One of the interesting narratives in this upcoming national election cycle is democracy itself.
Each side has labeled the other side as “undemocratic” — accusing each other of trying to destroy democracy through authoritarian control. You and I might agree with one side. Sometimes, we might even change our minds. We’d like one side to shut-the-hell-up; thank you very much. We’re people. We have opinions. Our opinions are based on feelings shaped by perspectives, experiences, and a host of other inputs that may or may not have to do with data.
But WWAID?
AI has no feelings. It has no awareness. It doesn’t know what it’s doing. But what it’s really good at is combing through its training data and spitting out statistically governed results, even if (especially if?) those results are novel or non-obvious.
AI does, however, respond to incentives. Incentives are, of course, defined by people and then given to the AI.
From one perspective, AI has no inherent political incentives, therefore, almost by definition, it is more democratic. Yet, at the same time, AI doesn’t do anything without being incentivized by people. From that standpoint, AI is like an accelerator for undemocratic practices. The social media algorithm controversy is an example that has already occured.
So which is it?
Well, it’s neither, because yet again, AI as a technology and as an entity is not the problem.
The problem is how we, the humans, use it.
