How AI Efficiency is Turning Diversity into a Liability

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has decisively captured the imagination of the world in the third decade of the twenty-first century. Such is its power that even non-experts like me are astonished by the limited ways in which we already encounter it in daily life. A brief preview of its capabilities is enough to convince many that AI will be immense, omnipresent, and unavoidable in the years ahead.

Main Content

At one level, AI appears to be the natural continuation of a familiar technological arc - digitization, the internet, big data, and advanced analytics. In that sense, its emergence should not have been surprising. What has taken governments, institutions, and societies off guard, however, is not the idea of AI itself, but the speed and scale of its deployment. AI has moved rapidly from experimental use into the core of institutional decision-making. Today, it shapes recruitment and termination, performance evaluation and risk scoring, credit assessment and compliance, communication strategies and operational continuity - often with minimal public scrutiny.

In this process, AI accelerates the dataisation of human beings. Data is its principal input and its dominant mode of reasoning. AI processes vast quantities of information, identifies patterns, and produces outcomes framed as rational, objective, and efficient. Human beings, once translated into datasets - educational records, productivity metrics, behavioral signals, employment histories - are subjected to the same logic of optimization.

This transformation rests on a largely unexamined assumption: normativity. AI systems are trained on historical data and calibrated to statistical averages. They privilege medians, dominant patterns, and repeatable behaviors. Users are treated not as individuals in their full complexity, but as "average cases" positioned somewhere along a normative scale. You may deviate from the median, but you are still processed as part of it.

This assumption has consequences that are often invisible until they accumulate. At the most basic level, AI presumes a standard user - one who can read extensively, process dense information, and interact with systems without cognitive or physical strain. Unless explicitly designed otherwise, AI does not naturally adapt to divergent capacities. The burden of adjustment lies with the individual, not the system.

The implications become far more serious in high-stakes institutional contexts. When algorithms are used to shortlist job applicants, evaluate employee performance, or assess academic potential, they do so based on criteria that reflect existing norms: linear career trajectories, uninterrupted productivity, standardized markers of merit. These criteria may appear neutral, but they are deeply shaped by historical assumptions about how a "successful" life or career should unfold.

When a fundamentally normative tool is used to evaluate a deeply diverse population, it inevitably resorts to normalization. Outliers - those with non-linear life paths, atypical working patterns, or discontinuous careers - are treated as statistical noise. By design, they are filtered out.

This raises difficult questions for global tech policy. In its pursuit of efficiency and scalability, will AI systematically exclude certain population groups? Will people with disabilities, caregivers, migrants, or those whose lives do not conform to dominant economic rhythms find themselves increasingly disadvantaged - not through explicit discrimination, but through algorithmic indifference? More broadly, will AI reflect human diversity, or will it quietly enforce conformity by rewarding only those who remain within a narrow normative range?

These questions are not meant to portray AI as uniquely unjust. Bias and exclusion long predate AI. Human decision-makers are neither neutral nor consistent, and institutions have always relied on imperfect proxies to manage scale. Exclusion, in various forms, is not new.

What AI does differently is scale exclusion. It transforms individual bias into systemic architecture. Once embedded, AI systems operate continuously, uniformly, and without reflection. They do not pause to reconsider edge cases or question the moral implications of efficiency. They simply execute the logic they are given - at speed and at scale.

This is where the familiar argument that "life is unfair" takes on a more troubling dimension. When unfairness is automated, it becomes harder to contest. When exclusion is framed as optimization, it acquires legitimacy. AI can narrow the space for diversity while simultaneously delivering impressive metrics - higher productivity, improved rankings, better predictive accuracy.

Consider higher education, employment, or credit allocation. If AI-driven selection demonstrably improves institutional outcomes, societies may find themselves under pressure to prioritize performance over inclusion. Informal social contracts that once justified context, discretion, and second chances may begin to erode. What was previously accepted as a moral necessity may come to be dismissed as inefficiency.

At that point, exclusion ceases to be an unintended consequence. It becomes policy.

The most significant risk posed by AI is not that it will make bad decisions, but that it will make decisions that are internally coherent, statistically defensible, and socially corrosive - while insulating those decisions from meaningful challenge. As AI becomes embedded in governance, markets, and public administration, its assumptions risk hardening into invisible standards.

The global challenge, therefore, is not merely to regulate AI for safety or accuracy. It is to confront the political consequences of normalization. Without deliberate intervention, AI will not simply reflect society; it will quietly reshape it - compressing diversity into averages, treating deviation as inefficiency, and redefining fairness as statistical alignment.

If optimization replaces judgment, and efficiency replaces ethics, we may discover too late that the future AI is building has room only for those who already fit the model.

And by then, the system will insist that nothing has gone wrong at all.

About the Author

Vikas Gupta is an entrepreneur-turned-writer and advisor working on artificial intelligence, inclusion, and institutional design. A disability-rights advocate, he brings lived experience to questions of AI governance, examining how efficiency-driven systems can hard-code exclusion while presenting themselves as objective. X: @guptavrv

Insights, Analysis, and Developments