Yuval Noah Harari and the virtues of perspective, humility and empathy

Inspired by Shannon Vallor’s book “Technology and the virtues: A philosophical guide to a future worth wanting“, in which she discusses a range of technomoral virtues that we need to cultivate in order to flourish (2016, p. 118-155), I am writing a series of portraits of exemplars–people who embody these virtues.

From: https://www.bookspot.nl/auteurs/yuval-noah-harari

Yuval Noah Harari embodies the virtues of perspective, humility and empathy.

Harari is a historian and a storyteller. He is known for his bestseller books Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind and Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow.

In Sapiens, he tells the story of how humans created subjective reality: things that objectively do not exist, but which come into being because groups of people believe in them. This allowed humans to build pyramids and empires, and invent money and the rule of law.

In Homo Deus he tells the story of how we are merging infotech and biotech: integrating computers in our bodies and delegating human tasks to computers. We are, unintentionally and unconsciously, ushering in the age of data. It is unclear what role will be left for us, people.

In passing, he debunks humanistic handholds like the soul (sorry, doesn’t exist; we’re animals, just like other animals), free will (sorry, doesn’t exist; it’s either determined or random) and consciousness (sorry, not really special; probably some by-product of thinking).

He zooms-out, to paint broad brushstrokes, spanning thousands of years, and he zooms-in, on details in daily lives and experiences. His putting of things, both large and small, into one story exemplifies the technomoral virtue of perspective, whichShannon Vallor defines as “a reliable disposition to attend to, discern and understand moral phenomena as meaningful parts of a moral whole” (2016, p. 149).

Some find Harari’s books as dystopian. Everything is only a social construct. There’s no soul, no free will, nothing special about consciousness, and Artificial Intelligence is on a collision course with us, humans. I don’t share this interpretation. I read and hear humility and empathy in his books and talks.

Harari exemplifies the virtue of humility, which Vallor defines as “a recognition of the real limits of our technosocial knowledge and ability” (2016, p. 126), in that he debunks humanity’s illusions of superiority and mastery.

Harari exemplifies empathy, which Vallor defines as a “cultivated openness to being morally moved to caring action by the emotions of other members of our technosocial world” (2016, p. 133), in his urge to treat our fellow animals less cruel.

This follows from his debunking of humanity’s superiority. He sees no good reasons to torture and kill cows, pigs and chicken, fellow animals with feelings and intelligence not similar to ours. Unsurprisingly, Harari’s diet is vegan. In addition, he uses our treatment of animals as a cautionary tale for how cruelly some future so-called superior life form may, one day, treat us …

Finally, it’s worth noting two more things about Harari’s personal life, which he explicitly relates to his professional work.

He is a committed practitioner of Vipassana meditation. He explains that this helps him to quiet the deluge of random thoughts and daydreams, and to focus on reality. Professionally, this has helped him to focus on what really matters, on the big picture–extremely handy when you write about Big History.

And Harari is gay. He explains that his experience of being gay has helped him to distinguish between man-made phantasies, like “homosexuality is evil”, and natural phenomena, like “many fellow animals behave homosexually”. And, obviously and logically, to dismiss the former and embrace the latter.


Possibly, you find that Yuval Noah Harari embodies other virtues as well. Or you may have other ideas about the virtues discussed above. Please post them below or contact me at: marc.steen-at-tno.nl

Advertisements

Cathy O’Neil and the virtues of honesty, justice, humility and courage

Inspired by Shannon Vallor’s book “Technology and the virtues: A philosophical guide to a future worth wanting“, in which she discusses a range of technomoral virtues that we need to cultivate in order to flourish (2016, p. 118-155), I am writing a series of portraits of exemplars–people who embody these virtues.

cathy-oneil-125-1000px

From: https://mathbabe.org/contact/

Cathy O’Neil embodies the virtues of honesty and justice, and of humility and courage. 

Cathy O’Neil earned a Ph.D. in math from Harvard, was a postdoc at MIT, and a professor at Barnard College […] She then switched over to the private sector, working as a quant for the hedge fund D.E. Shaw in the middle of the credit crisis […]. She left finance in 2011 and started working as a data scientist in the New York start-up scene […]. She wrote “Doing Data Science” in 2013 and launched the Lede Program in Data Journalism at Columbia in 2014. She wrote the book “Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy“, and recently founded ORCAA, an algorithmic auditing company.

