Post-Viewing Reflective Essay: Humans in the Loop (2024)
Humans in the Loop (2024) : Behind every algorithm, there is a human being
Core Details
🎬 FILM AT A GLANCE
Director
Aranya Sahay
(Feature debut)
Year
2024 (Festival)
2025 (Netflix)
Runtime
72 minutes
Genre
Independent Social Drama / Tech Drama
Language
Hindi and local regional dialects
Humans in the Loop (2024) : Official Trailer
.png)
TASK 1 : AI, Bias, & Epistemic Representation
"Whose Knowledge Counts? AI, Bias, and Epistemic Hierarchies in Aranya Sahay's Humans in the Loop (2024)"
Introduction
Aranya Sahay's Humans in the Loop (2024) is a remarkable film that tells a simple story with profound implications. It follows Nehma, an Adivasi woman from Jharkhand, who takes up data-labelling work for an AI company. On the surface, the film is about one woman's job. But underneath, it is about some of the biggest questions of our time: Who decides what AI knows? Whose knowledge is valued? And what happens when the most powerful technology in the world is built on the backs of the most marginalised people?
This essay critically analyses how the film represents the relationship between technology (AI) and human knowledge, focusing on two key areas: (1) how the narrative exposes algorithmic bias as culturally situated rather than purely technical, and (2) how the film highlights epistemic hierarchies : that is, the question of whose knowledge counts in technological systems.
Thesis: Humans in the Loop uses the intimate story of an Adivasi data-labeller to reveal that AI bias is not a technical glitch but a reflection of deep cultural and epistemic power structures, and the film's cinematic choices reinforce this argument by visually and narratively privileging indigenous knowledge over algorithmic categorisation.
1. Algorithmic Bias as Culturally Situated
Most people think of AI bias as a technical problem : a bug that can be fixed with better code or more data. But Humans in the Loop shows that bias is deeply cultural. The AI system in the film has predetermined categories for labelling images. These categories are not neutral; they come from a specific worldview : usually Western, urban, and industrial. When Nehma is asked to label an image of a plant or an animal, her Adivasi understanding of that image does not fit the available categories.
This is not because Nehma lacks knowledge. On the contrary, she has more knowledge than the system can handle. She knows the medicinal uses of the plant, the spiritual significance of the animal, and the ecological relationships between different species. But the AI system reduces all of this to a single tag. As Haris et al. (2023) argue, machine learning systems "identify patterns based on the data they are trained on, and if that data carries biases, the outputs will too" (p. 94). The film dramatises this argument by showing the human moment of conflict : the moment when Nehma's lived knowledge meets the system's rigid categories.
⚔️ NEHMA'S KNOWLEDGE vs. AI'S CATEGORIES
🌿 Nehma's Knowledge
Medicinal uses of the plant. Spiritual significance of the animal. Ecological relationships between species. Centuries of embodied, transmitted indigenous wisdom.
🤖 AI's Categories
A single tag. Predetermined, rigid, Western-urban-industrial worldview. Reduces richness to data points. Cannot accommodate indigenous understanding.
The film suggests that algorithmic bias is not an error but a feature. It is the natural result of building systems from a single knowledge tradition. As Frías (2024) notes, "The paradox of artificial intelligence in cinema is that it reveals the limits of what technology can understand about human culture" (p. 12). In Humans in the Loop, this paradox is made visible through Nehma's daily struggle.
From a film studies perspective, this connects to Apparatus Theory (as described by Shepherdson et al., 2004). Apparatus Theory argues that cinema itself is not a neutral medium : it shapes how we see the world through its technological and ideological structures. The film applies this insight not just to cinema but to AI: just as the camera frames reality in a particular way, the algorithm categorises reality in a particular way. Both are apparatuses of power. The film makes the viewer aware of this by showing the AI system's categories as arbitrary constructions rather than natural truths.
2. Epistemic Hierarchies: Whose Knowledge Counts?
The most powerful argument in Humans in the Loop is about epistemic hierarchy : the ranking of different knowledge systems. In the world of AI, Western scientific knowledge sits at the top. Indigenous, local, and experiential knowledge is either ignored or reduced to data points.
