When AI technologies affect everyone globally, wouldn’t it be nice if they were built with the collective in mind?
In my last blog, I introduced the African collectivist philosophy of Ubuntu and how it could be applied to Artificial Intelligence (AI) ethics for the benefit of all, based on the works of Mhlambi in 2020 and Gwagwa in 2022. The word ubuntu means “human-ness” or “being human” in Zulu and Xhosa languages spoken in South Africa and Zimbabwe respectively. Here I dig deeper into some of the key concepts of Ubuntu which either parallel or stand in opposition to Western ethics such as utilitarianism, and addresses the flaws of individualism and why we should move away from it.
What draws me personally to Ubuntu as an ethical theory for AI Governance
Learning about Ubuntu was a breath of fresh air, as Western ideals such as individualism never sat well with me. I confronted individualism in my master’s thesis research, but didn’t come across Ubuntu until rather recently, in connection to my work in ethics in AI. It is exactly what I was looking for: an alternative ethical system which relates personhood to how we are all connected, that a person is a person through other people. It relates to mutual aid (Kropotkin, 1902) and the sense of care in the grand sense of care, caring about how everything affects everything, not just for oneself. The idea that this level of care and collectivism could be applied to AI ethics blew me away, and the papers I have read on it, especially one by Sabelo Mhlambi, really drove this home.
A snippet of my story
Nearly five years ago, I chose to leave the Western world behind and live in South East Asia, after also spending time in Western Africa. My decision was fueled by the distasteful air of individualism in the West, which promotes greed and putting others down to get ahead. No amount of personal comfort could erase that ever present feeling of disconnection I feel when in the US, Europe or Australia. When I visit my hometown, everyone always asks me, why do I live so far away? It is a difficult question to answer, but I think it comes down to this notion of the isolation caused by individualism that puts everyone in toxic competition with each other and in situations where your success means that you are climbing over others. I look around and see constant valuing of profit over life. The fact that AI has been born from this ideology is extremely problematic, as it has this baseline of individualism built in.
From my travels and living abroad, I have seen that the world is rich with diversity, and that diversity is a beautiful thing and should be celebrated, not discriminated against. White men are not actually the majority in the world, as much as everyone else is marginalized and minoritized. Women are minoritized, and we are over half of the population. The world has been running on systems that make zero sense. As we breathe life into artificial intelligence, it is overdue that we have a re-haul on how we relate to one another and the world around us. It is time that we turn to non-Western-centric ideals and embrace the diversity of the world when deploying technologies that affect everyone globally.
The rest of this article will engage more deeply with Mhlambi’s work on utilizing Ubuntu as an ethical framework for AI governance moving forward, something I endorse completely.
Ubuntu: an African value of the collectivism of communities
Alternative ethics systems such as Ubuntu are not currently included in the exclusive discourse on ethics and AI. The default is Western ethics, which are burdened with individualism and greed, and are not adequate to address technological and algorithmic harms. (Mhlambi, 2020 p. 23) Individualism and greed also stand in opposition to Ubuntu’s foundations of interconnectedness, empathy, and generosity. (Mhlambi, 2020 p. 24) These are the values that AI development would benefit from immensely, which would make individualistic values irrelevant. How can this be implemented for the governance of AI?
Ethical Leadership: Ubuntu promotes cooperation and helping each other
Ethical governance requires a closer look at leadership. Cooperation and participation are requirements for Ubuntu, particularly when it comes to leadership, as it rejects elite power concentrations. (Mhlambi, 2020 p. 15-16) The current leadership in AI consists of concentrations of power amongst a few elites, which could be something that gets in the way of Ubuntu truly working. One Ubuntu quote “Inkosi yinkosi ngaba-Ntu” translates to “A leader derives power from the consent and will of the governed.” (Mhlambi, 2020 p. 15-16) Government and other powers should be acting in service to the people. This is the purpose of leadership.
However, it is not what we see from most leaders. Following Ubuntu, rulership is collaborative. That is how things should really be done within governance, by being in service to the people.
How do we make this value-shift happen and balance power structures?
Focusing on Inclusion to combat exclusion
Arthur Gwagwa suggested that there be more of a focus in research and policy work on “Ubuntu-based action guiding principles for all AI stakeholders.” (Gwagwa, 2022 p. 1) He gave an example of providing guidance to reconcile ethical dilemmas in AI design, including conflicting or competing cultural values. (Gwagwa, 2022 p. 1) This would support the notion of inclusivity that Ubuntu ethics would bring to AI design.
Gwagwa went on to provide a useful definition of exclusion: ‘‘the inability to participate effectively in economic, social, political, and cultural life, and, in some characterizations, alienation and distance from the mainstream society.’’ (Duffy, 1995) (Gwagwa, 2022 p. 2) This is something that is important to keep in mind, also when thinking about digital identity.
Rationality vs. Relationality
While reading about Ubuntu and AI ethics, the comparison was continually brought up between rationality versus relationality as to the question, how do we define personhood?
Personhood as rationality traditionally comes from a Western viewpoint, which is what has modeled machine intelligence, and “has always been marked by contradictions, exclusions, and inequality.” (Mhlambi, 2020) How do we situate what it means to be a person when contemplating “artificial or mechanical personhood”? (Mhlambi, 2020)
Looking to Western ethics, utilitarianism, which tends to be very rationalizing, doesn’t always play out appropriately. Utilitarianism as applied to AI ethics aims to maximize what is good for people and minimize what is bad for them in the long run. (Shulman et. al, 2009) (Gwagwa, 2022 p. 5) This ultimately still leaves some people excluded and disadvantaged, and they continue to be those that are perpetually marginalized.
