I still find it unfathomable that public facing institutions or ones that operate across cultural boundaries avoid canvassing or showing a diversity of thought amongst a cultural heterogenous group.
‘Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds’ , the Father of the Atomic bomb’ J. Robert Oppenheimer said. It was a mistranslation according to Rev Dr Stephen Thompson. World-destroying time = death in Sanskrit. Not withstanding this, this new energy-technology Oppenheimer could now see had an apocalyptic dark side.
Any optimism of a new wondrous technology requires a tempering particularly when in the hands of private companies whose profits may over shadow governance.
Connecting the world was an ideal slogan in Social Media yet who would not deny: ‘Now I am become world-destroying time, the destroyer of worlds’. Why shouldn’t governance that prevents someone insulting you in the streets because of consequences not have application for such behaviour online ?
Next it’s A.I. You’ll hear wondrous things, but algorithms have parents and the dark side would compound an already bleak situation. Invariably it’s the technological poor — I mean that as peoples not included in the moral, ethical, technological path laying that come of worse.
In AI, once the algorithms determine absolutes how do you contest? How do you ascertain what’s misogynists, racists, ableists, if groups, history has shown are made absent from these debates?
The optimism is A.I.-human will be the arbiters of truth, but this relationship has deep flaws. Which humans? And if you consider lowering profits to include humans is the direction ahead, you’ve not be considering the threads of history and operational working patterns.
But of course decision makers are aware of it. They’re yet to come around to the ideals of being inclusive and entertaining thoughts away from their own cultural systems.