Nehma's knowledge of the forest is not abstract or theoretical. It is embodied : learned through years of living in and with the forest. She knows which plants cure fever, which birds signal rain, which trees are sacred to her community. This knowledge has been developed over centuries and is transmitted through oral tradition, ritual, and daily practice. But in the eyes of the AI system, this knowledge has no value unless it can be reduced to a label.
The film presents this as a form of "epistemic violence" : a concept used by postcolonial theorist Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak to describe the silencing of marginalised knowledge systems by dominant power structures. When the AI system refuses to accommodate Nehma's categories, it is not just a software limitation : it is a political act. It says: "Your knowledge does not count."
This connects to what Cave et al. (2023) describe as the "cultural construction" of who counts as an AI expert. In popular culture, the AI engineer is usually a white man in a Western setting. Humans in the Loop completely reverses this image by making an Adivasi woman the central figure. Nehma is not the engineer who designs the system; she is the worker who trains it. But the film argues that her knowledge is the foundation of the system, even though she receives neither credit nor fair compensation.
The film also highlights the irony of the "human-in-the-loop" concept. In AI research, the human in the loop is supposed to improve the system by providing feedback. But in practice, the human's role is strictly controlled. Nehma cannot change the categories; she can only choose from the options given to her. Her agency is limited by the structure of the system. This is a cinematic representation of what Vighi (2019) calls the ideological function of technology : technology appears to empower the individual while actually constraining them within a predetermined framework.
3. Cinematic Representation of the Knowledge Clash
The film's visual language reinforces its argument about epistemic hierarchies. The forest scenes are shot in natural light with wide, expansive frames, suggesting a knowledge system that is broad, deep, and interconnected. The labelling scenes are shot with artificial light in tight, confined frames, suggesting a knowledge system that is narrow, shallow, and isolating.
🎬 VISUAL LANGUAGE: TWO WORLDS
Forest Scenes
Natural light. Wide, expansive frames. Rich texture and depth. Complex, layered soundscape: birds, insects, wind, water. Suggests knowledge that is broad, deep, interconnected, alive.
Labelling Scenes
Artificial light. Tight, confined frames. Flat, screen-within-screen. Minimal, mechanical soundscape: mouse clicks, key taps, computer hum. Suggests knowledge that is narrow, shallow, isolating.
This visual contrast is not decorative : it is argumentative. It tells the viewer, without words, that Nehma's world is richer than the AI's world. As Bordwell and Thompson (2019) argue, mise-en-scène is one of the most powerful tools of cinematic meaning-making because it operates on the viewer's senses before it reaches the intellect.
The sound design works in the same way. The forest sounds are complex, layered, and alive. The workplace sounds are flat, repetitive, and mechanical. This contrast communicates the film's central theme: AI simplifies what should not be simplified.
The film's editing also contributes to the argument. The cuts between forest and workspace are often abrupt, creating a jarring effect that forces the viewer to feel the gap between the two worlds. This is not smooth, comfortable cinema : it is cinema that disturbs, that makes the viewer uncomfortable with the systems they take for granted.
4. The Film as Political Intervention
Humans in the Loop is not just a film about AI. It is a political intervention in the global debate about technology, labour, and justice. By centering an Adivasi woman's experience, the film challenges the dominant narrative that AI is a product of Silicon Valley genius. It shows that AI is a product of global labour : much of it invisible, underpaid, and culturally exploitative.
The film also challenges the viewer's own position. If we use AI systems : Google, ChatGPT, image recognition : we are benefiting from the labour of workers like Nehma. The film asks us: Are we comfortable with that?
As Alonso (2026) argues, films about AI have the power to shape "social imaginaries" : our collective ideas about what technology is and what it should be. Humans in the Loop offers a very different imaginary from the usual Hollywood AI film. It says: technology is not neutral, it is not magic, and it is not self-sufficient. It is built on human labour, human knowledge, and human inequality.
From a postcolonial film theory perspective, the film can be read as a critique of what some scholars call data colonialism : the extraction of data and knowledge from the Global South by corporations in the Global North. Just as colonial powers took raw materials from colonies, tech companies take data and labour from developing countries. The film makes this connection without being didactic : it lets the story and the images do the work.
