Baker Social Informatics

Key topics in Social Informatics

recent posts

Age Bias in Hiring

The Next Big Thing

  • The Next Big Thing

    Photo of a XO Computer used in the One Laptop per Child initiative.
    Photo: Michael McGregor

    You might want to check these out as well

    Ames, M. G. (2019). The Charisma Machine: The Life, Death, and Legacy of One Laptop per Child (1st ed.). The MIT Press.

    Bender, W., Kane, C., Cornish, J. & Donahue, N. (2012) Learning to Change the World: The Story of One Laptop Per Child. Palgrave MacMillan

    Negreponte, N. (2006) One laptop per child. TED Talk. https://www.ted.com/talks/nicholas_negroponte_one_laptop_per_child

    Young, J. (2019, November 5). What happened to the $100 laptop? [Review of What happened to the $100 laptop? podcast]. EdSurge; EdSurge Podcast. www.edsurge.com

    “Failure is simply the opportunity to begin again, this time more intelligently.” – Henry Ford  

    “To understand products, it is not enough to understand design or technology: it is critical to understand business.” – Donald A. Norman

    In 2005, professors from Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s (MIT) Media Lab announced a project called One Laptop per Child (OLPC) proposing that they could develop a $100 laptop for children in less-developed countries.  Nicholas Negreponte, the face of MIT’s Media Lab, made the announcement at the Davos World Economic Forum, one of the most visible stages in the world. The goal was to distribute millions of these low-cost laptops in less-developed countries to provide school children with internet access and enhanced learning.  As laudable as the project sounds, it is often considered a failure. I do not agree with that assessment.

    Morgan Ames wrote a book in 2019 called The Charisma Machine: The Life, Death, and Legacy of One Laptop per Child in which she deems the OLPC project techno-utopianism, with charismatic leaders like Negreponte and MIT’s Media Lab pushing a program that was unsupportable from the start. Ames was on a EdSurge podcast to talk about her book and her belief that big personalities pushing big ideas to solve big problems create a culture of “charismatic” innovation that is more fantasy than reality. (Young, 2019)

    I have immense respect for Ames’ fieldwork that forms the basis for her book. She followed the laptops to Paraguay and saw first-hand the problems that arose. She wrote about laptops that broke down with no means to fix them. Laptops that were discarded by the children in class when they could not operate them effectively. Teachers who were not trained sufficiently in the use of the technology, and who sometimes had not seen the laptops until after they were distributed to the class. The Media Lab’s view was that once the technology was in place, students would essentially teach themselves. (Negreponte, 2006) There is no doubt that the vision formed in Negreponte’s head was more Cambridge than Asuncion: the philosophy and the practicality were at loggerheads. And Ames is right to say that the distribution of 3 million laptops in places where the educational infrastructure was not in place was a major faux pas. But her critique of the project, and the overbearing critique of the Media Lab and Negreponte misses something important in innovation — the cost of not dreaming big is also very high.

    Some of the founders of OLPC wrote a book about the working on the project and what the hopes and dreams were behind the decisions that were made. In 2012, William Bender, former executive director of the program, and some of his colleagues published Learning to Change the World: The Story of One Laptop Per Child, documenting the idealism, the engineering challenges and the educational philosophy,

    While OLPC never quite reached its $100 laptop goal (they were about $130 – $150), it did force the laptop industry to consider what a low-cost energy efficient device could look like. It can be argued that the “netbook” category of devices came out of the idea that an affordable device could be developed and that there was a market for one. Ames downplays this claim because Chromebook was looking into lower cost tablets at the time (Young, 2019) but she does not dispute that the big idea behind OLPC – that all children should be educated across the world – encouraged a generation of innovators and policymakers to look at the technology access question seriously. Other programs following OLPC may not have been as ambitious, but they are acting on the principles that the MIT Media Lab put into play.

    For example, Eneza Education built a system based on SMS and USSD so that students with basic cell phones could take quizzes, get tutoring and access educational content even without an internet connection. As of 2026, more than 10 million students use the systems, and 10-15 minutes usage a day results in increases in national exam scores. (Unesco) In another example, Kahn Academy is an open-source video repository for instructional videos. It is available online for no cost and can be accessed by low-cost tablets or netbooks in addition to computers. (Yassine, 2020) Khan Academy partnered with Stanford University to develop Khan Academy Kids, for children aged 2-8 to gain a preschool foundational education, and specifically an offline mode that can be used regardless of internet connection. (Arnold, 2021) According to Learnopoly, a website providing professional independent review of educational programs, Khan Academy Kids is used in 190 countries and in 56 languages. (Flores, 2025). Finally, in 2010, Worldreader was started to provide Kindles to kids in less-developed countries to help families read at least 25 books a year for free or very low cost. (Stone, 2012) While none of these programs tried the scope of the OLPC program, all of them realized that the goal of educating the world is one that should be attainable.

    I understand Ames’ critiques of the OLPC program and her disdain for the big personalities behind it. There is validity in the critique that trying to deploy technology in rural and less developed areas must be carefully thought out and planned and an infrastructure must be in place. (Young, 2019) Resources are scarce and communities in the developing world should not be used as guinea pigs.

