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.