They sure will. Here's a quick analysis of how, from my perspective as someone who studies societal impacts of natural language technology:
I have no idea how, but these will end up being racist https://t.co/pjZN0WXnnE
— Michael Hobbes (@RottenInDenmark) December 16, 2020
More from Tech
A common misunderstanding about Agile and “Big Design Up Front”:
There’s nothing in the Agile Manifesto or Principles that states you should never have any idea what you’re trying to build.
You’re allowed to think about a desired outcome from the beginning.
It’s not Big Design Up Front if you do in-depth research to understand the user’s problem.
It’s not BDUF if you spend detailed time learning who needs this thing and why they need it.
It’s not BDUF if you help every team member know what success looks like.
Agile is about reducing risk.
It’s not Agile if you increase risk by starting your sprints with complete ignorance.
It’s not Agile if you don’t research.
Don’t make the mistake of shutting down critical understanding by labeling it Bg Design Up Front.
It would be a mistake to assume this research should only be done by designers and researchers.
Product management and developers also need to be out with the team, conducting the research.
Shared Understanding is the key objective
Big Design Up Front is a thing to avoid.
Defining all the functionality before coding is BDUF.
Drawing every screen and every pixel is BDUF.
Promising functionality (or delivery dates) to customers before development starts is BDUF.
These things shouldn’t happen in Agile.
There’s nothing in the Agile Manifesto or Principles that states you should never have any idea what you’re trying to build.
You’re allowed to think about a desired outcome from the beginning.
It’s not Big Design Up Front if you do in-depth research to understand the user’s problem.
It’s not BDUF if you spend detailed time learning who needs this thing and why they need it.
It’s not BDUF if you help every team member know what success looks like.
Agile is about reducing risk.
It’s not Agile if you increase risk by starting your sprints with complete ignorance.
It’s not Agile if you don’t research.
Don’t make the mistake of shutting down critical understanding by labeling it Bg Design Up Front.
It would be a mistake to assume this research should only be done by designers and researchers.
Product management and developers also need to be out with the team, conducting the research.
Shared Understanding is the key objective
I\u2019d recommend that the devs participate directly in the research.
— Jared Spool (@jmspool) November 18, 2018
If the devs go into the first sprint with a thorough understanding of the user\u2019s problems, they are far more likely to solve it well.
Big Design Up Front is a thing to avoid.
Defining all the functionality before coding is BDUF.
Drawing every screen and every pixel is BDUF.
Promising functionality (or delivery dates) to customers before development starts is BDUF.
These things shouldn’t happen in Agile.
You May Also Like
"I lied about my basic beliefs in order to keep a prestigious job. Now that it will be zero-cost to me, I have a few things to say."
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
As a dean of a major academic institution, I could not have said this. But I will now. Requiring such statements in applications for appointments and promotions is an affront to academic freedom, and diminishes the true value of diversity, equity of inclusion by trivializing it. https://t.co/NfcI5VLODi
— Jeffrey Flier (@jflier) November 10, 2018
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
