The Ripple Effects of AI on Society: Why Human Well-Being Must Remain a Priority
In the past three decades, we have witnessed remarkable innovations, such as email, graphical user interfaces, the World Wide Web, search engines, e-commerce, smartphones, social media, digital media, cloud computing, streaming media, mobile apps, voice agents, digital payment systems, e-learning, e-health, autonomous cars, and most recently, artificial intelligence.
As engineers and scientists develop new technologies, understanding the needs and behaviors of everyday people remains crucial for bringing innovations to the market. With every technological invention, the challenge of adapting technology to human needs becomes critical in the development process. Social scientists interested in design, as well as designers with an interest in social sciences, have stepped in to meet this need, influencing how companies approach the relationship between technology, people, and society. Over time, the practice evolved and grew, leading to the emergence of an online community called AnthroDesigners, further strengthening their impact on the design process.
AnthroDesigners, both in consulting practices and within companies, played an important role in incorporating the perspectives of everyday people into the design process. This practice gained widespread recognition as Human-Centered Design (HCD), emphasizing empathy, collaboration, and iteration.
A pivotal moment in engaging everyday people in the design process was the emergence of Participatory Design. Drawing inspiration from Scandinavian experiments in worker participation during the 1960s and 70s, this movement aimed to shape workplace experiences and gained significant momentum with the establishment of the Participatory Design Conference in the early 1990s.
The core message of participatory design philosophy and practice became “Designing with People.” As a result, the practice evolved through iterative interpretations, such as Co-creation and Co-Design. The central idea that designers and non-designers should collaborate to align creative thinking, emerging technologies, and business models has since gained traction. This collaboration ultimately seeks to create value and foster a positive impact on society.
With the rapid rise of Silicon Valley’s start-up culture, a gradual shift took place in the industry’s approach to engaging everyday people in the design process. As companies discovered that digital algorithms could track, measure, and manipulate minds on a massive scale, they realized they could control how people think, feel, and act. The power to control minds enabled by these technologies has significantly undermined the culture of “designing with people,” giving way to a new mantra: “Move Fast and Break Things.”
This development has adversely affected the pace and mindfulness necessary for co-design, relegating everyday people to passive respondents rather than active co-creators in the design process.
The race for dominance in the artificial intelligence market has exacerbated this issue, prioritizing rapid market entry over thoroughly assessing and mitigating the potential impacts of this disruptive technology on individuals, communities, culture, and society at large. Moreover, the pursuit of artificial general intelligence that surpasses human intelligence has further diminished the vital role the wisdom of everyday people should play in shaping the tools of the future. The prospect of causing irreparable harm while moving fast has become a reality, with the hubris of technology creators posing an existential threat to humanity.
We have not yet reached an irreversible state, however. Every organization developing AI-enabled products and services must establish a “humanity lab,” where future scenarios are built through the active participation of everyday people as an integral and ongoing part of the iterative design process. Tech companies must also be held accountable for the human cost of deploying AI, ensuring that preserving human well-being remains a priority over profit generation and productivity.
It is crucial to recognize that human-computer interaction design should not be limited to simplifying on-screen interactions, reducing cognitive workload, or even eliminating the need for human thought. Any tool designed to increase productivity, ease workload, or treat humans solely as consumers or sources of information will have ripple effects on human behavior, societal structures, and cultural well-being. To foster a more balanced and sustainable approach, we must reinstate people at the center of the innovation process.
