With all the excitement around artificial intelligence (AI) and digital transformation, is it too early to assume that technology is the answer to all our problems?
And more importantly, are we so enamored with technology, especially AI, that we miss the social and human problems it can cause?
When Bite Biased: Debunking the Neutral AI Myth
adobe stock
This is a claim made by Meredith Broussard in her latest book, More Than a Glitch – Confronting Race, Gender and Capacity Bias in Tech.
The book is Cathy O’Neill’s Weapons of Math Disaster, Safiya Noble’s Algorithms of Oppression, and Broussard’s own artificial non-intelligence.
Broussard recently joined my podcast to discuss some of her ideas and advice for business leaders interested in working with AI and implementing it in their organizations.
At the heart of her discussion is the concept of “techno-chauvinism”. This is the belief that technology solutions will always outperform social or other ways of driving change.
What is Techno Chauvinism?
In his book, Broussard cites the example of the ‘stairlift’, which is often suggested by technicians and engineers as an innovation that can improve the lives of people with disabilities.
“Designers like to build things…because it’s cool. Let’s develop this novel solution.
“But if you ask people who actually use wheelchairs, they’ll usually say no. ‘Looks scary.'” “It’s not going to work.” It’s fine,’ he would say.
“Then I realized that there is a very simple solution that works very well. You don’t need to add any advanced computational techniques, just build the ramp.
“So let’s not over-engineer the solution until we make the world truly accessible.”
Broussard said this concept, and many others like it, are examples of “dongles for the disabled.” This is succinctly described in this blog post as an idea that appeals to our love, suggested by (usually) able-bodied engineers. It is a technological ‘quick fix’ to the complex, structural and social change that is sorely needed.
Broussard suggests that countering techno-chauvinistic thinking is often simply a matter of choosing the right tool for the job. However, we do not necessarily assume that this will be the most advanced technology or the most sophisticated data processing algorithms.
Mr Broussard told me: “We have this idea that somehow technology solutions are better than others, and this in itself is kind of a prejudice…sometimes the right tools are as simple as a book …it’s not a competition, it’s not inherently better than the other.”
mathematically and socially fair
Another interesting idea Broussard explores is the difference between mathematical fairness and social fairness. When we use computers to solve equality and fairness challenges, we are most often presented with mathematical solutions.
Short Description: “The story that seems to explain this concept is about cookies. When I was little, my brother and I often argued over who got the last cookie.”
Ask a computer to solve this simple but pressing problem, and there’s one obvious answer. Each child receives half a cookie.
“But in the real world, if you split a cookie in half, you get a big half and a small half. And then you fight over who has the bigger half.”
She suggests that the solution lies in socially constructed negotiations and compromises.
“So if I wanted my big half, I’d say you’d give me your big half, and I’d let you choose which TV show to watch after dinner.”
“Mathematically fair decisions are not the same as socially fair decisions … This explains why we run into problems when trying to use computers to make socially fair decisions.”
The result of this is that we should use computers to solve math-oriented problems and not over-rely on them for social issues.
AI and human work
A similar principle emerges when considering how computers are used in place of human workers. Broussard’s own profession as a writer and journalist is commonly thought to be threatened by the emergence of applications like his ChatGPT. After all, who needs an author when you can quickly and easily generate articles, essays, and even entire books from simple prompts?
However, as anyone who has tried to use ChatGPT to write a book or essay will readily recognize, the threat is somewhat exaggerated.
While AI-generated content was initially impressive, it still lacks many essential human qualities. Most important is the actual ability to generate new ideas and truly creative thoughts. This is because all it really does is regurgitate the language and ideas contained in the training data.
“If you’re in a position to replace workers with generative AI, you’re going to be in shock,” Broussard tells me.
“AI is mediocre. Plain text is definitely useful in many situations…and it seems incredibly useful and flexible…After using generative AI for a while, you quickly realize that One is that it’s kind of boring…it just benefits you. Doing the same thing over and over again…that’s not what you want to offer your customers.”
Her thinking aligns with my own belief that AI is not a substitute for creativity, but a tool to help humans enhance and better utilize their own creativity skills. .
Danger of AI
But one aspect of AI that Broussard is particularly concerned about is computer vision, specifically how AI treats people differently depending on their race, gender, and other factors.
“Facial recognition is biased based on skin tone,” she says.
“In general, light skin is more recognizable than dark skin, men are more recognizable than women, and transgender and nonbinary people are not recognized at all.”
This has created problems when AI-powered computer vision systems are being used for policing and facial recognition in public areas. In several cases, the use of this technology by police has been found to be illegal and unethical, leading to its ban in some jurisdictions.
“Facial recognition should never be used in policing,” Boursard said.
“Justice cannot be achieved if we continue to use powerful technology that is so underpowered that it disproportionately affects certain groups.”
What’s more important than fire?
“The AI is nifty, especially the generative AI, which is a lot of fun to play with, but it doesn’t change the whole world. It does change some things. It’s not the invention of fire.”
Broussard alludes to a comment several years ago by Google CEO Sundar Pichai, who described AI as “more profound than fire or electricity or anything we’ve done in the past.”
This is a refreshingly down-to-earth take on what I often hear myself, who works closely with companies that sell AI and whose reputations are built around the changes that AI can achieve.
Personally, my own experience and observations make me somewhat more excited and optimistic about this turnaround than Broussard himself. But that doesn’t mean I’m any alarmed or concerned about the downsides.
Broussard has been a key voice in the ongoing development of AI for organizations, associations and campaign groups such as the Algorithmic Justice League, EqualAI, and New York University’s Center for Critical Race and Digital Research. mentions activities.
Closing our conversation, she said to me: “My concern is that the conversation about AI doesn’t focus on the actual harm that real humans are experiencing … because, for example, putting biometric locks on people’s bodies If you’re trying to get into an apartment or office door, people with darker skin can’t get into an apartment or office as easily as others.
“That seems discriminatory and unnecessary. Why not use a key?”
you can click here To see a conversation with Meredith Broussard, associate professor of data journalism at New York University and author of the book artificial intelligence and More than just a glitch – Confronting racial, gender and ability biases in the tech industry.
follow me twitter Or LinkedIn. check out You can find my website and other works here.
