Your Actions Case
This week you add Actions and Critical Literacy to your DTPA analysis. From the Week 4 materials, a specific claim for Actions names a decision, a consequence, and a person who instigated it or could have stopped it:
- Stated goal vs. outcome — what was the system for, did it do that, and who was positioned to notice the difference? Include what it achieved, not just what it broke.
- Who benefited, who paid, who decided — name all three if you can, and say whether they overlap. The interesting cases are the ones where the decider bore none of the cost.
- What the output incentivized — not what the system could do, but what its existence made easy, profitable, or safe to do (and costly to refuse).
- The remedy, and what it would not have caught — name what actually changed, then state its limit. "Add a human in the loop" is not an answer by itself: MiDAS's human-reviewed cases were still wrong 44% of the time.
For Critical Literacy, add: how does this case fit existing AI narratives ("solution" vs. "existential threat"), and where does your group land between skepticism and practical judgment?