CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 213Ethics and Social Impacts of AIDecolonial Thought and EpistemologiesAfrican cultural and philosophical studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 49 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Can artificial intelligence be decolonized?

Adams, Rachel·2021·Interdisciplinary Science Reviews
DOI 10.1080/03080188.2020.1840225
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

AI is altering not only local and global society, but what it means to be human, or, to be counted as such. In the midst of concerns about the ethics of AI, calls are emerging for AI to be decolonized. What does the decolonization of AI imply? This article explores this question, writing from the post-colony of South Africa where the imbrications of race, colonialism and technology have been experienced and debated in ways that hold global meaning and relevance for this discussion. Proceeding in two parts, this article explores the notion of de/coloniality and its emphasis on undoing legacies of colonialism and logics of race, before critiquing two major discontents of AI today: ethics as a colonial rationality and racializing dividing practices. This article develops a critical basis from which to articulate a question that sits exterior to current AI practice and its critical discourses: can AI be decolonized?

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/03080188.2020.1840225

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 20

  1. Arun Chinmayi. 2020. “ AI and the Global South: Designing for Other Worlds. ” In Oxford Handbook on AI Ethics , edited by Dubber Markus D., , Pasquale Frank, , and Das Sunit. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  2. Baudrillard Jean. 1994. The Precession of Simulacra. (Trans. Ann Arbor) . Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
  3. Benjamin Ruha. 2019. Race After Technology: The New Jim Crow . Durham: Duke University Press.
  4. Biesheuvel Simon. 1943. African Intelligence . Johannesburg: South African Institute of Race Relations.
  5. Blackwell Alan. 2021. “Ethnographic Artificial Intelligence. ” Interdisciplinary Science Review , this issue.
  6. Bonneuil Christophe. 2000. “Development as Experiment: Science and State Building in Late Colonial and Postcolonial Africa, 1930-1970. ” Osiris: Nature and Empire: Science and the Colonial Enterprise 15: 258–281.
  7. Buolamwini Joy, , and Gebru Timnit. 2018. “Gender Shades: Intersectional Accuracy Disparities in Commercial Gender Classification. ” Proceedings of Machine Learning Research 81: 1–15.
  8. Césaire Aimé. 2001. Discourse on Colonialism (Trans. Joan Pinkham) . New York: Monthly Review Press.
  9. Chollet François. 2019. “On the Measure of Intelligence. ” Computer Science .
  10. Grosfugal Ramon. 2011. “Decolonizing Post-Colonial Studies and Paradigms of Political-Economy: Transmodernity, Decolonial Thinking, and Global Coloniality. ” TRANSMODERNITY: Journal of Peripheral Cultural Production of the Luso-Hispanic World 1 (1).
  11. Jansen Jan, , and Osterhammel Jurgen. 2017. Decolonization: A Short History (Translated Jeremiah Riemer) . Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
  12. Martin A. L. 1916. “Experiments with Binet-Simon Test upon African Colored Children. ” The Training School Bulletin 12: 142–143.
  13. Modiri Joel. 2019. Key Note Address: Decolonisation and the Law School . University of Bristol.
  14. Ni Loideain Nora, , and Adams Rachel. 2019. “From Ava to Siri: The Gendering of Virtual Personal Assistants and the Role of Data Protection Law. ” Computer Law and Security Review .
  15. 10.18574/nyu/9781479833641.001.0001 · DOI
  16. Said Edward. 1978. Orientalism . New York: Vintage Books.
  17. Saini Angela. 2019. Superior: The Return of Race Science . Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
  18. Sehlapelo Martin, , and Blanche Martin Terre. 1996. “Psychometric Testing in South Africa: View from Above and Below. ” Psychology in Society 21: 49–59.
  19. 10.1007/978-1-349-19059-1_20 · DOI
  20. Tuck Eve, , and Yang K. Wayne. 2012. “Decolonization is not a Metaphor. ” Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society 1 (1): 1–40.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 213

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Adams, R.
Affiliations
Human Sciences Research Council (ZA)
Corresponding author
Adams, Rachel
ORCID
Adams, Rachel
Venue
Interdisciplinary Science Reviews
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2021-03
Volume
46
Issue
1-2
Pages
176-197
ISSN
  • 0308-0188 (ISSN-L)
  • 1743-2790
DOI
10.1080/03080188.2020.1840225
OpenAlex
W3134114820
Cited by
194
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 51 · 2025: 68 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 5
FWCI
23.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Interdisciplinary Science Reviews (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Decolonial Thought and Epistemologies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › African cultural and philosophical studies
Keywords
coloniality, colonialism, race, AI ethics, postcolonialism, South Africa, human counting, critical AI studies

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review