Critically examine potential cultural biases and blindspots in the “Atlas of AI” framework from a Middle Eastern perspective. What important contexts or viewpoints may be missing or underrepresented? Provide specific examples. (Due April 18)
OpenEdition schlägt Ihnen vor, diesen Beitrag wie folgt zu zitieren:
Victoria Mummelthei (9. April 2024). ai and the Middle East, assignment complementing the introduction (deadline April 18). Keine Disziplin – No Discipline. Abgerufen am 7. März 2026 von https://doi.org/10.58079/13jqe


Despite the current worldwide development of AI, both in the West and in the Middle East, I have noticed the absence of information in the media exposing its use in Eastern territories (unlike all the studies, projects, discoveries which are published in places such as in US, Europe, etc). Sometimes I do not know if it is due to stereotypes linked to culture, religion, geopolitics, since, being very conservative countries, this type of avant-garde technological advances are not usually considered (which makes no sense). And this is how this geographical area is relegated to second or third place, to the bottom of the production chain that does not take these territories into account. This is how all hierarchical scales and divisions of power begin, when certain territories consider others less or unimportant.
On the one hand, I agree with what the author has said about the structural evolution of AI over the years and what it has become and may become. However, I would like to add the idea that AI could catch up with human beings in certain aspects is unlikely at the present time. Yes, as we have read, in terms of the amount of information, knowledge stored, etc, it will undoubtedly do so, but such as human aspects, i.e. the non tangible, I find it hard to believe, and if it manages to do so, it could be detrimental rather than beneficial. Linked to this, I believe that the psychological impact is something that should be present whenever this is discussed. The way in which this impact can improve or worsen a particular society, its repercussions, benefits, etc, are aspects that must be seen crucial for its fruitful development.
On the other hand, this idea of seeing AI as an atlas, I do not know how accurate it is. In this context, as the book states, it is feasible. However, I do not think either that at this point, one could still view AI as an epitome of knowledge. Because it is not yet able or has not yet been able to find a way to solve problems that have been going on for years, and for me that is a shortcoming. Everything come with a cost and it is clear that AI is accompanied by collateral damage through its use. So, one of the questions I ask myself after these first few pages is, would it be viable to use AI to solve contextualised conflicts in the Middle East?
I think that the writer’s point of view is also very limited with the Western perspective as stated on page 1, though I agree with the premise of the Introduction stating that the relation between the coding mechanisms, institutions, and power hierarchies of AI (just like the lack of critical viewing of the relation between the horse Hans and its trainer). Seeing AI as an Atlas sounds Utopian; However, a crucial look at AI should not disregard AI’s knowledge production or even knowledge production of the data sets used in programming AI when it comes to non-white, non-Westerner bodies, subjects, and emotions. I also feel that to see it as an atlas; one needs a better division of power in the AI industry. The industries that use AI are primarily stated in the US. Therefore, we also do not know how Global South and its progress in such an industry would affect AI programming. A critical look limited to the US (although it deals with its localities) is bound to perceive the Global South as the eternal victim of the West.