Taking a bottom-up approach, African philosophy could address both the disproportionate negative effects of AI on people and work towards global equality and protections. (Mhlambi, 2020 p. 6)
Contrasting Collectivism and Individualism
Individualism, something that I have butted heads with in my own research over the years, desperately needs to be challenged, as it has many flaws. Generally, individualism is the idea that the central point of value in society is the self-complete, autonomous-self individual. (Mhlambi, 2020 p. 7)
Mhlambi lists several flaws of individualism, including:
Justification of inequality
Power asymmetries and exploitation which disallow upward social mobility
Worsening of inequalities due to lack of upward mobility
Increased inequality and prioritized private interests of those in power causes cycles of political instability (Mhlambi, 2020 p. 7, 10)
These harms are ultimately produced by any system based on individualistic principles. (Mhlambi, 2020 p. 10) My question is, does individualism really fit in with any ethical system? When will we realize that individualism is unethical?
Ethics beyond the human-centered world
Western ethics at best is people-centered, and ignores any connection between us and the Earth; rather, it allows for exploitation of it. “Mastery of nature” was the Enlightenment’s goal of self-realization, which some say that today has transformed into “the mastery of bits and cyberspace.” (Kennington, 1978) (Mhlambi, 2020 p. 9) These ideals “tolerate the inevitability of inequality.” (Mhlambi, 2020 p. 9) Justification of exploitation is incredibly unethical, and for this ideal to be adopted by AI could cause unimaginable problems, where instead technologies should be used to support and protect humanity and the Earth.
What is currently valued in AI development?
One of the most highly valued and problematic aspects of AI is speed, where perhaps it shouldn’t be the most important thing. In the world of AI, speed can equate to success. It is said that similarity creates speed. However like individualism, similarity has many flaws, including:
Decreased diversity
Filter bubbles
May lead to discrimination ex: race, gender (Mhlambi, 2020 p. 20)
This ties in with individualism coming from a monoculture of Silicon Valley, which promotes excessiveness and greedy competition, as self-interest takes center stage. (Murobe, 2000) (Mhlambi, 2020 p. 9) Theoretically, this goes against Western ethics as well, which would lead us to act in the best interest of all humans and not put ourselves above others. However, this is not how it works in reality, arguably, because of individualism.
So where do we turn? In the unique balance which is absent from Western individualism as well as Eastern communism, we find African Ubuntu, which “seeks to avoid the worst of extreme systems.” (Mhlambi, 2020 p. 17)
Ubuntu is about human connectedness with other people, living things and the universe at large.
Ubuntu views humanity as how a person relates in meaningful ways in relation with other persons. “A shared humanity, a oneness and indissoluble interconnectedness between all humans, needs to be the paramount human identity and positionality from which we organize our societies, and produce the technological advances that maintain social harmony.” (Mhlambi, 2020 p. 21)
This is not to say that there is no concept of the individual within Ubuntu ideology. Rather, the individual has many important roles to play. These include:
Doing one’s part to maximize public good
Affirming the dignity of all and restoring breaks in harmony
Creating the necessary environment for all to thrive (Mhlambi, 2020 p. 24)
My conclusions from Mhlambi’s work lead me to reiterate that inclusion cannot be complete as long as inequality exists. (Mhlambi, 2020 p. 24)
Ubuntu is a philosophy that encourages us to help each other: Can we apply that to building AI?
Technology is not lacking ethics. Societal values are ever-present in the creation and use of technology: but what ethics are included matters. This gives us a clear view of where society’s ethics stand: with those in power. Compassion, equity and relationality are missing in this, and that is a problem. If actions are taken to shift to these crucial values of Ubuntu and collectivism, this change could start with AI and radiate out to benefit everyone as well as the planet.
“Personhood must be extended to all human beings, informed by the awareness that one’s personhood is directly connected to the personhood of others.” (Mhlambi, 2020 p. 7)
Resources
Duffy, K. (1995). Social Exclusion and Human Dignity in Europe: Background Report for the Proposed Initiative by the Council of Europe (Strasbourg: Council of Europe)
Gwagwa, A.E. (2021). Africa’s contribution to an intercultural reflective turn
in the ethics of technology in the era of disruption. https://www.academia.
edu/51050494/Africas_contribution_to_an_intercultural_reflective_turn_
in_the_ethics_of_te
Gwagwa, A., Kazim, E., & Hilliard, A. (2022). The role of the African value of Ubuntu in global AI inclusion discourse: A normative ethics perspective. In Patterns (Vol. 3, Issue 4). Cell Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2022.100462
Kennington R. “Descartes and Mastery of Nature.” In: Spicker S.F. (eds) Organism, Medicine, and Metaphysics. Philosophy and Medicine,
vol 7. Springer, Dordrecht, 1978.
Kropotkin, Piotr Alexeievich. Mutual Aid: A Factor or Evolution. New York: McClure Phillips and Co., 1902.
Mhlambi, S., & School, H. K. (2020). Sabelo Mhlambi Carr Center Discussion Paper Ubuntu as an Ethical & Human Rights Framework for Artificial Intelligence Governance Technology and Human Rights Fellow Carr Center for Human Rights
Shulman, C., Jonsson, H., and Tarleton, N. (2009). Which consequentialism? Machine ethics and moral divergence. Asia-Pacific Conf. Comput.
Philos. 23–25. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.
1.1.363.2419& rep=rep1& type=pdf.
Murobe, M.F. ‘Globalization and African Renaissance: An ethical reflection’, in Problematising the African Renaissance, E. Maloka and
E.Le Roux (eds). Pretoria: Africa Institute of South Africa, 2000, pp. 43–67.