What is your main concern for the future of RAI?
This post offers a reflexive discussion about how seriously AI leaders are taking the advice around RAI in practice. It aims to shed light on how contradictory and limiting social inequalities in leadership can be to RAI’s effective and rapid progress.
Recently, I had the opportunity to participate in the launch event of the fantastic Book “Checkmate Humanity — The How and why of Responsible AI”. During this event, participants were invited to reflect on fundamental questions for the future of Responsible AI (RAI). A compelling question for me was, “What is your main concern for the future of RAI?”.
I’m particularly concerned about whether leaders in transformative areas of AI are genuinely listening to themselves when advocating for RAI.
My answer to this question is: I’m particularly concerned about whether leaders in transformative areas of AI are genuinely listening to themselves when advocating for RAI. We have heard many times from different RAI leaders that AI has been changing the world [1]. However, whether these leaders have realised that it should be a reflexive statement is unclear. AI is changing everything, including how we should lead the development of AI itself and the directions of RAI. To clarify my point, let’s reflect on a straightforward question: How inclusive and diverse is the leadership on transformative AI?
When talking about RAI, whose focus is precisely to guarantee human values in the use of AI, attention to diversity in leadership becomes even more critical. The risk is that the discourse sounds cynical to some demographic groups. “Do as I say, not as I do”. One of the few consensuses for this challenging, multi-disciplinary and novel area is that diversity and inclusion are fundamental stones for sustainable debates on RAI. Whether, to some extent, innovation represents solving people’s needs, I would say that responsible innovation means embracing everyone’s needs.
Whether, to some extent, innovate represents solving people’s genuine needs, responsible innovation means embracing everyone’s needs.
Historically, however, leadership became a privilege for certain groups in many areas. For instance, in 2018, UMass Amherst released an extensive report showing that “Large Silicon Valley Tech firms have few women, Black or Latinx employees. The higher the job rank, the less numerous women and minorities become.” [2]. Similar conclusions have been found in other areas of knowledge. Recent studies have demonstrated racial disparities in grant funding for cutting-edge medical research from the US National Institutes of Health [3]. A remarkable example of social inequality in leadership was recently raised in [4], where the authors found that black coaches occupied only 3.41% of the opportunities offered by elite soccer clubs in Brazil. It is worth mentioning that Brazil has a predominantly black or mixed race population, besides countless outstanding black soccer players.
Addressing this type of inequality is not just ethically but also economically beneficial for society and businesses. A recent report points out that greater diversity in terms of gender and ethnicity correlates with a significantly greater likelihood of outperformance [5]. Fostering a diverse and inclusive culture is a critical success factor: it enables individuals to shine in their own right and to pull together as a team. Similarly, another study found that “companies with stronger gender alignment across a range of intrinsically motivating factors performed better than strategies based on headcount alone” [6]. Hence, it is urgent to face this reality, investigating from different perspectives the impacts that social disparities in leadership have on technological progress. It is a mistake to assume that a few extremely skilled RAI leaders belonging to specific demographic groups are capable of identifying and anticipating the genuine needs and perceptions of all other groups.
It is a mistake to assume that a few extremely skilled RAI leaders belonging to certain demographic groups are capable of identifying and anticipating the genuine needs and perceptions of all other groups.
In conclusion, I’m afraid we might be inviting minorities to the party but setting up a table outside the saloon and letting them watch all the fun from a big screen. Allowing them to join the party is not enough. Inclusion and diversity require sharing the microphone with everyone!
This post highlights the critical aspects we must reflect on as industrialists and researchers leading such essential and revolutionary areas for society. It intends to raise awareness and inspire people to reflect on different, harmful, and unintentional biases that might emerge or perpetuate in the leadership of cutting-edge innovation areas, especially in areas particularly concerned about fairness and ethics. The road to the answers we need is long and challenging. And I believe it begins with the right questions.
What about you? What is your main concern for the future of RAI?
References
[1] Makridakis, S. (2017). The forthcoming Artificial Intelligence (AI) revolution: Its impact on society and firms. Futures, 90, 46–60.
[2] Tomaskovic-Devey, D., & Han, J. (2018). Is Silicon Valley tech diversity possible now?. Center for Employment Equity| UMass Amherst.
[3] Taffe MA, Gilpin NW. Racial inequity in grant funding from the US National Institutes of Health. Elife. 2021 Jan 18;10:e65697. doi: 10.7554/eLife.65697. PMID: 33459595; PMCID: PMC7840175.
[4] Silva, L. F. R. & Silva, C. A. F. (2021). Are there opportunities for blacks in Brazilian sports command? The case of football. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, v. 11, p. 40–49.
[5] Hunt, V., Prince, S., Dixon-Fyle, S., & Dolan, K. (2020). Diversity wins. McKinsey.
[6] Ariely D, Grove H. Commentary: Mind the gap — the connection between gender alignment and performance. Available at: https://www.pionline.com/industry-voices/commentary-mind-gap-connection-between-gender-alignment-and-performance. Accessed on 11 September 2022.
