Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Tuesday, November 5, 2019
Alanna Berger
Zack Blumberg
Emily Considine
Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz
Emily Huhman
Krystal Hur
Ethan Kessler
Magdalena Mihaylova
Michael Russo
Timothy Spurlin
Miles Stephenson
Nicholas Tomaino
Joel Weiner
Erin White
FINNTAN STORER
Managing Editor
Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
MAYA GOLDMAN
Editor in Chief
MAGDALENA MIHAYLOVA
AND JOEL DANILEWITZ
Editorial Page Editors
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of The Daily’s Editorial Board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
CHAND RAJENDRA-NICOLUCCI | COLUMN
AI for everyone
KIANNA MARQUEZ | COLUMN
ALLISON PUJOL | COLUMN
Demanding a fight against systemic exploitation
Losing hope for Iran’s denuclearization
A
common
theme
that
has come up during
my Latinx Leadership
Program
meetings
is that people in our
community
have
been
silenced
and
marginalized for far
too long. The system
was not built for us
and has not done
nearly
enough
to
include us, so I have
been
emphasizing
that we have to work
on
breaking
our
silence in order to renovate the
system into one that serves us.
We have to act out, get selfish
and actually be the ones to put
ourselves over the privileged
for a change. Have you ever
known what that feels like?
Have you ever had to engage
and
challenge
bureaucratic
systems just so they serve you
and meet your needs? Whether
you realize it or not, we are
all facing the inequity and
degradation that come at the
hands of corporate interests
preventing us from being able
to adopt sustainable practices
into our daily lifestyles.
All of us, whether or not
we belong to a distinguished
ethnic
group,
experience
discrimination
every
day
simply due to the strain of
money. Our lives have become
dictated
by
money,
and
corporations continue to make
it harder for us to earn and keep
it for ourselves. We are forced
by the system to overpay for
necessities and are punished
when we don’t have enough
of the money it takes from us.
As an example, rising costs
of rent and health care have
been contributing to growing
financial insecurity in a third
of
middle
class
American
families, thousands of which
are criminalized because of
the money they owe back. In
one way or another, people are
burdened by the fact that they
have to pay and it is especially
alarming when these burdens
affect our needs.
With
a
looming
climate
catastrophe in our lifetimes, it
is undeniable that sustainable
practices
have
become
a
necessity. And yet, not only
are corporations themselves
contributing to the acceleration
of that catastrophe through
unsustainable
practices,
but they are also preventing
people from being able to
mitigate catastrophic effects
by limiting what we are able
to buy. Several corporations
have made it harder for people
to do their part, whether
that be investing in clean
energy, adopting sustainable
food practices or
taking part in land
preservation.
For
instance,
DTE
Energy
has
formed
a
program
called
MIGreenPower
in
an
effort
to
more
cleanly
source energy. The
program
allows
customers to enroll
in a service that provides
a portion of their energy
from renewable sources and
a portion of their energy
from nonrenewable sources.
Conveniently,
customers
have the option of making a
percentage of their energy
bill from renewable sources,
but the catch is that it costs
more to do so. In this way,
this program is completely
counterproductive and flawed.
If the average household
in Michigan uses about 750
kilowatt-hours of energy per
month and chose to convert
about 58 percent of their
monthly bill to renewable
energy,
this
would
add
approximately $11 onto their
average monthly bill. While
this is arguably a modest price
increase, this alone creates
an environmental benefit of
reducing only about half the
amount of greenhouse gases
from one car and planting
about 74 trees. One can argue
this is a substantial step
towards
the
improvement
of
environmental
quality,
but we all know that these
reductions are not enough to
have the effect necessary to
save our planet. In fact, even
if the average household in
Michigan were to convert
100 percent of their monthly
bill to renewable energy, the
resulting beneficial effects on
the environment would still
not be enough to solve the
global climate issue. While it’s
not entirely up to DTE Energy
to be responsible for saving
our planet by committing
to
accessible
sustainable
practices, I know that the
effects of their initiatives
would be that much more far-
reaching if they eliminated
the financial burden they
pose.
Similarly,
some
organic
food
companies
have
demonstrated
their
commitment
toward
sustainable
practices
and
products
by
setting
high
standards, but without the
understanding that collective
sustainability is only possible
if it can be implementable
and accessible. What if I
wanted
to
do
something
better for the environment
but couldn’t afford to? Is it
my fault for not being able to
adopt green practices with
my low-income budget? How
am I supposed to care for
my family and think about
humanity’s future when I
don’t make enough money
to do both? These are the
questions that DTE Energy
and other corporations are
not asking themselves.
