CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 91Ethics and Social Impacts of AIHistorical and Contemporary Political DynamicsCybernetics and Technology in Society

Nonhuman humanitarianism: when 'AI for good' can be harmful

Open access
Madianou, Mirca·2021·Information, Communication & Society
DOI 10.1080/1369118x.2021.1909100
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) applications have been introduced in humanitarian operations in order to help with the significant challenges the sector is facing. This article focuses on chatbots which have been proposed as an efficient method to improve communication with, and accountability to affected communities. Chatbots, together with other humanitarian AI applications such as biometrics, satellite imaging, predictive modelling and data visualisations, are often understood as part of the wider phenomenon of ‘AI for social good’. The article develops a decolonial critique of humanitarianism and critical algorithm studies which focuses on the power asymmetries underpinning both humanitarianism and AI. The article asks whether chatbots, as exemplars of ‘AI for good’, reproduce inequalities in the global context. Drawing on a mixed methods study that includes interviews with seven groups of stakeholders, the analysis observes that humanitarian chatbots do not fulfil claims such as ‘intelligence’. Yet AI applications still have powerful consequences. Apart from the risks associated with misinformation and data safeguarding, chatbots reduce communication to its barest instrumental forms which creates disconnects between affected communities and aid agencies. This disconnect is compounded by the extraction of value from data and experimentation with untested technologies. By reflecting the values of their designers and by asserting Eurocentric values in their programmed interactions, chatbots reproduce the coloniality of power. The article concludes that ‘AI for good’ is an ‘enchantment of technology’ that reworks the colonial legacies of humanitarianism whilst also occluding the power dynamics at play.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/1369118x.2021.1909100

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 59 · Cited by 91

Research works printed but not linked: 31

  1. Amoore, L. (2020). Cloud ethics. Algorithms and the attributes of ourselves and others. Duke University Press.
  2. Appadurai, A. (1993). Number in the postcolonial imagination. In C. Breckenridge & P. Van der Veer (Eds.), Orientalism and the postcolonial predicament (pp. 314-339). University of Pennsylvania Press.
  3. Bakardjieva, M. (2015). Rationalizing sociality: An unfinished script for socialbots. The Information Society, 31(3), 244-256. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2015.1020197 · DOI
  4. Barassi, V. (2020). Child, data, citizen. MIT Press.
  5. Bolter, J. D., & Grusin, R. (2000). Remediation. MIT Press.
  6. boyd, d., & Crawford, K. (2012). Critical questions for big data. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 662-679. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.678878 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Broussard, M. (2018). Artificial unintelligence. MIT Press.
  8. Burrell, J., & Oreglia, E. (2015). The myth of market price information: Mobile phones and the application of economic knowledge in ICTD. Economy and Society, 44(2), 271-292. https:// doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2015.1013742 · DOI
  9. Calhoun, C. (2008). The imperative to reduce suffering. In M. Barnett & T. G. Weiss (Eds.), Humanitarianism in question (pp. 73-97). Cornell University Press.
  10. Chouliaraki, L. (2013). The Ironic Spectator: Solidarity in the age of post-humanitarianism. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
  11. Chun, W. H. K. (2011). Programmed visions: Software and memory. MIT Press.
  12. Eubanks, V. (2017). Automating inequality. How high-tech tools profile, police and punish the poor. St Martin's Press.
  13. Gebru, T. (2020). Race and gender. In M. Dubber, F. Pasquale, & S. Das (Eds.), The Oxford hand- book of ethics of AI (pp. 253-270). Oxford University Press.
  14. Gehl, R. W., & Bakadjieva, M. (2017). Socialbots and their friends. In R. W. Gehl & M. Bakadjieva (Eds.), Socialbots and their friends: Digital media and the automation of sociality (pp. 1-16). Routledge.
  15. Gell, A. (1992). The technology of enchantment and the enchantment of technology. In J. Coote & A. Shelton (Eds.), Anthropology, art and aesthetics (pp. 40-66). Clarendon.
  16. Gunkel, D. (2018). Ars ex machina: Rethinking responsibility in the age of creative machines. In A. Guzman (Ed.), Human-Machine communication (pp. 221-236).
  17. Kember, S., & Zylinska, J. (2012). Life after new media. Mediation as a vital process. MIT Press.
  18. Krause, M. (2014). The good project. Chicago University Press.
  19. Lester, A., & Dussart, F. (2014). Colonization and the origins of humanitarian governance. Cambridge University Press.
  20. Madianou, M. (2019a). Technocolonialism: Digital innovation and data practices in the humani- tarian response to refugee crises. Social Media & Society, 5(3), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 2056305119863146 · DOI
  21. Madianou, M. (2019b). The biometric assemblage: Surveillance, experimentation, profit, and the measuring of refugee bodies. Television & New Media, 20(6), 581-599. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1527476419857682 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Madianou, M. (2021). Technological futures as colonial debris: Tech-for-good as technocolonial- ism. In Zylinska, J. (Ed.), The Future of Media. London, UK: Goldsmiths Press.
  23. Madianou, M., Ong, J. C., Longboan, L., & Cornelio, J. S. (2016). The appearance of accountability: Communication technologies and power asymmetries in humanitarian aid and disaster recov- ery. Journal of Communication, 66(6), 960-981. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12258 · DOI
  24. Mbembe, A. (2017). Critique of black reason. Duke University Press.
  25. McDonald, S. (2019, August 12). From space to supply chain: Humanitarian data governance. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3436179 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3436179 · DOI
  26. Noble, S. (2018). Algorithms of oppression. New York University Press.
  27. Nothias, T. (2020). Access granted: Facebook's free basics in Africa. Media, Culture & Society, 42 (3), 329-348. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443719890530 · DOI
  28. Pasquale, F. (2015). The Black Box society. Cambridge University Press.
  29. Petryna, A. (2009). When experiments travel. Clinical trials and the global search for human sub- jects. Princeton University Press.
  30. Quijano, A. (2000). Coloniality of power and eurocentrism in latin america. International Sociology, 15(2), 215-232. https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580900015002005 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Shi, Z. R., Wang, C., & Fang, F. (2020). Artificial intelligence for social good: A survey. ArXiv [pre- print]. arXiv:2001.01818 [cs.CY]. · arXiv

Authors
Madianou, M.
Affiliations
Goldsmiths University of London (GB)
Corresponding author
Madianou, Mirca
ORCID
Madianou, Mirca
Venue
Information, Communication & Society
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2021-04-08
Volume
24
Issue
6
Pages
850-868
ISSN
  • 1369-118X (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-4462
DOI
10.1080/1369118x.2021.1909100
OpenAlex
W3154916686
Cited by
91
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 5
FWCI
15.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Information Communication & Society (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Goldsmiths (University of London) (acceptedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History › Historical and Contemporary Political Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Cybernetics and Technology in Society
Keywords
humanitarianism, artificial intelligence, chatbots, AI for Good, decolonial critique, coloniality of power, power imbalance, humanitarian communication, affected communities, misinformation, Eurocentrism, humanitarian technology

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