I think with her background she is very much aware of the bias in social research, which is a huge issue. However, I think she is taking a big jump to these conclusions mentioned as she also incorporates very subjective components and “human value type” judgments into this.
I think this is a debate that should start with definitions with what it technically means to claim an AI has an opinion. As to my knowledge, an AI does not have an opinion, it simply outputs a specific result based on some algorithm. This algorithm can be created in a way that is not objective for us, e.g. an algorithm that is designed to separate specific political commentators from others and then give them more social power on social media, but the output itself is definitely neutral in a technical sense. The algorithm did not form an opinion or something, it just outputs a specific outcome based on what it has been fed. Yet, an algorithm can be programmed in a way that is purposefully discriminating. So if a programmer decides to program an AI that way then I guess you would say you have some discriminating algorithm.
When we talk about neutrality or objectiveness, I still think this spirals back to the question of truth. To give a very simple example. Let’s say you and I + 8 others have been at an event, and we all tell a story about how that event exactly went. We would have 10 different stories. Individually, they are definitely biased stories about what actually occurred at the event - whether you like it or not. Combined, they show some overlap and then a closer approximation to the truth can be created. However, the event was a 100 person event, so we are still missing 90 insights of different people. Also, even all those 100 people that attended surely missed some details here and there… at what point do you reach an objective reporting of the event? How would you measure this?
So when we talk about AI being objective, you still have to think of it in a mathematical sense that you have a number of data points, but there is always a component of something unknown. Whilst we can get to a closer approximation to the truth, you would never know where you are positioned probably because you cannot capture the unknown. So for something being objective in a scientific and mathematical sense, this is quite a hard question as real life is complicated. We know that
1 == 1. But can we claim
event == best event to ever exist? Never. But what does this means for our human value judgment? Is nothing objective?