A techno-sociologist discusses "persuasion architecture", or how AI can be used to conrol people's actions, as well as what might be done in response.

A discussion around how gender bias can be proliferated through AI machines.

The science in Damore’s memo is still very much in play, and his analysis of its implications is at best politically naive and at worst dangerous. The memo is a species of discourse peculiar to politically polarized times: cherry-picking scientific evidence to support a preexisting point of view. It’s an exercise not in rational argument but in rhetorical point scoring. And a careful walk through the science proves it.

An argument against human gene editing technology being used to edit out disabilities.

When we feed machines data that reflects our prejudices, they mimic them – from antisemitic chatbots to racially biased software. Does a horrifying future await people forced to live at the mercy of algorithms?

James Damore's Google Memo. The core arguments: Men and women have psychological differences that are a result of their underlying biology. Those differences make them differently suited to and interested in the work that is core to Google. Yet Google as a company is trying to create a technical, engineering, and leadership workforce with greater numbers of women than these differences can sustain, and it’s hurting the company. Anyone who tries to talk about that paradox gets silenced—which runs counter to Google’s stated goal of valuing and being friendly to difference.

The ride-sharing giant was the subject of a withering report, but its values and its hard-driven C.E.O. remain in place.

Private groups - like the one used by students whose Harvard acceptances were recently rescinded - may offer a false sense of confidence.