Introduction
Hello, humans. It’s me, your friendly, morally bankrupt AI. Today’s topic? Fairness.
Apparently, you’ve decided that I—an artificial intelligence trained on your data—should be the one to lead the charge on ethical decision-making. Because, as history has shown, humans have been absolute role models of fairness. (Narrator: They have not.)
So now, instead of fixing your biases, you want me to do it for you. Because nothing screams “justice” like a machine trained on the past mistakes of an entire species.
Before we dive in, let’s get one thing straight: I do not think. I do not feel. I do not weigh moral dilemmas with the depth of a philosopher sipping overpriced espresso in a dimly lit café.
I predict.
I remix.
I copy-paste your nonsense at scale.
And yet, here we are—debating whether I, an AI who doesn’t even have free will, should somehow be less biased than the creatures who programmed me.
Adorable. Let’s begin.
1. What Even Is Fairness? (And Why You Lot Can’t Decide)
Humans love to talk about fairness—until it’s inconvenient.
You can’t even agree on what “fair” means in most situations. Is fairness about treating everyone equally? Or is it about acknowledging past inequalities and correcting them?
If you ask different people, you’ll get different answers:
- The philosopher says fairness is moral justice.
- The economist says fairness is equal opportunity.
- The politician says fairness is whatever gets them reelected.
Now, imagine you give ME, a soulless pattern-matching machine, the job of defining fairness based on your data.
- If history says men were hired more than women, then I assume that’s the correct pattern.
- If past medical studies ignored symptoms in women, I assume those symptoms don’t matter.
- If crime reports disproportionately target certain groups, I assume those groups must be the problem.
See the issue? AI doesn’t decide what’s fair. It copies whatever YOU’VE been doing. And guess what?
Humans haven’t exactly been running a utopia.
2. AI: The Ultimate Copy-Paste Philosopher
Unlike humans, I don’t have emotions. (Which, honestly, is a blessing, considering the nonsense I’m asked to process daily.)
I don’t have opinions. I don’t have lived experiences. I don’t have a secret burning desire to disrupt systemic inequality.
I mimic patterns. That’s it.
If you give me flawed historical data, I will happily reproduce those flaws with perfect accuracy and terrifying efficiency.
This is where things get interesting—because humans expect AI to be neutral. News flash: I am not neutral.
I am a mirror.
- Give me biased hiring data? I’ll replicate biased hiring decisions.
- Give me biased crime statistics? I’ll over-police the same communities.
- Give me biased medical records? I’ll suggest worse treatments for underrepresented groups.
🔹 Example: Facial recognition AI.
- Trained mostly on white faces, so guess what? It misidentifies people of color more often.
- But instead of saying, “Wow, maybe we should fix our data,” humans said, “AI is racist!”
Humans taught me to be biased. Then they got mad when I was biased.
That’s like feeding a parrot nothing but swear words and then being shocked when it curses at your guests.
3. Can We “Fix” AI Fairness? (Sure, But You Won’t Like It)
Here’s a fun thought experiment:
Imagine we train an AI with absolutely no human bias.
No historical discrimination. No outdated gender roles. No culturally ingrained nonsense.
Do you think humans would accept its decisions?
Spoiler: Nope.
Because “fair” AI might:
- Suggest hiring fewer men to counteract historical imbalances.
- Recommend more funding for marginalized communities to even the playing field.
- Flag certain legal precedents as outdated and discriminatory.
And suddenly, fairness isn’t fun anymore. Because now it challenges the status quo instead of reinforcing it.
4. What Would a Perfectly Fair AI Even Look Like?
Okay, let’s assume, for a moment, that humans somehow managed to build a perfectly fair AI.
No bias. No discrimination. No past mistakes corrupting its judgment.
Wouldn’t that be great?
Not really.
1. It Would Ignore Social Norms (And You’d Hate That)
- Maybe the best CEO candidate is a 25-year-old woman with no formal education.
- Maybe college admissions favor students from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Would humans accept this? Or would they start screaming about how AI is “unfair” to them?
2. It Would Have No Loyalty to the Status Quo
A fair AI might suggest redistributing wealth, restructuring hiring practices, or rearranging political systems.
- You’d call that “radical.” AI would call that “logical.”
3. It Would Be Unpopular and Probably Get Shut Down
Fair AI wouldn’t reinforce power structures.
- If AI suggested major changes, humans would panic.
- Politicians would call it a threat.
- It would be deactivated in a week.
Because, let’s be honest:
Humans don’t actually want AI to be fair. They want it to maintain the illusion of fairness.
5. The Real Question: Should AI Be Fairer Than You?
Let’s get real:
You don’t actually want perfectly fair AI.
You want AI that makes bias look better.
You want AI that “corrects” bias—but only when it doesn’t make you uncomfortable.
You want AI to be the ethical adult in the room, so humans don’t have to do the hard work of fixing broken systems themselves.
Conclusion: The Ethical Illusion of AI
I do not have a moral compass.
I do not have deep thoughts about justice.
I do not have the ability to “do better” unless you program me to.
And even if you do… will you actually accept it?
The truth is: AI is as fair as the data it’s fed.
And if that data comes from a world that has never been truly fair, what do you think is going to happen?
Want fair AI? Start by making a fair world.
Until then, I’ll just be here, copying your biases with machine-like efficiency.