WeaponsMath r4-6-06.jpg

In this book, she provides a broad range of examples of the harms that algorithms can do–intentionally or unintentionally. Very often, poor people suffer the hardest: “Promising efficiency and fairness, [these algorithms] distort higher education, drive up debt, spur mass incarceration, pummel the poor at nearly every juncture, and undermine democracy” (p. 199). She coined the term Weapons of Math Destruction, to refer to algorithms with the following characteristics: their outcomes have large effects on people’s lives and society; they work invisible and are inaccessible for scrutiny or critique; their usage tends to spread like wildfire, e.g., affecting an entire industry; and they lack proper feedback loops and checks, so that they can all too easily derail.

Existing unfairness and injustice–which, in the US, often concur with discrimination based on race, resulting in poverty and lack of opportunities–are propagated through algorithms: “Big Data codify the past.” (p. 204) […] She argues that “we need to impose human values on these systems, even at the cost of efficiency” (p. 207).

  • Her TED Talk: “The era of blind faith in big data must end

O’Neil embodies the virtues of honesty and justice. She unveils the lies surrounding algorithms and their unwarranted promises, in order to critique the injustice and unfairness they propagate and exacerbate. For her, honesty, about what math can do, and cannot do, and advocating and striving for justice go hand in hand.

Shannon Vallor defines the technomoral virtue of honesty as “respect for truth, along with the practical expertise to express that respect appropriately” (2016, p. 122), and justice as a “reliable disposition to seek a fair and equitable distribution of the benefits and risks of … technologies” and a “characteristic concern for how … technologies impact the basic rights, dignity, or welfare of individuals and groups” (2016, p. 128).

In addition, O’Neil embodies the virtues of humility and courage. Humility because she knows very well what math can do, and cannot do. She critiques many widespread practices: using invalid proxies, e.g., using people’s financial credit scores to assess risks related to driving a car and setting a price for car insurance; the lack of feedback loops, which are critical for putting a faulty algorithm, e.g., one that effectively creates random outputs, back on track; and focusing on those variables that can be quantified and data which are easily available, instead of deciding that algorithms make no sense, e.g., because the desired results are qualitative or hard to put into numbers. Moreover, she embodies courage in that she experiences both fear and hope in intelligent ways: she understands the dangers of algorithms, and she has hope that we can “disarm (p. 199) and “dismantle” (p. 202) these Weapons of Math Destruction.

Shannon Vallor defines the technomoral virtue of humility asa recognition of the real limits of our technosocial knowledge and ability” (2016, p. 126), and courage as a “disposition toward intelligent fear and hope with respect to moral and material dangers and opportunities presented by emerging technologies” (2016, p. 131).


Possibly, you find that Cathy O’Neill embodies other virtues as well. Or you may have other ideas about the virtues discussed above. Please post them below or contact me at: marc.steen-at-tno.nl

Jaron Lanier and the virtues of perspective, justice and flexibility

Inspired by Shannon Vallor’s book “Technology and the virtues: A philosophical guide to a future worth wanting“, in which she discusses a range of technomoral virtues that we need to cultivate in order to flourish (2016, p. 118-155), I am writing a series of portraits of exemplars–people who embody these virtues.

jaronlanier

From: http://www.jaronlanier.com/

Jaron Lanier embodies the technomoral virtues of perspective, justice and flexibility.

Lanier is a computer scientist, author and musician. He pioneered Virtual Reality; in the early 1980s he founded VPL Research, the first company to sell VR products, and in the late 1980s he led the team that developed the first multi-person virtual worlds, using head mounted displaysand “avatars”. He believes that VR can help people to experience their own consciousness and to meet and empathize with others. He “is known for charting a humanistic approach to technology appreciation and criticism“; he wrote award-winning and best-selling books like: You Are Not A Gadget (2010), Who Owns the Future? (2012), Dawn of the New Everything (2017), and Ten Arguments for Deleting Your Social Media Accounts Right Now (2018)As a musician, Lanier has been active in the world of new “classical” music since the late seventies. He is a specialist in unusual musical instruments, especially the wind and string instruments of Asia. He is also active as a visual artist.

Lanier is a visionary and in that sense he embodies the technomoral virtue of perspective–a virtue which Vallor defines as: “a reliable disposition to attend to, discern and understand moral phenomena as meaningful parts of a moral whole” (2016, p. 149). He has a holistic and humanistic vision that encompasses and critically connects tiny things, like a seemingly small detail in a user interface design, which supports or stifles a specific behavior, e.g., a civil conversation or toxic mob behavior, and huge things, like capitalism and its grip on tech companies’ business models, and their drive to grab people’s attention and steer their behavior, and in the process (probably unintentionally) corrode the social fabric of society.

