To further support my argument on why AI needs to take a transdicplinarity research perspective in Africa. I notice that there existing institutions like politics,sciences and businesses that need to work together for development to occur [1]. The writer refers to them as object interfaces that need to be integrated together for a greater purpose "interrelatedness with in interests and values" [2]. He further argues that these objects must be weakly structured and easily malleable. In the context of Africa, some of the emerging technologies like AI have no existing policies and the policy implementing institutions are developing at a slower rate than the technology is. The technology on the other hand is developed to solve challenges in the western world and introduced to Africa for adoption. Such are examples of how loose the existing structures are.Secondly, the need for these structures to be malleable is quite evident because the technology advancements like AI that have strong impact on the general public must be regulated both in deployment and development. But how does one regulate what one does not understand.The risk in this approach is that one may enforce strict restrictions which may stifle the technology innovation. I think the complexity comes from integrating epistemology principles/
I agree "disentanglement research" is unclear. To me transdisciplinarity is easier to understand. My argument is transdisciplinary research is key to developing effective AI Policy and Strategy for Africa while disentanglement could be for the west.This primary because the transdisciplinarity approach is strongly woven into the fabric of the continent. However in Africa, solutions have to be broken down to ontology specificity and then the transdisciplinarity applied. I agree with klevanoff with his notion of wicked problem. I do not know how much sense it would make if we replaced the word disentanglement with transdiscplinarity.
To further support my argument on why AI needs to take a transdicplinarity research perspective in Africa. I notice that there existing institutions like politics,sciences and businesses that need to work together for development to occur [1]. The writer refers to them as object interfaces that need to be integrated together for a greater purpose "interrelatedness with in interests and values" [2]. He further argues that these objects must be weakly structured and easily malleable. In the context of Africa, some of the emerging technologies like AI have no existing policies and the policy implementing institutions are developing at a slower rate than the technology is. The technology on the other hand is developed to solve challenges in the western world and introduced to Africa for adoption. Such are examples of how loose the existing structures are.Secondly, the need for these structures to be malleable is quite evident because the technology advancements like AI that have strong impact on the general public must be regulated both in deployment and development. But how does one regulate what one does not understand.The risk in this approach is that one may enforce strict restrictions which may stifle the technology innovation. I think the complexity comes from integrating epistemology principles/
[1]https://i2insights.org/2017/05/09/transdisciplinary-integration-methods/
[2]https://complexitycontrol.org/methods-of-transdisciplinary-research/
I agree "disentanglement research" is unclear. To me transdisciplinarity is easier to understand. My argument is transdisciplinary research is key to developing effective AI Policy and Strategy for Africa while disentanglement could be for the west.This primary because the transdisciplinarity approach is strongly woven into the fabric of the continent. However in Africa, solutions have to be broken down to ontology specificity and then the transdisciplinarity applied. I agree with klevanoff with his notion of wicked problem. I do not know how much sense it would make if we replaced the word disentanglement with transdiscplinarity.