Transcending the Binary: Is AI Helpful or Harmful?

Vol. 5| 1.24.25

The Binary Trap

The question of whether AI is helpful or harmful tends to fall into a binary framework, mirroring the algorithms that power these systems. Yet, such reductive thinking oversimplifies a more nuanced reality. AI is not inherently moral or immoral; it is a tool. Its applications and outcomes depend entirely on the intentions, biases, and systems that humans embed within it.

Nascent research in the capacity of these technologies to provide support for students with functional illiteracy, for instance, points to several benefits. These benefits are reflected in other industries as well. Take healthcare as an example. AI-powered diagnostic tools have revolutionized early disease detection, promising to save millions of lives. However, these same tools can exacerbate existing inequalities when trained on biased datasets that exclude certain populations. Similarly, while AI-enhanced automation boosts efficiency in industries, it can displace workers and widen socioeconomic divides if not accompanied by thoughtful policies and substantial support.

The Ethical Minefield

The ethical dimensions of AI cannot be understated. Concerns about surveillance, data privacy, and algorithmic bias are increasingly at the forefront of public and academic discourse. Facial recognition technology, for instance, has been deployed for public safety purposes, but it has also raised alarms about misuse and systemic discrimination. In one such use case, Liz Mineo of The Harvard Gazette writes, “Even though facial recognition technology can be used for good purposes such as criminal investigations, the dangers it poses to privacy rights could outweigh its benefits. … Both the right to privacy and users’ right to control their personal information shared on social media platforms should be protected, she added. New laws to protect those rights should be modeled after regulations that made wiretapping, or the recording of communications between parties without their consent, illegal.”

Moreover, as generative AI systems create content that rivals human creativity, questions arise about intellectual property, misinformation, and the future of artistic expression. Who owns the output of an AI system trained on the collective works of humanity? How do we discern fact from fabrication when synthetic media becomes indistinguishable from reality? What happens to the concept of originality in a world where AI can instantly replicate or even improve upon human artistic styles? And lastly, do we ensure that the widespread use of generative AI enhances, rather than undermines, cultural diversity and individual expression?

Toward a Holistic Understanding

To transcend the binary debate, we should adopt a more holistic framework that considers the multifaceted implications of AI. This includes:

1. Regulation and Governance: Governments and international bodies must establish clear guidelines to ensure that AI development and deployment align with ethical principles.

2. Education and Awareness: Public understanding of AI’s capabilities and limitations is essential to fostering informed dialogue and decision-making.

3. Interdisciplinary Collaboration: Technologists, ethicists, policymakers, and sociologists must work together to anticipate challenges and craft solutions.

4. Inclusive Design: AI systems should be designed with diverse perspectives in mind to mitigate biases and promote equitable outcomes.

A Mirror for Humanity

Perhaps the most profound question AI raises is not about the technology itself but about us. AI, in many ways, acts as a mirror reflecting our values, priorities, and blind spots. Will we use it to amplify the best of humanity—empathy, creativity, and collaboration—or will we allow it to magnify our worst instincts?

Rather than framing AI as a binary—helpful or harmful—we ought to approach it as a duality. AI embodies both promise and peril, and its impact on society depends on how we navigate these two dimensions. Just as light and shadow coexist to give depth to an image, the duality of AI forces us to contend with the trade-offs inherent in technological advancement. Recognizing this duality allows us to embrace AI’s potential while remaining vigilant about its risks.

As educator John Spencer cautions, just because AI can carry out a particular task, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t. Termed “cognitive atrophy” or the loss of ability to engage in mental processes because of inactivity, this presents itself as a possibility in the AI landscape. To combat this, we ought to actively work to prevent AI from doing the thinking associated with some of the most meaningful aspects of our lives, relying on it instead to delegate, automate, and iterate the mundane. 

AI’s future is not predetermined. It is a construct of our collective will and imagination. Whether it becomes a tool for liberation or oppression is a choice we make every day.