Nonhuman humanitarianism: when 'AI for good' can be harmful

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) applications have been introduced in humanitarian operations in order to help with the significant challenges the sector is facing. This article focuses on chatbots which have been proposed as an efficient method to improve communication with, and accountability to affected communities. Chatbots, together with other humanitarian AI applications such as biometrics, satellite imaging, predictive modelling and data visualisations, are often understood as part of the wider phenomenon of 'AI for social good'. The article develops a decolonial critique of humanitarianism and critical algorithm studies which focuses on the power asymmetries underpinning both humanitarianism and AI. The article asks whether chatbots, as exemplars of 'AI for good', reproduce inequalities in the global context. Drawing on a mixed methods study that includes interviews with seven groups of stakeholders, the analysis observes that humanitarian chatbots do not fulfil claims such as 'intelligence'. Yet AI applications still have powerful consequences. Apart from the risks associated with misinformation and data safeguarding, chatbots reduce communication to its barest instrumental forms which creates disconnects between affected communities and aid agencies. This disconnect is compounded by the extraction of value from data and experimentation with untested technologies. By reflecting the values of their designers and by asserting Eurocentric values in their programmed interactions, chatbots reproduce the coloniality of power. The article concludes that 'AI for good' is an 'enchantment of technology' that reworks the colonial legacies of humanitarianism whilst also occluding the power dynamics at play.

The Development and Use of Chatbots in Public Health: Scoping Review

“…There is no doubting the extent to which the use of AI, including chatbots, will continue to grow in public health. The ethical dilemmas this growth presents are considerable, and we would do well to be wary of the enchantment of new technologies [ 59 ]. Of paramount concern is the need to understand where we can use automation over other technologies that connect humans to humans (eg, machine assistance instead of machine intelligence) and what are the situations in which a conversation with a computer that simulates another person is indeed serving the needs of the person.…”

Blockchain humanitarianism and crypto-colonialism

“…The technology's emergence in this space is symptomatic of a neoliberal aid model that embraces PPPs, touts digital technologies under the rubric of efficiency, and creates competition incentives for project funding. 14 Conceptions of ethical best practices for blockchain and other emerging technologies operate within these core principles of competitive procurement, audit culture, and transparency. In addition to these governance principles, digital technologies are also synonymous with the rhetoric of individual empowerment and the ability to ''correct the asymmetries on which humanitarianism is based.''…”

“…In addition to these governance principles, digital technologies are also synonymous with the rhetoric of individual empowerment and the ability to ''correct the asymmetries on which humanitarianism is based.'' 14 Blockchain advocates have positioned their projects as responsive to these imperatives and the humanitarian ethical best practices of ''humanity, neutrality, impartiality, independence .…”

“…The technology’s emergence in this space is symptomatic of a neoliberal aid model that embraces PPPs, touts digital technologies under the rubric of efficiency, and creates competition incentives for project funding. 14 Conceptions of ethical best practices for blockchain and other emerging technologies operate within these core principles of competitive procurement, audit culture, and transparency. In addition to these governance principles, digital technologies are also synonymous with the rhetoric of individual empowerment and the ability to “correct the asymmetries on which humanitarianism is based.” 14 Blockchain advocates have positioned their projects as responsive to these imperatives and the humanitarian ethical best practices of “humanity, neutrality, impartiality, independence … [and] dignity.” 15 Furthermore, blockchain’s transformational power is seen going beyond moribund and unresponsive bureaucracies, whether for the developing world state or traditional aid.…”

“… 14 Conceptions of ethical best practices for blockchain and other emerging technologies operate within these core principles of competitive procurement, audit culture, and transparency. In addition to these governance principles, digital technologies are also synonymous with the rhetoric of individual empowerment and the ability to “correct the asymmetries on which humanitarianism is based.” 14 Blockchain advocates have positioned their projects as responsive to these imperatives and the humanitarian ethical best practices of “humanity, neutrality, impartiality, independence … [and] dignity.” 15 Furthermore, blockchain’s transformational power is seen going beyond moribund and unresponsive bureaucracies, whether for the developing world state or traditional aid. A report from the Overseas Development Institute, a European tech-humanitarian advocacy group, claims that the problems with inequities in aid lie in too limited an application of blockchain.…”