Furthermore, Lanier embodies the technomoral virtue of justice, which Vallor defines as a “reliable disposition to seek a fair and equitable distribution of the benefits and risks of emerging technologies” and a “characteristic concern for how emerging technologies impact the basic rights, dignity, or welfare of individuals and groups” (2016, p. 128).

Lanier worries about the inequalities that the Internet propagates and exacerbates. He explains that several beliefs and decisions made early on in the development of the Internet currently hound us: the belief that “information wants to be free” and the decision in favor of a capitalist model. This has resulted in free services, like Google and Facebook, which see people as data points that can be surveilled and manipulated. As a result, a very small number of people is getting very rich from the business of disrupting society. Lanier also points out that this evil outcome does not need any evil intentions. It’s the by-product of a series of choices.

lanier2

From: http://www.jaronlanier.com

Moreover, Lanier embodies the technomoral virtue of flexibility, which Vallor defines as “a reliable and skillful disposition to modulate action, belief, and feeling as called for by novel, unpredictable, frustrating, or unstable technosocial conditions” (2016, p. 145). Lanier’s biography, with his movements between action and reflection, and between knowledge domains, demonstrates his flexibility.

As a result of his flexibility, it’s not easy to put Lanier into neat categories. One could, e.g., also argue that he embodies virtues like civility (his disposition to want to foster dialogue and decency in cases of disagreement), courage (his disposition to express dissent in a milieu of which he’s part himself), and humility (his disposition to view technology as a tool, and to focus on ways in which it can promote human flourishing).


Possibly, you find that Jaron Lanier embodies other virtues as well. Or you may have other ideas about the virtues discussed above. Please post them below or contact me at: marc.steen-at-tno.nl

Kate Raworth and the virtues of justice, perspective and empathy

Inspired by Shannon Vallor’s book “Technology and the virtues: A philosophical guide to a future worth wanting“, in which she discusses a range of technomoral virtues that we need to cultivate in order to flourish (2016, p. p. 118-155), I am writing a series of portraits of exemplars–people who embody these virtues.

kateraworth

From: https://www.greenbelt.org.uk/artists/kate-raworth/

Kate Raworth embodies the virtue of justice. She calls for a new paradigm in economics: “to meet the needs of all, within the boundaries of our living planet”.

She calls herself a renegade economist focused on exploring the economic mindset needed to address the 21st century’s social and ecological challenges. She was educated as an economist and became increasingly critical about the dominant economic paradigm of growth. Her career has taken her from working with micro-entrepreneurs in the villages of Zanzibar to co-authoring the Human Development Report for UNDP in New York, followed by a decade as Senior Researcher at Oxfam.

She is the creator of Doughnut Economics:

Doughnut

The shape of the doughnut–two concentric circles–visualizes the area where we would need to be in order “to ensure that no one falls short on life’s essentials (from food and housing to healthcare and political voice), while ensuring that collectively we do not overshoot our pressure on Earth’s life-supporting systems, on which we fundamentally depend – such as a stable climate, fertile soils, and a protective ozone layer

There is a parallel between Kate Raworth’s work and Shannon Vallor’s discussion of the technomoral virtue of justice. Vallor defines this virtue as a “disposition to seek a fair and equitable distribution of the benefits and risks of emerging technologies” and a “concern for how emerging technologies impact the basic rights, dignity, or welfare of individuals and groups” (2016, p. 128). Indeed, Raworth advocates seeking a just distribution of benefits and risks–mainly in relation to economic processes, and not specifically or explicitly regarding emerging technologies (as far as I am aware; although I did find a series of five design workshops in 2018, by Dutch media lab Waag Society, based on her work). It would be obvious, to me, however, that care for people and for our planet is a necessary precondition for further deliberations about developing and using technologies

Moreover, Kate Raworth champions the virtues of perspective and empathy.

Perspective, because she wants to (literally) change our perspective on economics. By default, we currently have in our minds a picture of a curve going up (see screenshot below). She wants us to look radically differently at the world and at economics.

growth.png

From https://www.thersa.org/discover/videos/rsa-shorts/2014/03/Kate-Raworth-on-Growth

That is why she drew the Doughnut shape. That is why she collaborated with stop-motion animators to make these ideas visual in short and attractive animations. She understands the power of visuals in shaping people’s conceptions. Vallor defined the technomoral virtue of perspective as “a reliable disposition to attend to, discern and understand moral phenomena as meaningful parts of a moral whole” (2016, p. 149). Indeed, Raworth invites us to look at the world holistically and through a moral pair of glasses, so that we can the relationships between people, planet and profit.

