• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Core Principles of Responsible AI
    • Accountability
    • Fairness
    • Privacy
    • Safety and Security
    • Sustainability
    • Transparency
  • Special Topics
    • AI in Industry
    • Ethical Implications
    • Human-Centered Design
    • Regulatory Landscape
    • Technical Methods
  • Living Dictionary
  • State of AI Ethics
  • AI Ethics Brief
  • šŸ‡«šŸ‡·
Montreal AI Ethics Institute

Montreal AI Ethics Institute

Democratizing AI ethics literacy

Race and AI: the Diversity Dilemma

May 30, 2022

šŸ”¬ Research summary by Connor Wright, our Partnerships Manager.

[Original paper by Stephen Cave and Kanta Dihal]


Overview: Are white and non-white AI presented as equals? The authors argue not. While more diversity helps dissipate this effect, the problem cannot be solved by more diversity alone.


Introduction

Are white AIs and non-white AIs portrayed the same? As a commentary response to ā€œMore than Skin Deepā€ by Shelley M. Park and a development of their 2020 paper ā€œThe Whiteness of AIā€, Cave and Dihal explore just that. To show this, I’ll get into the generalisability of white AI and touch upon Ex Machina as a key use case. I’ll then note the dilemma the authors point out, the solutions to this problem and how they can make a difference. I’ll then conclude with my view that acknowledging AI for what it is – the labour and extraction of materials alike – is where we will first start to see the signs of a difference being made.

Key Insights

Whiteness and Generality

White AI conforms to certain tendencies such as power and professionalism within the AI space, with the main attribute being its generalisability. This stems from the ideal that White people can be whomever they want: they are not vilified when they take on the role of a thug/thief, nor are they stereotyped in such positions. However, this luxury is not enjoyed by non-white people and, subsequently, non-white AI.

When assuming such roles, non-white people are stereotyped and confined to the role they find themselves in. Non-white people, when playing the role of a thief, are viewed as thieves instead of ā€˜non-white people playing the role of a thief’. This is a consequence of their non-generalisability; they cannot be whoever they want. Hence, given the non-universal nature of non-white people, they start to represent their whole race in their roles. To illustrate, the authors refer to the movie Ex Machina. 

Ex MachinaĀ 

In the movie, the main machine character, Ava, is played by a white character. ā€œAva is portrayed as intelligent, eloquent, creative and powerful—attributes the White racial frame associates with Whitenessā€ (p. 1777). This is opposed to another robot in engineer Nathan’s house, Kyoko, an East Asian representation presented as submissive and less intelligent through her inability to speak. Furthermore, Jasmine, a black android, is also introduced, who does not have a head. Out of the three androids present, only the white edition is presented as fully human and capable of being whatever they choose. This is the whiteness frame which the authors mentioned previously in action, which offers its own dilemma.

The Diversity Dilemma

On the one hand, the dilemma involves how AI is presented in a white framework that reproduces harmful stereotypes of non-white AI (such as in Ex Machina). Yet, on the other hand, trying to solve this problem by clearly demarcating white and non-white AI could then play into the hands of racist ideas of servitude. AI’s typical role is to obey the commands of a master human, which, if we establish white and non-white AI, would hark back to these ideas of a non-white entity serving a white person, even if this includes cases of a white AI doing the same. Placing white AI in the servant role may help white humans feel less guilty, but this doesn’t abstain them from their guilt as non-white AI are also still being exploited.

To tackle this problem, the authors observe three solutions.

The three solutions to the dilemma

  1. Sparrow (2020) proposes abandoning racialisation and anthropomorphism altogether. However, a study conducted by Liao and He (2020) showed how racialisation could be beneficial. It helps establish strong relationships between a human and an avatar of a similar skin tone. In terms of anthropomorphism, it proves extremely useful in establishing relationships of trust between humans and AI. 
  2. A second solution could involve putting non-white AI in roles that break the stereotypical mould, such as Maeve in Westworld, disregarding the role assigned to her by white designers and leading an android revolution.
  3. A third comes in presenting non-white AI within powerful and intelligent positions to counteract any stereotypes further.

Nevertheless, the authors note how any long-lasting solution to the problem of whiteness requires a change in our perception of AI. We need to present AI in terms of the labour costs it involves, not just the genius ideas of Hollywood directors and Silicon Valley Billionaires.