From the perspective of
a marginalized community
member, we are often thought
to be incapable or undeserving
of an opportunity to challenge
our authorities. Instead, we
are expected to be content
with those who claim to
serve us, but this is not the
case. We know we deserve
the chance to rise to the
challenges our system places
in front of us and we should
not
be
marginalized
as
communities any longer. From
our perspective as people
challenged by the capitalist
system that values money over
our and the environment’s
well-being, we have to know
that we deserve better from
our society. Corporations feed
off of our susceptibility to the
comfort of convenience and
desire for laid-back lifestyles,
but you have to know that you
are capable of achieving more
and you are only held back by
those you place in power who
limit you. We should not be
limited to what we can and
can’t do because of money any
longer. We need to fight today
because in the end, when
we still have needs that are
not met after all the system
offers us, not only has the
system failed us but we have
also failed ourselves for not
demanding more from it.
Kianna Marquez can be reached
at kmarquez@umich.edu.
A
t the Bushehr nuclear
power plant in Iran,
all activity is closely
monitored. Twenty-four-hour
surveillance of the plant is one
of the conditions of the 2015
Iran nuclear agreement, or the
Joint Comprehensive Plan of
Action. Regular inspections
and inspectors having daily
access
to
the
plant
from
the United Nations and the
International Atomic Energy
Agency are also part of the
conditions to verify that Iran
is in compliance with terms
to have a peaceful nuclear
program.
But maybe not for long. On
Oct. 16, Iran announced that it
would be turning back on some
of the commitments outlined in
the JCPOA by further limiting
inspectors’ access to some of its
nuclear facilities. While some
have suggested that the Middle
Eastern country’s focus on
nuclear development indicates
Iran’s desire to successfully
construct a nuclear weapon,
Iranian authorities have stated
that the goal of these plants is
to strengthen the economy. The
Atomic Energy Organization of
Iran argues that nuclear plants
like Bushehr “will provide
between 8 and 10 percent of
the country’s electricity after
these plants come online.”
When
the
JCPOA
was
finalized
in
2015,
those
who
debated
its
potential
ramifications could not have
imagined the world’s current
state of affairs. Some policy
experts
speculated
about
the potential violations to
the
deal’s
standards,
but
it would be news to me if
anybody would have guessed
that the United States, one of
the key players in the deal’s
construction,
would
have
withdrawn
from
the
deal
within the three years of its
implementation.
The
JCPOA
provides
the
framework
for
Iran’s
nuclear
activities,
setting
internationally
agreed-upon
levels of uranium enrichment
and
mandating
routine
inspections from the U.N.
and the IAEA. In exchange
for
accepting
these
limits
on
its
nuclear
activities,
proponents of the deal argued
Iran
would
benefit
from
lessened sanctions from the
United States and European
countries. President Barack
Obama’s decision to push for
the JCPOA was likely based
on his view at the time that
Iran would almost certainly
attempt
to
nuclearize
in
the near future. With this
in mind, the White House
maintained the position that
the only clear strategic paths
for the United States were to
sanction Iran, declare war on
Iran or negotiate with Tehran
about giving up its dreams of a
nuclear weapon.
At first, it seems easy to
point fingers at Iran for what
looks like a clear violation
of the terms of the deal.
And Iran’s violations of the
agreement terms are nothing
new. Shortly after the deal
went into effect, Tehran faced
international
condemnation
for
refusing
to
formally
disclose
certain
nuclear
facilities to the IAEA. Since
President Trump’s imposition
of strict economic sanctions,
Iran has used more advanced
centrifuges
and
enriched
larger quantities of uranium
than was agreed upon. But
it’s harder now to blame
Iran for refusing to uphold
commitments;
the
United
States, after all, has formally
withdrawn from the deal and
has reimposed sanctions on
Iran. The European Union
has been accused of reneging
on its part of the deal as well;
Iran has argued that countries
such as France and the U.K.
have not improved their trade
ties in accordance with the
deal. The United States also
has thousands of its own
nuclear weapons, so why the
desperate
push
for
Iran’s
compliance?
We can see a compelling
case made for the nuclear
deal in Obama’s push for the
JCPOA. In 2015, deep in the
hot month of August, then-
President
Obama
gave
a
powerful speech at American
University about the JCPOA
shortly after negotiations with
Iran concluded. He framed
the urgent need for a solution
to nuclear proliferation in the
Middle East, arguing that “the
choice we face is ultimately
between diplomacy or some
form of war – maybe not
tomorrow, maybe not three
months from now, but soon.”
Arguably, Obama’s statement
is more true now than it
was then. Trump’s aversion
to diplomacy with Iran on
nuclearization
might
have
dangerous implications – Iran
has even declared that the
United States is conducting
“economic terrorism” on a
country that is still struggling
to reboot its economy.
Like
much
of
Trump’s
foreign
policy,
the
future
of U.S. policy towards Iran
remains
uncertain.
All
relevant parties in the JCPOA’s
framework – the U.S., the rest
of the permanent members
of the U.N. Security Council,
Germany, Iran and the EU
– should work together to
revitalize and/or renegotiate
the deal. With Trump’s current
bellicose stance and rhetoric
towards Iran, further progress
on the deal is unlikely. Iran
doesn’t have an incentive to
comply with the deal if the
United States can’t comply
with its side of the bargain.
