REVIEW 2 cited by
The Limits of Global Inclusion in AI Development
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
The Limits of Global Inclusion in AI Development
read the original abstract
Those best-positioned to profit from the proliferation of artificial intelligence (AI) systems are those with the most economic power. Extant global inequality has motivated Western institutions to involve more diverse groups in the development and application of AI systems, including hiring foreign labour and establishing extra-national data centers and laboratories. However, given both the propensity of wealth to abet its own accumulation and the lack of contextual knowledge in top-down AI solutions, we argue that more focus should be placed on the redistribution of power, rather than just on including underrepresented groups. Unless more is done to ensure that opportunities to lead AI development are distributed justly, the future may hold only AI systems which are unsuited to their conditions of application, and exacerbate inequality.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Whose fairness? Structural concentration in AI bias research
Bibliometric and semantic analysis of 692 AI-bias papers shows US-led structural concentration is strongest in the general-fairness domain that supplies definitions and benchmarks to the rest of the field.
-
Position: Ideas Should be the Center of Machine Learning Research
Machine learning research should prioritize ideas by testing their predicted behavioral signatures in modern models through custom experiments instead of leaderboard chasing or abstract theorems.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.