Redefining Bias: The Human Prejudice Against AI

The contextual battle over the error versus the success.

3 min readSep 30, 2023


GPT Summary: In the rapidly evolving world of technology, while concerns about biases in AI are valid, there exists a profound yet unspoken bias: the human prejudice against AI. Machines, despite their complex programming, are held to unrealistic standards of perfection, facing intense scrutiny with a single error, whereas human mistakes are often seen as learning opportunities. As AI becomes more intricate, mirroring human cognitive processes, it’s vital to recalibrate our expectations. Rather than stifling AI’s potential by holding it to infallible standards, we must embrace a balanced perspective, recognizing its transformative capabilities and contributions, and evaluate it by its achievements and potential rather than occasional missteps.

In the dynamic arena of technology and innovation, bias has become a buzzword. Understandably so, as bias in AI, especially in Large Language Models (LLMs), manifests as inadvertent prejudices or inaccuracies. Hallucinations or misrepresentations by an AI platform can create significant concerns for users who expect and rely on the accuracy and neutrality of such systems. However, there is a less discussed, yet profound form of bias afoot: the human bias against AI.

The Discrepancy in Expectation

Computers, from their very inception, have been emblematic of perfection. We live in a world where a single error in a code can derail an entire program, where a slight miscalculation can cascade into a system-wide failure. As a result, society has developed an almost uncompromising expectation of machine infallibility—perfect or nothing.

Yet, when humans err, it’s often brushed off with a mere shrug or the age-old saying, “to err is human.” The ability to make mistakes and learn from them is not just accepted but celebrated as a quintessential part of the human journey. Think of the toddler learning to walk or the scientist experimenting in a lab; each misstep, each failed hypothesis, is just a stepping stone towards eventual mastery or discovery.

Raising the Red Flag: A Double Standard?

When AI falters, even in the slightest, it’s met with sweeping criticism. The banners of mistrust are hoisted, and the chorus of detractors finds its voice. However, are we not being egregiously unfair here? Is there not an implicit double standard in how we judge the capabilities of machines versus humans?

Of course, the counter-argument is that machines, by their deterministic nature, should be devoid of errors. But this thinking is antiquated and fails to account for the complexities of modern AI, which is designed to learn, adapt, and even think in a manner reminiscent of human cognition. With the advent of neural networks and deep learning, AI systems now operate in realms that were once the exclusive domain of human intellect.

The Future of AI and Human Interaction

As AI integrates further into society, from healthcare diagnostics to financial advising, it’s essential that we recalibrate our expectations. If we continue to hold AI to an unrealistic standard of perfection, we risk stifling its potential and its growth.

Machines are no longer just binary entities; they are evolving entities shaped by vast datasets and complex algorithms. They can, and will, make mistakes. But it’s the nature and magnitude of these mistakes, the system’s ability to learn from them, and the safeguards in place that should be our focal points of assessment.

Embracing a New Perspective

It’s time to change the narrative and bridge the cognitive dissonance between our acceptance of human fallibility and our expectations for AI. As we stand at the crossroads of technology and humanity, let’s champion a more balanced, more enlightened perspective. Let’s judge AI not by its occasional lapses but by the perspective of monumental achievements, its potential for growth, and its capacity to complement and elevate human endeavors. Errors aren’t to be excluded or ingored, just put into perspective.

AI is not here to replace the human touch but to augment it. As we move forward, let’s ensure that our biases, whether against or in favor of AI, do not impede the synergy of man and machine. Let’s define the future not by errors but by the collective triumphs of innovation.




I’m a technology theorist driving innovation at humanity’s tipping point.