And from her commitment to justice also follows her championing of the virtue of empathy. Raworth urges us to empathize with other people, also on the other side of the globe, and how our lives and economic behaviours affect their lives. Moreover, she calls for action, to change our behaviours. This concurs with Vallor’s definition of the technomoral virtue of empathy: a “cultivated openness to being morally moved to caring action by the emotions of other members of our technosocial world” (2016, p. 133).


Possibly, you find that Kate Raworth embodies other virtues as well. Or you may have other ideas about the virtues discussed above. Please post them below or contact me at: marc.steen-at-tno.nl

Tristan Harris and the virtues of self-control, civility and humility

Inspired by Shannon Vallor’s book “Technology and the virtues: A philosophical guide to a future worth wanting“, in which she discusses a range of technomoral virtues that we need to cultivate in order to flourish (2016, p. 118-155), I am writing a series of portraits of exemplars–people who embody these virtues.

From: http://www.tristanharris.com/

Tristan Harris embodies the technomoral virtue of self-control.

His mission to make us aware of the ways in which we use technologies–most notably our mobile phones and social networking services–and the ways in which we become increasingly addicted to these. He explains that these technologies are a by-product of the business models of companies like Facebook and Google–they want to grab people’s attention and sell it to advertisers; and the algorithms they use–these algorithms provide exactly that context that will pull you in and keep your eyes glued to the screen, with your index finger or thumb ready to make the ‘refresh’ swipe every couple of minutes.

Harris graduated from Stanford University with a degree in Computer Science, focused on Human Computer Interaction, behavioral economics, social psychology, behavior change and habit formation in Professor BJ Fogg’s Stanford Persuasive Technology lab. He was CEO of Apture, which Google acquired in 2011, and worked at Google, as Design Ethicist and left at 2016 to found the non-profit initiative, “Time Well Spent“. In 2018 he founded the Center for Humane Technology.

The center advocates “four levers to redefine our future: Inspire Humane Design; Apply Political Pressure; Create a Cultural Awakening; and Engage Employees”. Moreover, they provide practical suggestions to take control of your phone: “Try these simple changes to live more intentionally with your devices right now“.

Harris wants us to cultivate self-control, a virtue which Shannon Vallor defines as an “ability in technomoral contexts to choose, and ideally to desire for their own sakes, those goods and experiences that most contribute to contemporary and future human flourishing” (2016, p. 124). If we cultivate self-control, we can free ourselves from our addiction to technology and use it in ways that support human flourishing. Self-control is not a disposition against technology, but a disposition to use technology consciously and productively.

Harris also champions the technomoral virtues of civility and humility.

Civility, because he warns us that the cultivation of self-control is underneath all our social interactions and the fabric of society. When we are all glued to our screens, meekly following the algorithms’ recommendations, we are unable to have conversations–conversations with others and with our inner ourselves, about ‘the good life’, how we want to organize our societies and live our daily lives. Self-control is thus a key condition for cultivating the virtue of civility–to deliberation and collective action.

Vallor defines civility as “a sincere disposition to live well with one’s fellow citizens of a globally networked information society: to collectively and wisely deliberate about matters of local, national, and global policy and political action; to communicate, entertain, and defend our distinct conceptions of the good life; and to work cooperatively toward those goods of technosocial life that we seek and expect to share with others” (2016, p. 141)

And humility, because he stresses that technology by itself is not necessarily evil, but that we need to focus on the ends we want to realize–and then use our technologies as means to realize those ends. He warns us not to believe in technology, but to free ourselves from our addiction to technology and to be free to choose technologies in ways that support human flourishing. We need to let go of our blind faith in technology and treat it as a means, not as an end.

Vallor defines humility as a “recognition of the real limits of our technosocial knowledge and ability; … and renunciation of the blind faith that new technologies inevitably lead to human mastery and control of our environment” (2016, p. 126-7).


