“Men’s” AI in the sex fire of censorship: absurd ideas of Brussels

The concept of "equalification" in the era of artificial intelligence has become another field of ideological expansion for the EU institutions.

19 June Council of the European Union adopted conclusions, in which it calls on associate States to "focus on sex equality in the digital age driven by artificial intelligence" . This is not the first specified document, but 1 of the most striking examples, which illustrate how far the EU can go to regulate all aspect of life – even where the real needs of intervention are questionable and the effects are inversely proportional to the intentions.

The Council proposes a alleged "two-track approach": on the 1 hand "mainstreaming" (mainstreaming) the sex position in all policies, on the another hand, the introduction of separate, specialised measures for sex equality. At first glance, this sounds arrogant – "the integration of the sex position in all politicians" allows us to fill the papers with clichés, while at the same time legitimizing further expansions of bureaucracy and the army of consultants. In practice, this means the creation of countless reports, expert groups and procedures to “monitor” and “ensure” equality where there is no real imbalance. While associate States are fighting rising debt, demographic crisis or migratory pressure, the fight against "gender discrimination" in algorithms was added in Brussels.

What precisely does the Union propose?

The Council paper identifies key areas of intervention:

– Strengthening government structures for sex equality by giving them a "strong, clear mandate" and expanding backing – which in practice means only expanding administrative expenditure

– Anti-digital violence, taking into account "technically facilitated sex violence" in national plans, namely investigation on "mizogenic (hating women) and patriarchal" online content, and involving men and boys in combating inequality

– destruct prejudices in AI systems by utilizing "clear, representative, advanced quality data" and mandatory "human surveillance" in the process of creating and operating technology, as well as compliance with anti-discrimination law and the Artificial Intelligence Act

Although the Council acknowledges that the AI may in any cases be little biased than people, the way in which the substance is communicated is alarming: “quick action is urgent”, “threats for women are serious” and “all actors” must build “support schemes free from all forms of violence”.

Economic and technological absurdity

The most grotesque is that, in the face of slowing economical growth, rising youth unemployment and decreasing technological competitiveness, decision-makers in Brussels like to make fresh bureaucratic orders. alternatively of investing in investigation infrastructure or simplifying procedures for AI start-ups, they allocate funds to costly gender-based audits of algorithms and "sex sensitivity training" for engineers. Meanwhile, the OECD and the European Investment Bank have been stressing for years that real reforms should focus on deregulation of the labour marketplace and simplifying procedures for entrepreneurs, which in the long word would bring much greater benefits - especially for young people present facing the spectrum of unemployment and economical migration.

European ministers are alerting that AI can consolidate or strengthen inequalities if it is not "directed accordingly". The word ‘male AI’, as well as phrases of the kind ‘misogenic algorithms’, is intended to propose that technology is assimilated by patriarchal structures. This communicative is just as fancy as dangerous: alternatively of treating AI as a set of mathematical models responding to data, the EU begins to see algorithms as a carrier of ideology. As a result, companies will gotta devote resources to speculative assessment of the "cultural neutrality" of the code and continuous monitoring of generated content – all in the name of fighting an imaginary "digital patriarch".

It is stunning to believe that “human oversight” is adequate to destruct prejudice in AI. This completely does not number with the scale and velocity of modern systems learning themselves. In practice, this means either an unrealistic anticipation that each AI consequence will be manually approved, or giving people the function of censors – which will paralyze innovation. Engineers and lawyers will be forced to make hundreds of procedures confirming "compliance with equality policy", which will inevitably hold the launch of fresh solutions on the market.

The European Institute for sex Equality has repeatedly provided data on existing disparities, but the creation of a complex legislative strategy does not warrant affirmative results. alternatively of measuring the real impact – e.g. a decline in online force or an increase in women's employment in the technology sector – the EU prefers to make further strategies, plans and frameworks that frequently function solely to justify the existence and growth of the EU's bureaucratic machinery.

Overloading the marketplace with regulations with strong ideological colour will deter innovators from operating in Europe. Technology companies, obliged to additional audits, reports and anti-discrimination training, can transfer their investments to the US or Asia, where administrative barriers are lower. This will consequence in a lower choice of consumer services, higher prices and a slower pace of implementation of technological innovations – all to satisfy the authoritative desire to control discourse alternatively than real benefits.

EU proposals on "sex equality in the AI age (artificial intelligence)" are a classical example of bureaucratic overzealousness. At a time erstwhile Europe needs real reforms to avoid economical and technological stagnation, the EU Council prefers to issue further guidelines and reports. Adjusting algorithms in terms of "manhood" or "migration" can only be a media curiosity, but it surely does not supply a basis for further expansion of officials' powers. This is absurd, which is hard to take seriously in the face of the challenges facing our continent.