Elizabeth Johnson Archives

As a practicing Software Product Manager who is currently working on the 3rd integration of a Machine Learning (ML) enabled product my understanding and interaction with models is much more quotidian, and at times, downright boring. But it is precisely this form of ML that needs more attention because ML is the primary building block to Artificial Intelligence (AI). In other words, in order to get AI right, we need to first focus on how to get ML right. To do so, we need to take a step back and reflect on the question: how can machine learning work for human flourishing?

First, we’ll take some cues from liberation theology to properly orient ourselves. Second, we need to understand how ML models are already impacting our lives. Last, I will provide a pragmatic list of questions for those of us in the technology field that can help move us towards better ML models, which will hopefully lead to better AI in the future.

Gloria Dei, Vivens Homo

Let’s consider Elizabeth Johnson’s recap of Latin American liberation theology. To the stock standard elements of Latin American liberation theology–preferential option for the poor, the Exodus narrative, and the sermon on the Mt –she raises a consideration from St. Irenaeus’s phrase Gloria Dei, vivens homo. Translated as “the glory of God is the human being fully alive,” this means that human flourishing is God’s glory manifesting in the common good. One can think of the common good not simply as an economic factor. Instead, it is an intentional move towards the good of others by seeking to dismantle the structural issues that prevent flourishing.

Now, let’s dig into this a bit deeper –what prevents human flourishing? Johnson points to two things: 1) inflicting violence or 2) neglecting their good. Both of these translate “into an insult to the Holy One” (82). Not only do we need to not inflict violence on others (which we can all agree is important), but we also need to be attentive to their good. Now, let’s turn to the current state of ML.

Big Tech and Machine Learning

We’ll look at two recent works to understand the current impact of ML models and hold them to the test. Do they inflict violence? Do they neglect the good? The 2020 investigative documentary entitled (with a side of narrative drama) The Social Dilemma (Netflix) and Cathy O’Neil’s Weapons of Math Destruction are both popular and accessible introductions to how actual ML models touch our daily lives.

Screen capture of Social Dilemma

The Social Dilemma takes us into the fast-paced world of the largest tech companies (Google, Facebook, Instagram, etc.) that touch our daily lives. The primary use cases for machine learning in these companies is to drive engagement, by scientifically focusing on methods of persuasion. More clicks, more likes, more interactions, more is better. Except, of course, when it isn’t.

The film sheds light on how a desire to increase activity and to monetize their products has led to social media addiction, manipulation, and even provides data on the increased rates of sucide amongst pre-teen girls. Going even further, the movie points out, for these big tech companies, the applications themselves are not the product, but instead, it’s humans. That is, the gradual but imperceptible change in behavior itself is the product.

These gradual changes are fueled and intensified by hundreds of daily small randomized tests that A/B change minor variables to influence behavior. For example, do more people click on this button when it’s purple or green? With copious amounts of data flowing into the system, the models become increasingly more accurate so the model knows (more than humans) who is going to click on a particular ad or react to a post.

This is how they generate revenue. They target ads at people who are extremely likely to click on them. These small manipulations and nudges to elicit behavior have become such a part of our daily lives we no longer are aware of their pervasiveness. Hence, humans become commodities that need to be continuously persuaded. Liberation theology would look to this documentary as a way to show concrete ways in which ML is currently inflicting violence and neglecting the good.

from Pixabay.com

Machine Learning Outside the Valley

Perhaps ‘normal’ companies fare better? Non-tech companies are getting in on the ML game as well. Unlike tech companies that focus on influencing user behavior for ad revenue, these companies focus on ML as a means to reduce the workload of individual workers or reduce headcount and make more profitable decisions. Here are a few types of questions they would ask: “Need to order stock and determine which store it goes to? Use Machine Learning. Need to find a way to match candidates to jobs for your staffing agency? Use ML. Need to find a way to flag customers that are going to close their accounts? ML.” And the list goes on.

Cathy O’Neil’s work helps us to get insight into this technocratic world by sharing examples from credit card companies, predictions of recidivism, for-profit colleges, and even challenges the US News & World Report College Rankings. O’Neil coins the term “WMD”, Weapons of Math Destruction for models that inflict violence and neglect the good. The three criteria of WMD’s are models that lack transparency, grow exponentially, and cause a pernicious feedback loop, it’s the third that needs the most unpacking.

The pernicious feedback loop is fed by biases of selectivity in the original data set–the example that she gives in chapter 5 is PredPol, a big data startup in order to predict crime used by police departments. This model learns from historical data in order to predict where crime is likely to happen, using geography as its key input. The difficulty here is that when police departments choose to include nuisance data in the model (panhandling, jaywalking, etc), the model will be more likely to predict new crime will happen in that location, which in turn will prompt the police department to send more patrols to that area. More patrols mean a greater likelihood of seeing and ticketing minor crimes, which in turn, feeds more data into the model. In other words, the models become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

A Starting Point for Improvement

As we can see based on these two works, we are far from the topic of human flourishing. Both point to many instances where ML Models are currently not only neglecting the good of others, they are also inflicting violence. Before we can reach the ideal of Gloria Dei, vivens homo we need to make a Liberationist move within our technology to dismantle the structural issues that prevent flourishing. This starts at the design phase of these ML models. At that point, we can ask key questions to address egregious issues from the start. This would be a first for making ML models (and later AI) work for human flourishing and God’s glory.