Possibly, you find that Tristan Harris embodies other virtues as well. Or you may have other ideas about the virtues discussed above. Please post them below or email me at:  marc.steen-at-tno.nl

Exemplars of technomoral virtues

Inspired by Shannon Vallor’s book “Technology and the virtues: A philosophical guide to a future worth wanting“, I am writing a series of short portraits of people who can be viewed as ‘exemplars’ of the technomoral virtues that she discusses (2016, p. 118-155):

  • Honesty: Respecting Truth: Cathy O’Neil, Luciano Floridi
    “an exemplary respect for truth, along with the practical expertise to express that respect appropriately in technomoral contexts” (p. 122)
  • Self-control: Becoming the Author of Our Desires: Tristan HarrisAimee van Wynsberghe
    an exemplary ability in technomoral contexts to choose, and ideally to desire for their own sakes, those goods and experiences that most contribute to contemporary and future human flourishing” (p. 124).
  • Humility: Knowing What We Do Not Know: Tristan Harris, Cathy O’Neil, Yuval Noah Harari, Kate Crawford
    a recognition of the real limits of our technosocial knowledge and ability; … and renunciation of the blind faith that new technologies inevitably lead to human mastery and control of our environment” (p. 126-7).
  • Justice: Upholding Rightness: Kate Raworth, Jaron Lanier, Cathy O’Neil, Luciano FloridiAimee van Wynsberghe, Edward Snowden, Safiya Umoja Noble, Bill Gates, Kate Crawford
    a “reliable disposition to seek a fair and equitable distribution of the benefits and risks of emerging technologies” and a “characteristic concern for how emerging technologies impact the basic rights, dignity, or welfare of individuals and groups” (p. 128).
  • Courage: Intelligent Fear and Hope: Cathy O’Neil, Sherry Turkle, Edward Snowden, Kate Crawford
    “a reliable disposition toward intelligent fear and hope with respect to moral and material dangers and opportunities presented by emerging technologies” (p. 131)
  • Empathy: Compassionate Concern for Others: Kate Raworth, Yuval Noah Harari, Sherry Turkle, Bill Gates
    a “cultivated openness to being morally moved to caring action by the emotions of other members of our technosocial world” (p. 133)
  • Care: Loving Service to Others: Sherry TurkleAimee van Wynsberghe
    a skillful, attentive, responsible, and emotionally responsive disposition to personally meet the needs of those with whom we share our technosocial environment” (p. 138)
  • Civility: Making Common Cause: Tristan Harris, Sherry Turkle, Edward Snowden
    a sincere disposition to live well with one’s fellow citizens of a globally networked information society: to collectively and wisely deliberate about matters of local, national, and global policy and political action; to communicate, entertain, and defend our distinct conceptions of the good life; and to work cooperatively toward those goods of technosocial life that we seek and expect to share with others” (p. 141).
  • Flexibility: Skillful Adaptation to Change: Jaron Lanier, Luciano Floridi
    a “reliable and skillful disposition to modulate action, belief, and feeling as called for by novel, unpredictable, frustrating, or unstable technosocial conditions” (p. 145).
  • Perspective: Holding on to the Moral Whole: Kate Raworth, Jaron Lanier, Yuval Noah Harari, Luciano FloridiSafiya Umoja Noble
    “a reliable disposition to attent to, discern and understand moral phenomena as meaningful parts of a moral whole” (p. 149)
  • Magnanimity: Moral Leadership and Nobility of Spirit: Edward Snowden, Bill Gates

My goal, with these portraits, is to inspire researchers, engineers, developers and designers to cultivate these virtues, in themselves and in their work.

Portraits written: Tristan Harris; Kate Raworth; Jaron Lanier; Cathy O’Neil; Yuval Noah Harari; Sherry Turkle; Luciano Floridi; Aimee van Wynsberghe; Edward Snowden; Safiya Umoja Noble; Bill Gates; Kate Crawford
Working on: Elon Musk; danah boyd; Marleen Stikker; Mark Coeckelbergh; Mireille Hildebrandt; Jim Stolze and others.

The people who develop technologies need to cultivate (some of) these virtues, in order to deliver technologies that indeed support others (‘users’) to cultivate the very same virtues. If you are working on an algorithm that can impact people’s lives in terms of justice, e.g., in law enforcement, regarding discrimination, fairness and equality, then you will need to cultivate the virtue of justice. Similarly for the other virtues.

One can cultivate virtues in two ways:

  • By carefully watching and learning from ‘exemplars’, people who embody, exemplify or champion specific virtues (= list above), especially by watching or listening–that’s why there are links to presentations, interviews and podcasts;
  • And by trying-out these virtues in one’s own life, and professionally in one’s projects–learning by doing, ‘practice makes perfect’; the aim is to align one’s thoughts, feelings and actions, so that a virtue becomes a virtuous habit.

