monoculture

technological diversity

Technological diversity is the opposite of technological monoculture. It refers to the diversity of artifacts (software and hardware) as well as that of ideas, philosophies, paradigms, techniques, languages, mental models, etc.

Algorithmic Monocultures in Hiring

Many employers procure hiring algorithms from the same third-party vendors. Over 60% of the Fortune 100 use HireVue's algorithms. When hiring algorithms from a single vendor mediate hiring decisions at multiple employers, they constitute an algorithmic monoculture.

Algorithmic Monocultures in Hiring - Stanford Digital Economy Lab

Many employers screen job applicants with algorithms built by the same few algorithm vendors. We hypothesize that algorithmic monoculture leads to the same individuals and members of the same racial groups facing rejection. We acquire and analyze a novel dataset of 3 million applicants submitting 4 million applications where all the applications are screened by algorithms built by the same vendor.

Algorithmic monoculture and social welfare

Significance Algorithmic monoculture is a growing concern in the use of algorithms for high-stakes screening decisions in areas such as employment and lending. If many firms use the same algorithm, even if it is more accurate than the alternatives, the resulting “monoculture” may be susceptible to correlated failures, much as a monocultural system is in biological settings. To investigate this concern, we develop a model of selection under monoculture. We find that even without any assumption of shocks or correlated failures—i.e., under “normal operations”—the quality of decisions may decrease when multiple firms use the same algorithm. Thus, the introduction of a more accurate algorithm may decrease social welfare—a kind of “Braess’ paradox” for algorithmic decision-making. , As algorithms are increasingly applied to screen applicants for high-stakes decisions in employment, lending, and other domains, concerns have been raised about the effects of algorithmic monoculture, in which many decision-makers all rely on the same algorithm. This concern invokes analogies to agriculture, where a monocultural system runs the risk of severe harm from unexpected shocks. Here, we show that the dangers of algorithmic monoculture run much deeper, in that monocultural convergence on a single algorithm by a group of decision-making agents, even when the algorithm is more accurate for any one agent in isolation, can reduce the overall quality of the decisions being made by the full collection of agents. Unexpected shocks are therefore not needed to expose the risks of monoculture; it can hurt accuracy even under “normal” operations and even for algorithms that are more accurate when used by only a single decision-maker. Our results rely on minimal assumptions and involve the development of a probabilistic framework for analyzing systems that use multiple noisy estimates of a set of alternatives.

Algorithmic monoculture and social welfare

Significance Algorithmic monoculture is a growing concern in the use of algorithms for high-stakes screening decisions in areas such as employment and lending. If many firms use the same algorithm, even if it is more accurate than the alternatives, the resulting “monoculture” may be susceptible to correlated failures, much as a monocultural system is in biological settings. To investigate this concern, we develop a model of selection under monoculture. We find that even without any assumption of shocks or correlated failures—i.e., under “normal operations”—the quality of decisions may decrease when multiple firms use the same algorithm. Thus, the introduction of a more accurate algorithm may decrease social welfare—a kind of “Braess’ paradox” for algorithmic decision-making. , As algorithms are increasingly applied to screen applicants for high-stakes decisions in employment, lending, and other domains, concerns have been raised about the effects of algorithmic monoculture, in which many decision-makers all rely on the same algorithm. This concern invokes analogies to agriculture, where a monocultural system runs the risk of severe harm from unexpected shocks. Here, we show that the dangers of algorithmic monoculture run much deeper, in that monocultural convergence on a single algorithm by a group of decision-making agents, even when the algorithm is more accurate for any one agent in isolation, can reduce the overall quality of the decisions being made by the full collection of agents. Unexpected shocks are therefore not needed to expose the risks of monoculture; it can hurt accuracy even under “normal” operations and even for algorithms that are more accurate when used by only a single decision-maker. Our results rely on minimal assumptions and involve the development of a probabilistic framework for analyzing systems that use multiple noisy estimates of a set of alternatives.