Between the lines

I agree wholeheartedly with his change in perception. A brilliant resource for this is the Anatomy of an AI System undergone by Crawford and Joler. The whole lifecycle of an Amazon Alexa is presented in clear view, noting all the points of extraction and exploitation involved. In this way, seeing an AI for what it involves and ā€œlooking under the hoodā€ (as advocated by Dr Maya Indira Ganesh in this podcast) will help address the issues that whiteness brings. Without doing so, we reproduce the same exploitation, just offshore.

Further resources

Liao, Y., He, J., 2020. The racial mirroring effects on human-agent in psychotherapeutic conversation. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, IUI’20. ACM, New York, pp. 430–442. https://doi.org/10.1145/1234567890 Sparrow, R. (2020). Robotics has a race problem. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 45, 538–560. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243919862862

Want quick summaries of the latest research & reporting in AI ethics delivered to your inbox? Subscribe to the AI Ethics Brief. We publish bi-weekly.

Primary Sidebar

šŸ” SEARCH

Spotlight

AI Policy Corner: Frontier AI Safety Commitments, AI Seoul Summit 2024

AI Policy Corner: The Colorado State Deepfakes Act

Special Edition: Honouring the Legacy of Abhishek Gupta (1992–2024)

AI Policy Corner: The Turkish Artificial Intelligence Law Proposal

From Funding Crisis to AI Misuse: Critical Digital Rights Challenges from RightsCon 2025

related posts

  • Augmented Datasheets for Speech Datasets and Ethical Decision-Making

    Augmented Datasheets for Speech Datasets and Ethical Decision-Making

  • LLMCarbon: Modeling the end-to-end Carbon Footprint of Large Language Models

    LLMCarbon: Modeling the end-to-end Carbon Footprint of Large Language Models

  • Fair and explainable machine learning under current legal frameworks

    Fair and explainable machine learning under current legal frameworks

  • Towards A Unified Utilitarian Ethics Framework for Healthcare Artificial Intelligence

    Towards A Unified Utilitarian Ethics Framework for Healthcare Artificial Intelligence

  • Disaster City Digital Twin: A Vision for Integrating Artificial and Human Intelligence for Disaster ...

    Disaster City Digital Twin: A Vision for Integrating Artificial and Human Intelligence for Disaster ...

  • Science Communications for Explainable Artificial Intelligence

    Science Communications for Explainable Artificial Intelligence

  • Transferring Fairness under Distribution Shifts via Fair Consistency Regularization

    Transferring Fairness under Distribution Shifts via Fair Consistency Regularization

  • Generative AI in Writing Research Papers: A New Type of Algorithmic Bias and Uncertainty in Scholarl...

    Generative AI in Writing Research Papers: A New Type of Algorithmic Bias and Uncertainty in Scholarl...

  • Exploring Collaboration Mechanisms for LLM Agents: A Social Psychology View

    Exploring Collaboration Mechanisms for LLM Agents: A Social Psychology View

  • Human-AI Collaboration in Decision-Making: Beyond Learning to Defer

    Human-AI Collaboration in Decision-Making: Beyond Learning to Defer

Partners

  • Ā 
    U.S. Artificial Intelligence Safety Institute Consortium (AISIC) at NIST

  • Partnership on AI

  • The LF AI & Data Foundation

  • The AI Alliance

Footer

Categories


• Blog
• Research Summaries
• Columns
• Core Principles of Responsible AI
• Special Topics

Signature Content


• The State Of AI Ethics

• The Living Dictionary

• The AI Ethics Brief

Learn More


• About

• Open Access Policy

• Contributions Policy

• Editorial Stance on AI Tools

• Press

• Donate

• Contact

The AI Ethics Brief (bi-weekly newsletter)

About Us


Founded in 2018, the Montreal AI Ethics Institute (MAIEI) is an international non-profit organization equipping citizens concerned about artificial intelligence and its impact on society to take action.


Archive

  • Ā© MONTREAL AI ETHICS INSTITUTE. All rights reserved 2024.
  • This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
  • Learn more about our open access policy here.
  • Creative Commons License

    Save hours of work and stay on top of Responsible AI research and reporting with our bi-weekly email newsletter.