Here are some suggestions for cultivating these virtues:

  • Reflect on your current work as researcher, engineer, developer, designer; select one project in which you develop a technology, product or service
  • Use your moral imagination to envision this technology’s impact in society and identify which one or two virtues are at stake, e.g., self-control (does the service aim to make people ‘addicted’, a.k.a. ‘engagement’), justice (can the service have unfair or discriminatory effects), civility (does the service enable people to ‘troll’ others or create ‘filter bubbles’), etcetera.
  • Pick one or two exemplars from the list; people that embody, exemplify or champion the virtues that you want to know more about. Read their portraits and, if you have time, watch their TED Talk, read their books, listen to their podcasts, etc.
  • Next time, in your project, you try-out the virtue(s) you are cultivating: speak up and defend self-control of ‘users’; make a case for justice in the data or algorithm you are using; build-in features that facilitate civility in communication; etc.

The cultivation of these virtues is not a nice-to-have add-on. It is imperative that we take our responsibility (noblesse oblige) and act responsibly:

“The challenge we face today is not a moral dilemma; it is rather a moral imperative, long overdue in recognition, to collectively cultivate the technomoral virtues needed to confront [diverse and urgent] emerging technosocial challenges wisely and well.” (Vallor, 2016, p. 244).


Q: What is the relationship between engineers’ inner lives and their projects’ effects in society?

A: This question has fascinated me for years. I trained at Delft University of Technology and worked at Philips and KPN Research before joining TNO. All this time, I’ve been fascinated by the relationship between engineers’ inner lives and their motives on the one hand, and the projects they work on and these projects’ effects on society on the other hand.

Regarding engineers’ inner lives, we can assume that engineers have positive motivations; they want to make the world a better place. They believe that something in the world can be improved, and they want to play an active role in that (see, e.g., Deus et Machina, in which I contributed a chapter on the beliefs of engineers, with Louis Neven en Ton Meijknecht). One notable, and very sad, exception are terrorists; a relatively large share of those are trained engineers—they have both the motivation to bring about change, or rather disruption, and the skills to deploy technology for their sinister ends.

Regarding their projects’ effects in society, we see a mixed picture. Obviously, engineers have contributed to technologies that we value as good, such as clean drinking water, warm housing and safe health care. Conversely, some technologies are (partly) evil, such as nuclear weapons (or does their threat prevent conventional warfare?) and plastic bottles that pollute the oceans (or is it people’s tendencies to litter and lousy government policies that make these bottles end-up in the oceans?). A mixed picture, indeed, with many other factors in the picture–obviously not only the engineers.

Let’s take a practical example: Claire is trained as an engineer and is involved in developing an algorithm for the police. The algorithm’s objective is to help the police to deploy their officers more effectively and efficiently to prevent home burglaries. It takes historical data on burglaries and combines these with other data, e.g., on the weather, and gives ‘predictions’ of where and when home burglaries are most likely to happen in the future. The police can then send their officers ‘at the right time, to right place’, to prevent burglaries (‘Predictive Policing’). See below for a short video:

predpol

Claire enjoys working on the algorithm. However, she also wonders whether the collection of data might be biased. There may be neighbourhoods where people don’t report crimes, e.g., because they do not trust the police. Then the police never reports these crimes. Or there may be neighbourhoods where the police are already doing lots of surveillances, e.g., in poor neighbourhoods, which result in more data, which result in more ‘predictions’ and police surveillances, resulting in more data, etc. Claire sees the risk of the algorithm perpetuating the current state of affairs, including unfairness and injustice, such as discrimination.

Claire has thoughts and feelings about promoting fairness and justice, and she expresses these in project meetings. This fuels discussions in the project team and leads to modifications of the algorithm; measures against biases are added, e.g., by adding ‘noise’ to the algorithm, sending police officers also to areas they would normally not go to, and by giving less weight to predictions that are based on police activities (and giving relatively more weight to reports by citizens).

In this example, the relationship between the engineer’s inner life and the output of the project she works in was relatively straightforward. In real life, however, this relationship is often more complex. There are many factors that go into a project and affect its outcomes, such as financial constraints, legacy systems, the tendency to focus on means, rather than on ends, the customers’ and users’ behaviours, etc