Fields of Doubt: When AI Overshoots Human Intuition

Email Notifications

SHARE
Request to reuse this

“Fields of Doubt: When AI Overshoots Human Intuition”

In a well-funded agritech pilot, an Africa-based firm rolled out an AI-powered irrigation system across multiple test farms in a rural region of an African country. Based on satellite weather data, historical yield trends, and soil sensors, the AI prescribed precision watering routines down to the hour.

On paper, the system outperformed manual methods — until it did not. As seasonal rainfall became erratic due to shifting climate patterns, the AI began overwatering certain plots. Local farmers, relying on generational knowledge of cloud patterns and bird migration, flagged the error. But field technicians, trusting the algorithm’s diagnostics, dismissed their concerns. Days later, root rot set in.

The damage was not just agricultural; it was fundamentally ethical. The core dilemma lay in a clash between algorithmic precision and ancestral wisdom. When field workers override the warnings of seasoned local farmers due to uncritical trust in AI, it raises a pivotal question: whose judgment should guide action when technology conflicts with lived human experience? The PMI Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct (CoE&PC) emphasizes our responsibility to honor diverse perspectives, especially cultural and contextual knowledge often marginalized by automated systems. It calls for fairness, respect, and accountability in all professional interactions—not just in what decisions are made, but in how and by whom they are made. The Ethical Decision-Making Framework (EDMF) asks project leaders to systematically examine every ripple of impact: Who might be affected? What competing rights or duties are in play? Ethics here is not abstract and theoretical but downright practical. The framework serves not as a checklist, but as a compass for inclusive, humane decision-making in an increasingly digital world.

In this case, accountability was not simply about flipping a switch to deactivate a malfunctioning smart pump — it was about exercising discernment, fostering dialogue, and embracing ethical stewardship in its fullest sense. The true ethical challenge lies not in the hardware or software, but in the human response to it. Technological systems can process data at lightning speed, but they lack the moral compass and contextual sensitivity that only people can bring. Accountability meant actively listening to community voices, especially those rooted in local knowledge, and recognizing when to override automation with empathetic leadership. Staying context-aware required humility to question what seemed certain and to respect the wisdom that is not encoded in algorithms. Ethical stewardship, as guided by PMI’s values of responsibility and respect, demands that professionals treat AI not as an infallible oracle but as a support tool — powerful, but subordinate to human judgment, especially in high-stakes, culturally nuanced environments.

How would you decide when human insight should override AI predictions? Have you encountered a project where cultural expertise clashed with data-driven advice?

Let us know in the comments as we deliberate, learn, reflect, and keep ethics at the core of innovation.

References:

Project Management Institute. (n.d.). Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. pmi.org.

https://www.pmi.org/-/media/pmi/documents/public/pdf/ethics/code-values-card.pdf

Project Management Institute. (2015). Ethics in Project Management. pmi.org.

https://www.pmi.org/about/ethics

Project Management Institute. (2011). PMI Ethical Decision-Making Framework (EDMF). pmi.org.

https://www.pmi.org/-/media/pmi/documents/public/pdf/ethics/ethical-decision-making-framework.pdf