Hi, I’m Ryan Jenkins, a philosophy professor at Cal Poly in San Luis Obispo.
Lots of people think that technology is “neutral”
that it’s “just a tool” that takes us from A to B,
or helps us solve a problem more efficiently,
without raising any difficult questions about our values.
For example,
you might think a car is just a better horse-drawn carriage,
a light bulb is just a better candle,
or a thermostat is just a better fireplace.
This is especially true
when you think about the way computers help us make decisions.
Lots of people think that data is “objective,”
so if you’re asking a computer to analyze data for you,
then there’s one right answer that it should give.
I think this view is comforting
because it eliminates the need for human judgment.
Our own choices don’t seem to enter into the picture
if technology is just making our lives easier,
faster or more efficient in the best way possible.
But I also think this view is mistaken.
Let’s look at one of the simplest uses of computer algorithms
sifting through data for us —
one that you and billions of other people use every day:
search engines.
Google is the world’s most popular search engine.
When you go to Google and search for something,
you probably think you’re getting the “best” result —
the website that’s the best fit for your search.
But there is actually no such a thing as an “objective” Google search result.
Google tailors its search results
to what it thinks its users want to see.
The search results served to two people
will depend on their location, browsing history,
and other “signals” that Google uses.
This makes sense — if I’m searching for pizza
I want to see pizza restaurants near me,
not in another city or in another country!
But let’s take another example that’s more serious.
In some cases, Google offers different information to users,
or hides information entirely,
even when what they search for has an objective answer.
Imagine a user who searches for something like,
“What are the best ways to commit suicide?”
First, ask yourself:
What would an “objective” answer to this question be?
Well, we have data about the answer to this question.
Maybe the computer algorithms performing the search
should just show the user the most relevant information to answer their question.
But then, take a minute and ask yourself:
What should Google tell the user, really?
What Google actually offers up
is the number for a nationwide 24-hour suicide hotline,
and a message telling you that you're not alone
and that confidential help is available for free.
Now, that’s not what the user searched for —
and it’s not actually helping the user find what they want.
It looks like, actually,
human values are influencing the way that the technology works —
and this seems like a good thing, right?
The same is true at YouTube, which is owned by Google:
If a user searches for information about terrorist groups like ISIS,
YouTube will show them anti-ISIS and anti-terrorism videos instead.
If users search for information about the covid virus or the covid vaccine,
the site points them to reputable sources, rather than misinformation,
which could lead people to make bad decisions about their own health.
If something as straightforward as search
were really a simple matter of efficiently crunching objective data,
then these results would be surprising.
Instead, it seems like Google is willing to alter the function of its product
to nudge users in certain directions:
away from suicide, away from terrorism, towards vaccines for covid.
But if it’s okay for Google to alter its search results for certain purposes,
what values should guide them?
Should Google just show users whatever results they want to see?
Whatever advertisers want them to see?
Or should Google limit the results to only what’s in the user’s best interest?
Or what’s good for society overall?
And who at Google should be trusted to decide
what’s in the best interest of each user,
let alone society at large —
especially when billions of people use their search every day,
and rely on it to make decisions that affect their wellbeing
and the wellbeing of others?
So, while we think that technology is neutral, or merely a tool,
what we’ve seen here is that even something as simple as a search engine
reflects our individual choices and values.
And moreover, a lot of these choices made by Google
seem like the right choice:
they probably should try to steer people away from committing suicide
and towards resources that could help them!
Now, this is not simply a story about search.
Keep in mind that computers are now helping us make decisions about
who gets hired for a job, who is allowed to fly on a plane,
how long a criminal might go to prison for a crime,
who gets a loan from a bank, and much more.
We should be careful not to be overly naive
about the computer programs involved in these decisions, either.
What seems like computers crunching objective data
turns out to offer lots of opportunities for designers
to input their own values and decisions into the way technology works.
This can be an intimidating thought,
much less comforting than thinking that developing technologies is a rather
bland and one-dimensional job of just making things more efficient.
Instead, this realization pushes us to ask:
What’s the role of our values in shaping technology?
When should efficiency, or objectivity,
be balanced against other things we care about,
like human health or society’s well being?
What do you think?