Will big data algorithms dismantle the foundations of liberalism?
In Homo Deus, Yuval Noah Harari argues that technological advances of the twenty-first century will usher in a significant shift in how humans make important life decisions. Instead of turning to the Bible or the Quran, to the heart or to our therapists, parents, and mentors, people will turn to Big Data recommendation algorithms to make these choices for them. Much as we rely on Spotify to recommend music to us, we will soon rely on algorithms to decide our careers, spouses, and commitments. Harari also predicts that next, the state will take away individuals’ rights to make their own choices about their lives. If Google knows where your children would flourish best in school, why should the state allow a fallible human parent to decide? Liberalism—which, as Harari uses this term, refers to a state of society in which human freedom to choose is respected and championed—will collapse. In this paper, I argue that Harari’s conception of the future implications of recommendation algorithms is deeply flawed, for two reasons. First, users will not rely on algorithms to make decisions for them because they have no reason to trust algorithms, which are developed by companies with their own incentives, such as profit. Second, for most of our life decisions, algorithms will not be able to be developed, because the factors relevant to the decisions we face are unique to our situation. I present an alternative depiction of the future: instead of relying on algorithms to make decisions for us, humans will use algorithms to enhance our decision-making by helping us consider the most relevant choices first and notice information we might not otherwise. Finally, I will also argue that even if computers could make many of our decisions for us, liberalism as a political system would emerge unscathed.
KeywordsLiberalism Artificial intelligence Big data Philosophy Ethics Freedom Machine learning
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program under Grant No. DGE 16-44869. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
- Appiah A (2008) Experiments in ethics. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Fogg BJ (2002) Persuasive technology: using computers to change what we think and do. Ubiquity. 1:31–61, 211–255Google Scholar
- Fogg BJ (2009) A behavior model for persuasive design. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on persuasive technology, ACMGoogle Scholar
- Haidt J (2016) Moral Psychology: An Exchange. The New York Review of Books. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/04/07/moral-psychology-an-exchange/. Accessed 18 May 2017
- Henke N et al (2016) The age of analytics: competing in a data-driven world. McKinsey Global Institute. http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/mckinsey-analytics/our-insights/the-age-of-analytics-competing-in-a-data-driven-world. Accessed 18 May 2017
- Hunt L (2007) Inventing human rights: a history. WW Norton & Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Kahneman D (2011) Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Krizhevsky A, Sutskever I, Hinton G (2012) Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. In: Proceedings of Advances in neural information processing systems, Lake Tahoe, USA, Vol. 2, pp 1097–1105Google Scholar
- Ross L, Nisbett RE (2011) The person and the situation: perspectives of social psychology. Pinter & Martin Publishers, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Rubinstein A (2008) Comments on neuroeconomics. Manuscript in preparation, Tel Aviv UniversityGoogle Scholar
- Shaw T (2016) The Psychologists Take Power. Review of the righteous mind, by Jonathan Haidt. The New York review of books. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/02/25/the-psychologists-take-power/. Accessed 18 May 2017
- Sunstein CR (1999) Free markets and social justice. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
- Zhao Q, Adomavicius G, Maxwell Harper F, Willemsen M, Konstan J (2017) Toward better interactions in recommender systems: cycling and serpentining approaches for top-N item lists. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work and social computing, 1444–1453Google Scholar