5 questions for Brenda Darden Wilkerson

With help from Derek Robertson

Welcome back to The Future in 5 Questions. Today we’re speaking with Brenda Darden Wilkerson, who’s served for more than five years as president and CEO of a nonprofit called AnitaB.org that aims to foster more opportunity for women and nonbinary technologists. Prior to joining AnitaB.org, her ideas made waves as the director of computer science and IT education for Chicago Public Schools, where she created a “Computer Science for All” initiative that helped inspire the tech policy vision of the Obama White House.

Read on to hear her reservations about rushing into a new era of artificial intelligence and how rhetorical fights around words like “woke” are complicating efforts to diversify tech workplaces.

Responses have been edited for length and clarity.

What’s one underrated big idea?

Based upon what we do, the biggest underrated idea is that we’d hire more women if we could just find them, if they would just get trained. That’s what we’re waiting on, in order to diversify tech.

First of all, we are talking with some of the most educated blocs of people out there, and it lends itself to the trend over the last 20 years of degree inflation. When I was a technologist, I was one of the only people with a technology degree. The men had a bent — many of them were either not educated at all or they had other degrees. And there was this concept that they could learn it. Now we have this, “No, you have to have a master’s degree or a PhD to come in at the entry-level,” which is just another barrier.

We know that the minimum amount of bump in the bottom line to companies is about 19 percent when their workforce is diverse throughout, all the way up through leadership. One of the things that we do with our policy and engagement is to bring about those awarenesses and dispel those fallacies. Companies are leaving a lot of money on the table waiting for these women to get trained, that already are — the fear is about the shift in power. And the shift needs to occur.

What’s a technology you think is overhyped?

The way we’re addressing AI is incorrect. I don’t know if I would define it as overhyped but it is disproportionately approached as an innovation we can’t stop or we can’t actually slow. It’s important for us to back up and take a look at the impact that it has on people.

We’ve seen the obvious harms of facial recognition, we’ve seen the obvious harms of using it in the policing system, using it in cases where judges decide who’s going to get what sentence based upon old biases. So instead of thinking, “Oh, isn’t this great, ChatGPT could write my speech,” we need to think about what is the greater impact on humanity of AI.

What book most shaped your conception of the future?

I want to start back where I found my passion to create “Computer Science for All.” That book was called “Stuck in the Shallow End: Education, Race, and Computing.” It’s a book by Jane Margolis and Joanna Goode, two of my she-roes. They compared the issue with racial segregation around swimming pools to racial segregation around tech education, which at the time was really focused on computation, so computer science. And they noted the history — which right now people are trying to erase — of the pools being segregated, that Black people were not allowed in the pools. And so what we find many times is Black people and brown people, women not allowed in technical education, which stops the pathway, the pipeline in. I really got inspired to fix that. And out of that, I was able to start “Computer Science for All.”

I could mention one more, called “Invisible Women.” It’s about really the lack of centering of women in most datasets and written by Caroline Criado Perez. It’s like 10 chapters that just hit you right in the middle of your eyes — how women are just not in the data and the impact it has on systems, whether it’s the medical system or car crash testing.

What could government be doing regarding tech that it isn’t?

The government could set the example for what it looks like to have a diverse workforce. They could bring in more women, more minoritized people, people of color, into tech and create applications that speak to everybody because that’s its job.

If you think back to the Obama administration, with the Affordable Care Act and creating Healthcare.gov — it wasn’t perfect at first, but we still use it today. And it was a way to usher in people’s access to things that the government had decided they will have access to. But it’s one of many government websites. That’s the barrier, right? The team brought in a very diverse set of technologists, many of them women, many of them people of color, many of them of various age ranges, to address the issues that they were uniquely qualified to understand. So more people therefore were served.

What has surprised you most this year?

The rhetoric and the impact of the rhetoric. The co-opting of terms, the co-opting of “woke” — people are not willing to push back against the ridiculous.

But people are consumed by it. The impact of it on companies has been that the DEI efforts have been sort of squashed. I’ve talked to some colleagues that do diversity work who say that the calls are coming in less and less, to come in and talk about diversity. Or when you come in, “don’t use that word ‘equity’” — which is ridiculous. Or “don’t use that word ‘equality.’” We should all be frightened by that.

A lot of our work is education. There’s no boogeyman in any of this.

banned in italy

As some in the AI community get ever more insistent about regulating AI before such a thing becomes more or less impossible, one European country became the first to outright ban one of the most popular AI-powered tools.

Italy’s privacy regulator barred the use of ChatGPT in the country today, citing “the mass collection and storage of personal data ... to ‘train’ the algorithms” in alleged violation of Europe’s landmark privacy law, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). (POLITICO’s Clothilde Goujard also noted that Italy’s data authority pointed out how ChatGPT “suffered a data breach and exposed users’ conversations and payment information of its users last week,” and that “OpenAI does not verify the age of users and exposes ‘minors to absolutely unsuitable answers compared to […] their degree of development and self-awareness.’”)

OpenAI, which doesn’t have an office in Europe, didn’t respond to POLITICO’s request for comment — but as Clothilde wrote, “its representative in the European Economic Area has 20 days to communicate how it plans on bringing ChatGPT into compliance with EU privacy rules or face a penalty of up to 4 percent of its global revenue.” — Derek Robertson

gravity's rainbow redux

Some literary food for thought for your Friday afternoon: As Thomas Pynchon’s “Gravity’s Rainbow” turned 50 this year, what lessons does it have to offer about humanity’s fraught, inevitable footrace with technology?

The writer Gus Mitchell tackles the subject in an essay published this week, making a case that “The dream of transcendence, assuming that the only way out of the grinding mechanism of technology and capitalist momentum is to go through them, is the pretext for the ruthless disruption that continues to define our precarious present.” In the atmosphere of Cold War paranoia and post-WWII moral reckoning in which Pynchon wrote his masterpiece, that meant the atom bomb, Apollo rocketry, and chemical weapons. Today it’s the relentless march of AI development, and the transhumanist dream of computers that can outthink, or even outlive us.

Mitchell is, to put it lightly, a techno-pessimist — as was Pynchon. “Markets that flow across borders and computer networks that instantly communicate across space and time might seem like natural analogues today, but Pynchon was the first writer to glimpse with total clarity how inseparable these phenomena were. These human-built systems would rapidly outgrow the parameters, the needs, the living essence of the human beings who built them. Immensely complex systems of power and of technology come to resemble one another, growing as they do from the same sources, controlled by the same powers, and seeking ever-greater complexity in the interest of consolidating that power.”

Have a nice weekend! — Derek Robertson

tweet of the day

the future in 5 links

Stay in touch with the whole team: Ben Schreckinger ([email protected]); Derek Robertson ([email protected]); Mohar Chatterjee ([email protected]); Steve Heuser ([email protected]); and Benton Ives ([email protected]). Follow us @DigitalFuture on Twitter.

If you’ve had this newsletter forwarded to you, you can sign up and read our mission statement at the links provided.