Conclusion
Aranya Sahay's Humans in the Loop is a quiet but powerful film that uses the story of one Adivasi woman to expose the cultural biases and epistemic hierarchies embedded in AI systems. Through its narrative, visual language, and sound design, the film argues that algorithmic bias is not a technical problem but a cultural and political one. It challenges the viewer to think about whose knowledge counts, who does the labour that makes AI possible, and what kind of world we are building when we let machines define reality. The film reminds us that behind every algorithm, there is a human being : and that human being's knowledge, culture, and dignity matter.
As Barad sir writes in his review of the film, "The title itself is a provocation : it reminds us that the 'loop' of AI always has humans in it, and those humans are not abstractions but real people with real lives." Humans in the Loop makes those real lives visible, and in doing so, it makes a powerful case for a more just and inclusive technology.
TASK 2 : Labour & The Politics of Cinematic Visibility
"Making the Invisible Visible: Labour, Digital Capitalism, and Cinematic Resistance in Humans in the Loop"
Introduction
One of the most important things cinema can do is make visible what is hidden. Aranya Sahay's Humans in the Loop (2024) does exactly this. It takes the invisible labour behind AI : the data-labelling, the image-tagging, the endless hours of human input that make machine learning possible : and puts it on the screen for all to see. In doing so, the film challenges the comfortable myth that AI is self-sufficient and forces us to confront the human cost of digital capitalism.
This essay examines how the film visualises invisible labour, what it suggests about labour under digital capitalism, and whether it invites empathy, critique, or transformation in how we perceive work.
1. Visual Language of Labour
The film's representation of labelling work is deeply physical and emotional. Nehma sits at a computer screen for hours, clicking through images, assigning labels, making decisions that shape how an AI system will understand the world. The camera stays close to her : close-ups of her face, her hands on the keyboard, her eyes scanning the screen. This visual intimacy makes the viewer feel the labour, not just understand it.
The workspace is deliberately unglamorous. There are no sleek Silicon Valley offices, no glass walls, no stylish furniture. Nehma works in a modest setting, surrounded by other workers who are equally anonymous to the system they serve. This mise-en-scène choice is politically significant: it refuses to aestheticise digital labour. As Bordwell and Thompson (2019) argue, what is included in the frame (and what is excluded) shapes meaning. By showing the plain reality of the workplace, the film strips away the illusion of tech glamour.
👁️ MAKING THE INVISIBLE VISIBLE
🖥️ Physical Labour
Hours at a screen. Clicking through images. Assigning labels. Close-ups of hands on keyboard, eyes scanning. The viewer feels the monotony and exhaustion.
😔 Emotional Labour
Frustration when knowledge doesn't fit categories. Exhaustion at the end of the day. The gap between the richness of her inner world and the poverty of her work environment.
🏢 Unglamorous Workspace
No sleek offices. No glass walls. Modest, anonymous setting. The film refuses to aestheticise digital labour : it shows the plain, exploitative reality.
The emotional experience of labour is also visualised. We see Nehma's frustration when her knowledge does not fit the system's categories. We see her exhaustion at the end of the day. We see the gap between the richness of her inner world and the poverty of her work environment. This emotional dimension is crucial : it transforms labour from an abstract concept into a lived human experience.
2. Cultural Valuation of Marginalised Work
The film raises a sharp question: Why is some work valued and other work invisible? The engineers who design AI systems are celebrated as innovators. They are profiled in magazines, invited to conferences, and paid enormous salaries. But the workers who train AI : who do the actual work of teaching machines to see, hear, and understand : are anonymous, underpaid, and dispensable.
From a Marxist perspective, this is a classic example of surplus value extraction. The worker (Nehma) creates value through her labour, but that value is captured by the AI company. The gap between what Nehma is paid and the profit the company makes from the trained AI is the surplus value : and it is enormous. Marx argued in Capital that this extraction is the fundamental mechanism of capitalism, and the film shows that digital capitalism works in exactly the same way (Vighi, 2019).
💰 SURPLUS VALUE IN DIGITAL CAPITALISM
Nehma (Worker)
Creates value through labour. Anonymous. Underpaid. Dispensable.
Value Extracted
Surplus value captured by the AI company. Enormous profit gap.
AI Company
Celebrated as innovators. Profiled. Paid enormously. The real workers invisible.
