Five Men and an Algorithm: Estonia’s AI Governance Gap
Estonia has built a global reputation for digital governance; however, this reputation is now at risk due to the formation of a new AI advisory committee that reveals a striking absence of multidisciplinary expertise, ethical oversight, and diversity.
The Formation of the AI Advisory Committee
On January 27, the Estonian Prime Minister Kristen Michal announced the establishment of an AI advisory committee to guide government policy on artificial intelligence. The committee’s composition is concerning: it consists of five men, including three entrepreneurs, one venture capitalist, and one IT figure whose relevance peaked years ago. Alarmingly, none of the members have significant experience in building or researching AI systems, and not a single woman is included. Furthermore, there are no ethicists, sociologists, legal scholars, or representatives from vulnerable communities affected by this technology.
Risks of Poor Policymaking
This lack of diversity is not merely an oversight; it poses a serious risk to Estonia’s hard-won digital advantage. The management of public data, which is Estonia’s most valuable asset, could fall into the hands of a narrow group lacking the expertise to govern it responsibly. Ironically, one committee member, Sten Tamkivi, co-authored an article identifying the complex societal questions that demand ethical and multidisciplinary oversight.
Complex Societal Questions
In his writing about Estonia in 2030, Tamkivi outlines three scenarios regarding AI’s impact on the economy and social contract: the “super-efficiency paradox,” where automation decimates the tax base; the “10X elite paradox,” where a small group of AI-enabled workers dominates the economy; and the more optimistic “AI enlightenment,” where technology enhances productivity across society. These issues are not merely technical; they involve fundamental questions about taxation, inequality, and social stability.
Need for Robust Oversight
Public data requires robust ethical and legal oversight, necessitating experts who understand not only how to deploy AI for efficiency but also how to ensure fairness, protect privacy, and maintain human agency. The goal cannot simply be to “double Estonia’s output by 2035” without considering the implications of an ageing population and existing skills gaps in technological knowledge.
Global Standards in AI Governance
Countries that take AI governance seriously recognize that effective oversight necessitates multidisciplinary expertise. For example, the US National AI Advisory Committee includes representatives from academia, civil society, and industry, with a focus on civil rights and ethics. Similarly, Singapore’s Advisory Council on the Ethical Use of AI integrates technologists, consumer advocates, and legal experts to address these multifaceted issues.
The Importance of Diverse Perspectives
Effective AI governance must contend with complex systems, such as those used for computer vision that can aid in detecting child abuse or be weaponized for mass surveillance. It must address how algorithmic decision-making influences employment, social services, and access to healthcare. The pressing questions include: who benefits from increased efficiency? Who bears the risks? How can society prevent the “10X elite paradox” from materializing?
A Scandalous Oversight
The composition of Estonia’s AI advisory committee is, in almost any developed country, a scandal. The Prime Minister’s Office appears to prioritize speed and recognizable names over competence and legitimacy. This taxpayer-funded initiative concerning technology that will fundamentally reshape Estonia’s economy and social fabric cannot afford such a narrow approach.
Concluding Thoughts
Estonia possesses the necessary expertise—researchers, ethicists, legal scholars, and social scientists—who have been engaged in these discussions for years. The failure to include a diverse array of voices in this committee is troubling. The composition not only lacks genuine AI expertise but also reflects a disconnect from the very societal challenges that AI raises. In 2026, this oversight is not merely inadequate; it is embarrassing.
