Executive Lay Summary
- AI systems assume human behavior is predictable and that past actions reflect future choices.
- They treat recorded data as a full picture of people’s preferences, often missing context and constraints.
- Human judgments embedded in data and labels are taken as objective facts.
- Without oversight, these assumptions can reinforce bias and unfair outcomes, even when systems appear accurate.
Artificial intelligence systems are often evaluated based on their outputs: prediction accuracy, error rates, fairness metrics, or performance benchmarks. However, long before an AI system produces a single prediction, it already embodies a set of assumptions about human behavior. These assumptions are not incidental but are structurally embedded through choices related to data selection, model architecture, optimization objectives, and deployment context.
This policy letter examines the foundational behavioral assumptions that AI systems make prior to inference. These assumptions shape not only what AI systems predict, but also how individuals and institutions are represented, classified, and acted upon. Understanding these assumptions is essential for responsible governance, particularly as AI systems are increasingly used in domains involving rights, access to resources, and social decision-making.
Assumption of Behavioral Regularity and Predictability
At their core, most AI systems assume that human behavior is sufficiently regular to be modeled statistically. This means that patterns observed in historical data are presumed to persist into the future and can be generalized across individuals or groups. Machine learning relies on the premise that stochastic noise can be separated from stable behavioral signals.
This assumption holds reasonably well in environments where human behavior is constrained by strong institutional or physical rules (e.g., traffic flow, transaction timing, routine consumption). However, it becomes increasingly fragile in domains where behavior is shaped by reflection, learning, social influence, or moral reasoning. Humans frequently change behavior in response to new information, incentives, norms, and awareness of being observed.
When systems are deployed in volatile social environments such as labor markets, political discourse, or public benefits administration, the assumption of behavioral stability may lead to systematic error and institutional overconfidence in predictions.
AI systems typically assume that past behavior is not only informative, but normatively appropriate to use as a predictor of future actions or preferences. This embeds a strong temporal assumption: that historical data captures meaningful intent rather than circumstantial or coerced behavior.
In reality, many behaviors are shaped by constraints rather than preferences. A lack of access, economic pressure, discriminatory environments, or limited options can all force behavior that does not reflect genuine intent. When these behaviors are treated as preference signals, systems risk encoding structural disadvantage as individual choice. This assumption is particularly consequential in credit scoring, insurance pricing, predictive policing, and welfare eligibility systems, where historical disadvantage can be recursively reinforced.
Observability, Measurability and Independence
AI systems assume that relevant aspects of human behavior are observable, recordable, and measurable. Features used for prediction are necessarily those that can be captured digitally, quantified, and standardized. This creates an implicit boundary between what is considered “real” for the system and what is ignored.
Qualitative factors such as emotional states, moral intent, social meaning, informal care work, or cultural interpretation are typically excluded because they resist formalization. As a result, AI systems privilege measurable behavior over meaningful behavior.
This assumption systematically disadvantages populations whose lives and contributions are less legible to data infrastructures, raising concerns in areas such as labor valuation, caregiving, and social services.
They operate on the assumption that individual data points are context-independent or that context can be sufficiently encoded through a limited set of variables. This treats decisions as isolated events rather than as products of layered social, historical, and situational contexts.
For example, a missed loan payment may be interpreted identically across individuals despite vastly different circumstances, such as medical emergencies, systemic discrimination, or macroeconomic shocks. The system assumes equivalence where none exists.
In public-sector and regulatory contexts, the failure to account for context can lead to unjust outcomes that are difficult to contest due to the apparent objectivity of algorithmic decisions.
Preference Consistency and Assumption That Data Labels Represent Objective Truth
Supervised AI systems depend on labeled data, implicitly assuming that labels represent objective, agreed-upon ground truth. In practice, many labels reflect contested social judgments such as “risk,” “toxicity,” “creditworthiness,” or “suspicious behavior.”
These labels are often produced by institutions with specific incentives, legal frameworks, or cultural biases. Once encoded into training data, they become naturalized as technical facts rather than normative decisions. Without governance over labeling processes, AI systems risk entrenching institutional bias under the guise of neutrality.
They often assume that human preferences are internally consistent and temporally stable. Recommendation systems, for instance, infer enduring interests from repeated engagement patterns. This presumes that preferences do not meaningfully fluctuate with mood, social identity, life stage, or changing values. Behavioral science suggests the opposite: preferences are often constructed in the moment and are highly sensitive to framing, defaults, and available options. AI systems typically ignore this fluidity.
Human Passivity and Aggregability
AI systems implicitly treat humans as passive subjects whose behavior does not change in response to being modeled, ranked, or predicted. This ignores strategic adaptation, resistance, or withdrawal once individuals become aware of algorithmic evaluation. In reality, people often modify behavior to game systems, avoid surveillance, or conform to perceived expectations. This can degrade system performance over time and produce perverse incentives.
Systems used in enforcement, compliance, or performance monitoring should account for behavioral feedback loops and long-term adaptation effects.
They also assume that individual behaviors can be meaningfully aggregated into population-level models. This presumes that group averages are informative for individual-level decisions, even when within-group variance is high. Such aggregation can erase minority experiences and produce decisions that are statistically valid but socially harmful for specific subgroups.
The Verdict
Thus, before an AI system predicts anything, it has already embedded a theory of human behavior, one that is often implicit, rarely documented, and seldom debated. These assumptions reflect institutional power, economic incentives, and governance choices. Treating AI outputs as neutral or objective without interrogating their underlying behavioral assumptions risks legitimizing flawed representations of human agency, intent, and value. Effective AI governance therefore requires shifting attention upstream—from outputs and performance metrics to the assumptions encoded at design time.
AI governance frameworks should mandate behavioral assumption audits and disclosure requirements, particularly for systems deployed in public-sector, regulatory, or rights-impacting contexts. Transparency about what AI systems presume about human behavior is a prerequisite for accountability, legitimacy, and trust.
Leave a comment