AI is turning research into a scientific monoculture

Generative AI deserves scientific attention. But the rush to study it is producing a feedback loop of topical and methodological convergence, flattening scientific imagination and crowding out the pluralism needed to keep research adaptive, resilient, and intellectually generative.

Picking on the Same Person: Does Algorithmic Monoculture lead to Outcome Homogenization?

As the scope of machine learning broadens, we observe a recurring theme of algorithmic monoculture: the same systems, or systems that share components (e.g. datasets, models), are deployed by multiple decision-makers. While sharing offers advantages like amortizing effort, it also has risks. We introduce and formalize one such risk, outcome homogenization: the extent to which particular individuals or groups experience the same outcomes across different deployments. If the same individuals or groups exclusively experience undesirable outcomes, this may institutionalize systemic exclusion and reinscribe social hierarchy. We relate algorithmic monoculture and outcome homogenization by proposing the component sharing hypothesis: if algorithmic systems are increasingly built on the same data or models, then they will increasingly homogenize outcomes. We test this hypothesis on algorithmic fairness benchmarks, demonstrating that increased data-sharing reliably exacerbates homogenization and individual-level effects generally exceed group-level effects. Further, given the current regime in AI of foundation models, i.e. pretrained models that can be adapted to myriad downstream tasks, we test whether model-sharing homogenizes outcomes across tasks. We observe mixed results: we find that for both vision and language settings, the specific methods for adapting a foundation model significantly influence the degree of outcome homogenization. We also identify societal challenges that inhibit the measurement, diagnosis, and rectification of outcome homogenization in deployed machine learning systems.

Reclaiming the Computing Commons

Hunter writes: The commodification and exploitation of nature; the enclosure of the intellectual and informational commons in medicine, agriculture, and other areas of technical knowledge; the expropriation of public space to secure profit-all define an economic system supposedly premised on freedom.

We Need To Rewild The Internet

The internet has become an extractive and fragile monoculture. But we can revitalize it using lessons learned by ecologists.

The Evolutionary Ecology of Software: Constraints, Innovation, and the AI Disruption

This chapter investigates the evolutionary ecology of software, focusing on the symbiotic relationship between software and innovation. An interplay between constraints, tinkering, and frequency-dependent selection drives the complex evolutionary trajectories of these socio-technological systems. Our approach integrates agent-based modeling and case studies, drawing on complex network analysis and evolutionary theory to explore how software evolves under the competing forces of novelty generation and imitation. By examining the evolution of programming languages and their impact on developer practices, we illustrate how technological artifacts co-evolve with and shape societal norms, cultural dynamics, and human interactions. This ecological perspective also informs our analysis of the emerging role of AI-driven development tools in software evolution. While large language models (LLMs) provide unprecedented access to information, their widespread adoption introduces new evolutionary pressures that may contribute to cultural stagnation, much like the decline of diversity in past software ecosystems. Understanding the evolutionary pressures introduced by AI-mediated software production is critical for anticipating broader patterns of cultural change, technological adaptation, and the future of software innovation.

siliconization

Siliconization refers to how local technocultural practices all around the world have been replaced by an imported "Silicon Valley" model, especially since the 1990s.

Techno-solutionism

“techno-solutionism,” the simplification of complex societal problems into apps and algorithms. Ed-Tech’s Inequalities “Technological solutionism” is the related tendency to identify simple answers — in all domains, not just the tech sector — “before the questions have been fully asked” or the problems fully articulated. Take, for example: “the Internet has changed everything about how […]

Redefining our needs: Permacomputing and Vernacular computing

How to ensure an increasing focus on sustainability in computing?

Farming is Why Humanity is Fucked

A mind-shattering concept from a first-year university class that upended how I think about humanity. Daniel Quinn's Ishmael trilogy argues that totalitari…

Infrastructure as Code is Artisanal Automation

“Artisanal” refers to something made in a traditional way by hand by a skilled craftsman, requiring both time and expertise.

Technological Hubris → Term

Meaning → Excessive confidence in technology as a universal problem-solver, overlooking broader impacts and limitations. → Term