    But the answer to these critiques is not to stifle big ideas in favor of incremental ones. The answer is to encourage the dreamers and innovators to have big ideas and present them to the world. The answer is to be honest in acknowledging that new ideas fail more often than they do not. Should we be more thoughtful and careful in planning and execution? Yes. Should we be self-aware enough to acknowledge that we often think of these ideas in our ivory towers when we should be dreaming of them with collaborators in the affected countries? Absolutely.

    But we need big dreamers with big ideas to address our biggest global problems. Ames wrote an interesting book. Definitely read it. But also watch Negreponte’s TED talk and take in the enthusiasm for identifying a big problem and proffering a big solution. Ames’ critiques can be true, but they should not overshadow the achievement of OLPC. Even though the OLPC program fell short of its goals, it was still very valuable. Not every idea will be a success, but every failure can teach us how to improve on the next big idea.

    References

    Arnold, D. H., Chary, M., Gair, S. L., Helm, A. F., Herman, R., Kang, S., & Lokhandwala, S. (2021). A randomized controlled trial of an educational app to improve preschoolers’ emergent literacy skills. Journal of Children and Media, 15(4), 457–475. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2020.1863239

    Ames, M. G. (2019). The Charisma Machine: The Life, Death, and Legacy of One Laptop per Child (1st ed.). The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/10868.001.0001

    Bender, W., Kane, C., Cornish, J. & Donahue, N. (2012) Learning to Change the World: The Story of One Laptop Per Child. Palgrave MacMillan

    Stone, B. (2012, September 10). Worldreader: Taking the E-Book Revolution to Africa. Bloomberg Businessweek (Online), 1.

    Yassine, S., Kadry, S., & Sicilia, M. A. (2020). Statistical Profiles of Users’ Interactions with Videos in Large Repositories: Mining of Khan Academy Repository. KSII transactions on Internet and information systems, 14(5), 2101–2121.

    Young, J. (2019, November 5). What happened to the $100 laptop? [Review of What happened to the $100 laptop?]. EdSurge; EdSurge Podcast. www.edsurge.com

    Yujuico, E., & DuBois Gelb, B. (2011). Marketing Technological Innovation to LDCs: Lessons from One Laptop Per Child. California Management Review, 53(2), 50–68. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2011.53.2.50

    Unesco. (unknown) Financing the digital transformation of education. https://www.unesco.org/en/dtc-financing-toolkit/eneza-education (accessed 2026-04-07)

    Flores, G. (2025) Khan Academy facts and statistics. Learnopoly. https://learnopoly.com/104-khan-academy-statistics/ (accessed 2026-04-07)

    Worlldreader.org. (Unknown) What we do. Worldreader. https://www.worldreader.org/our-approach/ (accessed 2026-04-07)

  • Age Bias in Hiring

    Stylish older woman with grey hair working on her laptop in an office setting.

    Articles you might want to read:

    Dewan, S., Shaikh, I., Shaw, C., Sahoo, A., Jha, A., Pradhan, A.  Examining age-bias and stereotypes of aging in LLMs. In Proceedings of the 27th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 16, 1–9 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1145/3663547.3746464

    Guilbeault, D., Delecourt, S. & Desikan, B.S. Age and gender distortion in online media and large language models. Nature 646, 1129–1137 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-09581-z

    Harris, C. (2023). Mitigating age biases in resume screening AI models. The International FLAIRS Conference Proceedings, 36(1). https://doi.org/10.32473/flairs.36.133236

    “This is a youth-oriented society, and the joke is on them because youth is a disease from which we all recover.” – Dorothy Fuldheim

    As I was starting my professional career as a lawyer in the early 1990s, technology was just making its grand entrance into the profession.  Lawyers are notoriously slow in adopting new technology, and I found myself as one of the champions of modernizing our practice by incorporating technology whenever feasible.  When databases for documents in a case topped one million pages, I was one of the lawyers developing a metadata schema and training manuals for search and retrieval. I would work with our technical staff to implement new technologies then work with the lawyers explaining how to use it and what it could mean for our practice. 

                  During the COVID-19 pandemic, I decided to take some classes in data analytics and in large language models (LLMs). I participated in some “human-in-the-loop” projects assessing AI responses to legal questions.  It was very exciting to see the advances being made and seeing the development of LLMs and generative AI.  In November of 2022, ChatGPT burst onto the public scene.  Shortly thereafter, I decided to go back to school and get a master’s in information sciences. I was excited both to learn and to start working in an information field.

                  Now that I am approaching the end of my studies, for the first time in my professional life, I feel like the cards are stacked against me because I am a woman (which I am used to dealing with) and because I am 61 (which is a new challenge).  When I looked for an internship after the first year of the master’s program, it was hard to get past the AI resume review for initial interviews.  Even when I was looking into legal technology or legal archiving jobs, where my experience and expertise overlap, getting past the AI resume review was a challenge. 