Here are a few questions that will start us on that journey:

Is this data indicative of anything else (can it be used to prove another line of thought)?
If everything went perfectly (everyone took this recommendation, took this action), then what? Is this a desirable state? Are there any downsides to this?
How much proxy data am I using? In general proxy data or data that ‘stands-in’ for other data.
Is the data balanced (age, gender, socio-economic)? What does this data tell us about our customers?
What does this data say about our assumptions? This is a slightly different cut from above, this is more aimed at the presuppositions of who is selecting the data set.
Last but not least: zip codes. As zip codes are often a proxy for race, use zip codes with caution. Perhaps using state level data or three digit zip code levels average out the results and monitor results by testing for bias.

Maggie Bender is a Senior Product Manager at Bain & Company within their software solutions division. She has a M.A. in Theology from Marquette University with a specialization in biblical studies where her thesis explored the implications of historical narratives on group cohesion. She lives in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, enjoys gardening, dog walking, and horseback riding.

Sources:

Johnson, Elizabeth A. Quest for the Living God: Mapping Frontiers in the Theology of God (New York: Continuum, 2008), 82-83.

O’Neil, Cathy. Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy (New York: Broadway Books, 2017), 85-87.

Orlowski, Jeff. The Social Dilemma (Netflix, 2020) 1hr 57, https://www.netflix.com/title/81254224.

God’s Love For Bears

Dr Johnson’s lecture used John Muir’s writing to challenge us to re-think our relationship with nature. After encountering a bear corpse in one of his hikes, Muir asks: “Is God charity broad enough for bears?” The context of his remarks was a critique to religious people he knew that held nature in total disregard. To them, nature was only an accessory to God’s crowning creation: humans. She then turned to Laudato Si, Pope Francis’ recent encyclical that addresses ecojustice issues as a source to answer Muir’s timely question.

Before proceeding, a bit of historical context is warranted. In 1967, Lynn White published an article that traced the root of our ecological crisis to Genesis 1:26-30, where God commands humanity to subdue the earth:

Christianity] not only established a dualism of man and nature but also insisted that it is God’s will that man exploit nature for his proper ends… Man’s effective monopoly…was confirmed and the old inhibitions to the exploitation of nature crumbled… Christianity made it possible to exploit nature in a mood of indifference to the feelings of natural objects.

Lynn White Jr., ‘The Historical Roots of our Ecologic Crisis’, Science 155 (1967) 1203-207 (p. 1205)

White’s critique initiated serious soul-searching in theological scholarship to re-evaluate Christian’s theology role in defining our relationship to nature. I see Dr. Johnson’s perspective here as a mature fruit from this conversation. She not only re-defines the Christian view of our relationship with nature but also turns it into a moral and theological imperative for action.

A Conversion To Earth and Ecojustice

Echoing Pope Francis’s call in Laudato Si, Dr Johnson exhorted us to a conversion TO earth. In her view, our detached ways to nature made us so prone to destruction and neglect that we now need a wholesale conversion, a radical turning and change of heart, in order to address the ecological crisis we are in. Only when we realize God’s love for creation and endeavor to love creation with such love will we be able to avert disaster. Thus, the incarnation is at the heart of ecojustice.

While such conversion entails many implications, one of the primary results is a revision in liturgy. As a small example, Dr. Johnson suggested we started reading “us” in Psalms not only as people but as all of creation. This simple expansion of meaning yields tremendous change. What if God’s liberation was not just about saving humans but saving all of creation? This would also amplify Romans 8:19-20 where creation itself is groaning for liberation from decay and destruction.

Selah (pause and think about these things)

When It came time for questions, I raised my hand. I asked her what was, if any, the role of technology in this conversion back to earth. By her pause and initial comments, I could tell this was not a question she gets asked often. I could also detect some puzzling looks from the audience who were wondering why this question was even relevant. Questions preceding mine revolved around liturgy, politics and art. As technology is most often regarded as the culprit of ecological destruction, does it even belong in the conversation around ecojustice?

Dr. Johnson answered by making a few points. She first highlighted issues of production and disposal of gadgets. Understanding how we extract materials all the way to how we dispose them involves issues of ethics in treatment of laborers and pollution. Beyond that, she recognized the complexity of the issue, which therefore does not lend itself to simple answers. She also acknowledged the inevitability of technology growing role in our lives. It has the potential for a lot of good and a lot evil, hence, calling for more robust ethical consideration.

From Incarnation to Resurrection

I want to pick up on Dr. Johnson’ answer as a way to expand on some of the ideas of her lecture. Her call to a return to nature is a fitting admonition in a time of climate change. Highlighting God’s connection with creation through the incarnation also addresses Lynn White’s critique that a misinterpretation of Gen 1:27-30 has led Western civilization towards ecological destruction. This happened primarily because at that point in history, humanity was interpreting the Bible from a position detached from nature. Emphasizing incarnation, help us re-build that connection back with nature leading to new ways of looking at the Bible.

Yet, incarnation is not enough. The trajectory of the Christian Bible implies not only incarnation but renewal and transformation. Connecting with nature and turning from destruction is only the first step. If Christians are to be people of the resurrection, we must complement this turning with a call to the renewal of nature. That is, to actively work for the flourishing of all life. In this view, the role of technology changes from one of ecological destruction to rebuilding, repairing and replenishing. Bending the trajectory of technological advancement towards flourishing becomes a central task in pursuing ecojustice.

Much more could be said on this, but the first step is clear. As we turn back to nature, we start with the incarnation and look forward to resurrection. We start with Advent then move on to Lent, start with Christmas but look forward to Easter.

Tag: Elizabeth Johnson

How can Machine Learning Empower Human Flourishing?