Allison Pujol can be reached at
ampmich@umich.edu.
P
hilosophy,
health,
business,
politics,
economics, law, music
—
no
matter
what
field you are planning
on entering, artificial
intelligence is sure to
have an effect on it.
Yet, university-level AI
courses are typically
restricted to technical
audiences, making the
topic inaccessible for
much of the student
body.
For
example,
at the University of
Michigan, you must
take at least four computer
science courses before you can
take “Introduction to Artificial
Intelligence” or “Introduction
to Machine Learning.”
This barrier to entry, among
others, is keeping out the
diversity of perspectives that
AI desperately needs. Already
we are seeing racially-biased
facial
recognition
systems,
social media algorithms that
encourage
negative,
primal
content and increased use of
autonomous weapons. We need
leaders that can understand
AI from a wide range of
viewpoints — but this doesn’t
reflect the insulated system we
have now. Relying on computer
scientists to gain expertise in
other fields neglects the value
and expertise of non-technical
experts
and
underestimates
the complexity of these issues.
Computer scientists are not
often experts in anthropology,
sociology, philosophy, health
care, economics or law, but
often there is an assumption
that they can become experts
in little time. This hubris is
what has allowed Silicon Valley
to threaten privacy, autonomy
and
democracy.
We
need
experts from other fields who
understand the basics of AI, not
experts on AI who understand
bits and pieces of other fields.
Additionally, many jobs now
require a basic understanding of
how AI works, what it’s good for
and what its risks are. Without
a good understanding, people
may make poor decisions, rely
on AI too much or too little
and exacerbate existing biases
— with major consequences.
Just this week, a
study found racial
bias in a health
care
algorithm
sold
by
Optum.
The
algorithm
consistently
underestimated
the health needs
of Black patients,
potentially
affecting
millions
of people. As AI
enters more and
more of our lives, we need
people from a diverse range of
perspectives who can reason
about its impacts.
This is why I believe we
need an AI course for a non-
technical audience. I envision
an introductory AI class, similar
to
introductory
economics
or statistics, that teaches the
basics of AI to students from
a wide range of majors and
educational
backgrounds.
Creating such a class would
acknowledge
our
changing
world and prepare students
for challenges they will face
in their careers. Additionally,
it would empower groups who
are underrepresented in STEM,
but whose perspectives are
desperately needed, to access
AI. Andrew Ng, a leading AI
researcher and adjunct professor
at Stanford University, recently
created an online course called
“AI for Everyone” that aims
to teach non-technical people
the basics of AI. More than
180,000 students have enrolled
in it so far, demonstrating
the appetite for the topic. At
the University, a similar class
would be a good match for our
interdisciplinary
academic
environment and could be a
model for other schools. The
class could cover the technical
fundamentals of AI, ethical and
societal
considerations,
case
studies involving its successes
and failures and the future of
AI. This would enable students
to pursue AI further, whether
in research or practice, gain
skills and understanding that
will be vital to their careers
and contribute to important
discussions about AI.
Also,
by
limiting
comprehension
to
a
small,
relatively exclusive group of
people, we are missing out on
potentially
transformational
applications of AI. Opening up AI
could lead to more applications
in finance, medicine, among
other multifaceted uses that
would not be possible if we
relied on computer scientists
alone. For example, an art
collective created a piece with
AI that sold for over $400,000
at auction. The University of
Southern
California
Center
for Artificial Intelligence in
Society is using AI in areas such
as homelessness and suicide
prevention. AI is also assisting
in the fight against climate
change. Who knows what could
be dreamt up by a generation of
students with a new, immensely
powerful tool?
We need an AI course for
people
of
all
backgrounds
because the impacts of AI
extend far beyond computer
science. We have already seen
the consequences of keeping this
field closed off, and as the power
of AI grows, so does the need
for leaders who understand it.
By making AI more accessible,
we can mitigate its risks and
enable
innovative,
beneficial
applications, helping to ensure a
better future for us all.
Chand Rajendra-Nicolucci can be
reached at chandrn@umich.edu.
CHAND
RAJENDRA-
NICOLUCCI
We need
experts
from other
fields who
understand the
basics of AI
It’s harder now
to blame Iran for
refusing to uphold
commitments
KIANNA
MARQUEZ
Collective
sustainability
is only possible
if it can be
implementable
SUBMIT TO SURVIVORS SPEAK
The Opinion section has created a space in The Michigan
Daily for first-person accounts of sexual assault and
its corresponding personal, academic and legal
implications. Submission information can be found at
https://tinyurl.com/survivespeak.
CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION
Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor and
op-eds. Letters should be fewer than 300 words while op-eds
should be 550 to 850 words. Send the writer’s full name and
University affiliation to tothedaily@michigandaily.com.