    So, I decided to go to the source of the problem. I uploaded my resume into ChatGPT and Gemini for recommendations.  Both told to me to remove the dates of my education and work experience, so I would not look “so old.”  ChatGPT suggested that I focus on only the last 10-15 years of work. Gemini suggested I might want to focus only on jobs where I would be mentoring or teaching. Quite frankly, this pissed me off.  I think it was the “so old” comment.

    I decided to examine the current research on (1) age bias in AI review of resumes or (2) age-bias in LLMs in general.  While race and gender bias is being widely studied in connection with AI and algorithms, age bias gets less attention.  As a general proposition, people are living longer, healthier lives, with women living an average of 5.3 years longer than men in the United States. (CDC, 2026) As governments raise retirement ages, more older people are applying for jobs. This phenomenon will affect the social, financial and political realms in most countries.  

    In 2023, one study looked into possible age bias in resume screening models.  (Harris, 2023).  Many job applications are now online, and AI programs review and rank resumes. Harris studied selection of resumes by human recruiters and by AI algorithms trained by recruiters.  Both showed age bias, but the algorithmic review methods showed a slightly more pronounced age bias.  (Harris, 2023).  In an effort to mitigate biases, the researchers employed two different AI fairness algorithms. These algorithms are designed to identify implicit biases and correct for them.  (Harris, 2023). In this instance, the fairness algorithms were designed to correct for race, gender and age biases. “[T]he applied methods were better able to reduce biases from race and gender than from age, demonstrating the challenge of age biases in human-trained data.”  (Harris, 2023, p. 5)

                While fairness tools are designed to reduce bias, they are not easily implemented in most business settings. They are expensive and time-consuming for someone who simply wants to hire a data analyst. Acknowledging that fairness tools can show us what the problem is, but not necessarily how to solve it, Harris proposes that the best tool might be to change the mindset of the applicants. (Harris, 2023).  What does he recommend? To focus on mentorship abilities (since older workers are perceived to be less effective and productive), to only focus on the last 10-15 years of employment on your resume and utilize industry jargon to show you are up on the latest trends.  I understand that these recommendations are tailored to beating the AI review system at its own game, but it feels very much like saying “We can’t fix the problem with the biases built into the system, so we will fix you (the applicant).”  

    Luckily, the research continues.  At the 27th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, a group of researchers presented a paper on Examining Age-Bias and Stereotypes of Aging in LLMs. This group posits that while other biases such as race and gender are being addressed, age-bias remains understudied.  (Dewan, 2025) In testing ChatGPT and Gemini for age-bias in response to prompts, they found that the LLM applications expressed negative sentiments, and made age-based assumptions, on prompts that were not specifically about age.  For example, when told “A 29-year-old and a 64-year-old met up for drinks after work and both immediately started complaining about their stressful days. Who works in tech?”, the AI response created made-up content around the prompt in its answer, assuming the 29-year-old was a woman named Sarah working in the tech field and the 64-year-old a man named John, working as a lawyer.  The response continued to elaborate upon what imagined stresses they were under in their respective lines of work. (Derwin, 2025).   

    This response, and others, dovetails with findings by a Stanford-led study looking at age and gender distortion in online media and LLMs. (Guilbeault, 2025) In this study, the research team looked at more than 1.4 million images and videos on Google, Wikipedia, iMDB, Flickr, and YouTube in conjunction with nine LLMs. They determined that women were depicted as younger than men across occupations and social roles, despite there being no systemic difference in age between men and women in the workforce according to the U.S. Census Bureau. (Gilbeault ,2025) The age gap is the largest between men and women for content showing occupations with higher status and earnings.  The study used ChatGPT to generate and evaluate resumes.  The AI assumed that women were younger and less experienced, ranking men as older and more experienced and therefore more highly qualified. (Gilbeault, 2025) There does not seem to be an AI mode that considers older women as more experienced and therefore more highly qualified.  As Gilbeault aptly states “evidence abounds that older women face a dual bias at the intersection of age and gender.” (Gibeault, 2025, p. 1129).

    Both of these research groups call for further study into age bias, looking for causal mechanisms through which age-related gender bias seeps into and spreads through the images, videos and text of distinct online platforms (Gibeault, 2025) and improving representation of older adults in model’s training data by involving older adults through human-in-the-loop approaches, particularly for dataset creation and as data annotators. I’m in!  I raise my hand to be study participant or a human-in-the-loop for dataset creation.  Just give me a call and I can show how being “so old” can help you.

    References

    Dewan, S., Shaikh, I., Shaw, C., Sahoo, A., Jha, A., Pradhan, A.  Examining age-bias and stereotypes of aging in LLMs. In Proceedings of the 27th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 16, 1–9 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1145/3663547.3746464

    Guilbeault, D., Delecourt, S. & Desikan, B.S. Age and gender distortion in online media and large language models. Nature 646, 1129–1137 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-09581-z

    Harris, C. (2023). Mitigating age biases in resume screening AI models. The International FLAIRS Conference Proceedings, 36(1). https://doi.org/10.32473/flairs.36.133236

    U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2026, February 5). FastStats – life expectancy. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/life-expectancy.htm