AI in the Favela

You are here: Home » Blog » AI in the Favela

I visited the Favela in Rio, Brazil nearly 12 months ago. Since then, I’ve had an overwhelming need to capture on paper what I saw in real life, and how this relates to the increasingly topical subject of AI.

The Favella are a sort of shanty town, on the outskirts of the city. People were forced to live there as a reaction to the increasing urban changes of the city, with pressure on traditional accommodation. As a result people built their own homes using any materials they could find but nowadays the construction seems a bit more permanent, if only by Brazilian standards.

It’s traditionally a place with minimal infrastructure like access to healthcare, teaching – and heaven only knows how the water and electrical system operates. The streets are narrow, steep, uneven and punctuated by allies which link homes together. In the small patches of level ground, youngsters could be found perfecting their football skills, perhaps in the hope one day of breaking away and becoming international stars.

It’s not a place where you would find any AirBnb rentals, and if you did find any, then you’d think very hard about making them a vacation residence of choice.

We were warned against visiting the Favela as it is a place of crime and violence. Government warnings advise against it, but it wasn’t difficult to find a conducted and ‘authorised’ tour whose financial proceeds were being directed towards the needs of the community. I’m not sure where the ‘authorisation’ actually comes from, but even so we felt safe with our English-speaking guide.

There was no evidence of people except on the periphery. Nor any remote cameras to track people and movement. You felt that if the police had the temerity to install any, then they would have been removed.

Of course there is a whole debate about poverty tourism which you can do in many parts of the world. I remember seeing them in Soweto, South Africa and sure they exist elsewhere. Is it just voyeurism?

As our group of about 15 people snaked our way through the alleys, there was almost a feeling of claustrophobia. During the Pandemic, it was impossible to isolate, and as a result the Favela became a virus ‘incubator’. Contagion, illness and death was inevitable. The difference between ‘their’ situation and my own during those circumstances is startling.

Since then, as we seem to be increasingly swept up in the maelstrom of discussion about AI, it’s difficult not to reflect on the fact that we live in at least two worlds.

The first world is a world of ‘haves’, who comprise the digital, regulated, organised technological world. People who occupy that world are the owners of laptops and data-plans for their cellphones. In that particular world, we are preoccupied by digital banking, data protection and how AI will change our lives in the future.

The second world is a world of the ‘have nots’, including those in the Favela. What does AI mean for them?

The MIT Senseable City Lab, in collaboration with the Secretary of Science and Technology of the City of Rio de Janeiro, has launched the Senseable City Rio project. This initiative uses location intelligence through effective visualisations to track informal settlements, such as favelas, and offer solutions to improve the community’s life. (Ref SCR )

Also, organizations like Gerando Falcões are working with technology companies like Accenture to create innovative solutions and programs that help break the cycle of poverty in favelas. These initiatives include job training, digital platforms for income generation, and urban development projects (Ref Sustainable Employment | Gerando Falcões Case Study | Accenture )

Both of these seem a million miles away from our understanding of pure AI, and some might argue that both schemes are no more than the application of fancy technologies (analytics, location intelligence, platform development, community infrastructure) to make progress.

Doesn’t AI seem to have increasingly become a generic expression for advance technologies? Does it really matter what we call it, provided that it brings social benefit?