Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41584067›Full record

ArticleEthics and information technology2026

Revisiting big data optimism: risks of data-driven black box algorithms for society.

Sachit Mahajan, Dirk Helbing

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ethics and information technology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Sachit MahajanComputational Social Science, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Dirk HelbingComputational Social Science, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper critically examines the growing use of big data algorithms and AI in science, society, and public policy. While these tools are often introduced with the goal of increasing efficiency, the results do not always lead to greater empowerment or fairness for individuals or communities. Persistent issues such as bias, measurement error, and over-reliance on prediction can undermine success and produce outcomes that are neither fair nor transparent, especially when automated decisions replace human judgment. Beyond technical limitations, the widespread use of data-driven methods also shapes the distribution of power, influences public trust, and raises questions about the health of techno-socio-economic institutions. We argue that the pursuit of optimality cannot succeed without careful evaluation of ethical risks and societal side effects. Responsible innovation demands open standards, ongoing scrutiny, and a focus on human values alongside technical performance. Our goal is to encourage a fundamental reorientation of the big data paradigm away from a focus on short-term optimization and towards a framework of "systemic resilience" and "participatory oversight" or even co-creation. We propose specific pathways to achieve this, arguing that responsible innovation requires considering complexity science while integrating constitutional and cultural values to achieve technologies that are not just efficient, but symbiotic with human self-organization.

Indexed as

Algorithmic biasAlgorithmic governanceBig dataEthicsResponsible innovationSocietal impact

Identifiers

PMID41584067
PMCPMC12827370

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.