandate Compliance, Grassroots Pull, and Convergent Momentum—each associated with distinct fragility patterns. Cultural architectures (heritage adaptability, cross-civilizational competence, innovation ethos, strategic determination) modulate these trajectories by influencing legitimacy, trust, and learning capacity. An interpretive application to Azerbaijan (2012–2025) illustrates pre-threshold alignment and AI-readiness asymmetries typical of transitional economies. The paper concludes with a typology of AI thresholds, a sequencing model for policy interventions, and a research agenda for comparative validation. Recognizing threshold mechanics clarifies that sustainable AI integration depends less on technology supply than on governing how societies build, coordinate, and institutionalize AI capacity—the collective ability to turn technological possibility into stable, legitimate infrastructure.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Societal Intelligence Thresholds; policy–demand dynamics; cultural drivers; AI and society; human–AI collaboration; Azerbaijan
• Subjects: O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O1 - Economic Development; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O1 - Economic Development > O15 - Human Resources ; Human Development ; Income Distribution ; Migration; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights > O33 - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences ; Diffusion Processes; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights > O35 - Social Innovation

References

Brundage, M., Avin, S., Clark, J., Toner, H., Eckersley, P., Garfinkel, B., ... & Anderljung, M. (2020). Toward Trustworthy AI Development: Mechanisms for Supporting Verifiable Claims. ArXiv:2004.07213.

Central Bank of the Republic of Azerbaijan. (2023–2025). Non-cash transaction statistics and digital payments reports. Baku.

Fjeld, J., Achten, N., Hilligoss, H., Nagy, A., & Srikumar, M. (2020). Principled artificial intelligence: Mapping consensus in ethical and rights-based approaches to principles for AI. SSRN Scholarly Paper No. 3518482. Social Science Research Network. https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3518482

Frischmann, B. M. (2012). Infrastructure: The Social Value of Shared Resources. Oxford University Press.

High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence (HLEG). (2019). Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI. European Commission.

Ibrahimov, O. (2025a). Cultural Technological Synergy in the Age of AI: A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Adaptive Modernization in Transitional Societies. UNEC Journal of Computer Science and Digital Technologies. Vol. 1, № 2, 2025, pp. 5-29. https://doi.org/10.30546/UNECCSDT.2025.02.1008

Ibrahimov, O. (2025b). AI as Public Infrastructure: A Critical Review of the Transition from Tool to Societal Necessity. Current Trends in Computing. Vol: 3, Issue: 2, 2025, pp. 40-61

Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2005). Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy: The Human Development Sequence. Cambridge University Press.

Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019). The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(9), 389–399. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2

Lundvall, B.-Å. (Ed.). (1992). National systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Pinter Publishers.

Mittelstadt, B. D. (2019). Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(11), 501–507. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0114-4

Morley, J., Floridi, L., Kinsey, L., & Elhalal, A. (2021). From what to how: An initial review of publicly available AI ethics tools, methods and research to translate principles into practices. Science and Engineering Ethics, 27(4). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00314-8

Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

OECD. (2019). OECD Principles on Artificial Intelligence. Paris: OECD Publishing.

OECD Observatory of Public Sector Innovation (OPSI). (2023). Innovation Policy Profiles. OECD.

Oxford Insights. (2024). Government AI Readiness Index 2024. Oxford Insights. https://www.oxfordinsights.com/ai-readiness-index

Pierson, P. (2000). Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review, 94(2), pp. 251–267.

Plantin, J.-C., Lagoze, C., Edwards, P. N., & Sandvig, C. (2018). Infrastructure studies meet platform studies in the age of Google and Facebook. New Media & Society, 20(1), 293–310.

Portulans Institute. (2024). Network Readiness Index 2024. https://networkreadinessindex.org/

Raji, I. D., Smart, A., White, R. N., Mitchell, M., Gebru, T., Hutchinson, B., ... & Denton, E. (2020). Closing the AI accountability gap: Defining an end-to-end framework for internal algorithmic auditing. FAccT '20: Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pp. 33–44.

Republic of Azerbaijan. (2025). Artificial Intelligence Strategy 2025–2028. Baku: Cabinet of Ministers.

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.

Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and Organizations: Ideas, Interests, and Identities (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.

SOCAR (State Oil Company of the Republic of Azerbaijan). (2024–2025). Smart Grid and Predictive Maintenance Project Reports. Baku.

Star, S. L., & Ruhleder, K. (1996). Steps toward an ecology of infrastructure: Design and access for large information spaces. Information Systems Research, 7(1), 111–134.

UNESCO. (2021). Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. Paris: UNESCO.

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA). (2024). E-Government Development Index (EGDI) 2024. New York: United Nations.

Veale, M., & Borgesius, F. Z. (2021). Demystifying the EU Artificial Intelligence Act. Computer Law Review International, 22(4), 97–112.

Weber, M. (2002). The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism (T. Parsons, Trans.). New York: Routledge. (Original work published 1905)

WIPO (2025). Global Innovation Index 2025. Geneva: World Intellectual Property Organization.

World Bank. (2023). GovTech Maturity Index and Digital Governance Brief. Washington, DC.