Digital Divide (2.0): the Shadow of AI Technology
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract It is largely accepted that technology creates a digital divide in a development context. Generally, to face the digital divide, countermeasures such as capacity building, knowledge and know-how transfer, and beneficiaries’ involvement are applied to accompany technology deployment for development projects. Although the efficiency of such countermeasures is relative and debatable, they doubtlessly contribute to create an ecosystem where hope is permitted, for developing countries, to catch up and to be successful in their digital transformation process. With the advent of artificial intelligence ( AI ) and its massive worldwide promotion, such hope does not seem to be allowed anymore in developing and less-developed countries. AI technologies are designed and developed for technologically advanced environments in wealthy countries, and it has been shown that they have the potential to exacerbate problems in less-wealthy nations. In this article, it is shown that AI technology is intrinsically digital divide pro, and that there is no possible countermeasure against its potentially devastating effects on international development. This leads to a substantial concern that progress in AI technologies and the pressure to adopt them may increase inequalities both between and within countries, in ways which counteract the overall purpose of development. We call this new unbeatable form of digital divide the ‘digital divide (2.0)’, and we argue that AI is a perfect example of technologies that create and consolidate it.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it