The film also connects cultural identity to labour. Nehma is not just any worker : she is an Adivasi woman. Her marginalisation in the labour market is not accidental; it is structural. Adivasi communities in India have historically been pushed to the margins of the economy. Data-labelling work appears to offer them a path into the digital economy, but the film shows that this "inclusion" is actually a new form of exploitation. The workers are included only as cheap labour, not as equal participants.
This connects to Representation and Identity Studies in film theory. As Cave et al. (2023) argue, popular films about AI tend to exclude marginalised communities from the narrative of technological progress. Humans in the Loop directly challenges this exclusion by making a marginalised worker the protagonist.
3. Empathy, Critique, and Transformation
Does the film invite empathy, critique, or transformation? I argue that it does all three, and it does so through its cinematic choices.
🎭 THREE RESPONSES THE FILM CREATES
💗 Empathy
Created through the film's intimate visual style. The close-ups of Nehma's face, the slow pacing of her daily routine, and the sound of her breathing in the quiet workspace : all of these draw the viewer into her experience. We do not just observe her labour; we share it, at least partially.
🔍 Critique
Embedded in the film's narrative structure. The contrast between the forest (rich, alive, meaningful) and the workspace (flat, mechanical, alienating) is a visual argument against the devaluation of human labour. The film does not need to state its critique in words : the images speak for themselves.
🔄 Transformation
Suggested through the film's refusal to offer easy solutions. The film does not end with Nehma being rescued or finding a better job. Instead, it leaves the viewer with an unresolved tension : the systems of exploitation are still in place, and the question of change is handed to the audience.
Transformation is suggested through the film's refusal to offer easy solutions. The film does not end with Nehma being rescued by a kind employer or finding a better job. Instead, it leaves the viewer with an unresolved tension : the systems of exploitation are still in place, and the question of change is handed to the audience. This is a politically mature choice. As Vighi (2019) argues, the most powerful political films are those that make the viewer uncomfortable rather than satisfied.
The film invites us to ask: What can we do? If we use AI, we are complicit in the system. The film does not accuse, but it does hold a mirror. And that mirror is transformative.
Conclusion
Humans in the Loop makes visible what digital capitalism wants to hide : the human labour that makes AI possible. Through its visual language, narrative structure, and emotional depth, the film challenges us to see the workers behind the technology and to question the systems that exploit them. It is a film that creates empathy, provokes critique, and opens the door to transformation. In a world where AI is celebrated as the future, the film reminds us that the future is built on the present : and the present, for workers like Nehma, is a place of invisible struggle.
References: Bordwell & Thompson (2019); Vighi (2019); Cave et al. (2023); Barad (2026); Anjum (2026).
TASK 3 : Film Form, Structure & Digital Culture
"Between Forest and Screen: Film Form, Digital Culture, and the Philosophy of Human-AI Interaction in Humans in the Loop"
Introduction
Aranya Sahay's Humans in the Loop (2024) is not just a film about AI : it is a film that uses the language of cinema itself to make a philosophical argument about digital culture and human-AI interaction. The way the film is shot, edited, and designed with sound creates meaning that goes beyond the story. This essay analyses how film form and cinematic devices : camera techniques, editing, sequencing, and sound : convey the film's philosophical concerns.
1. Natural Imagery versus Digital Spaces
The most powerful formal choice in the film is the visual opposition between two spaces: the forest and the screen.
The forest is filmed with handheld cameras that move organically, following the curves of paths, the flow of water, and the movement of people. The light is natural : dappled sunlight through trees, the warm glow of fire during rituals, the soft blue of dawn. These images are rich in texture and depth. They suggest a world that is three-dimensional, interconnected, and alive.
The digital workspace is filmed very differently. The camera is often static or moves in controlled, mechanical patterns. The light is artificial : the cold glow of screens, fluorescent tubes. The images are flat : screens within screens, rectangular frames within rectangular frames. This visual flatness is a deliberate comment on how digital technology reduces the complexity of the real world.
🎬 TWO VISUAL CODES : FOREST vs. SCREEN
| Element | 🌳 Forest Code | 💻 Digital Code |
|---|---|---|
| Camera | Handheld, organic movement. Following curves of paths, flow of water. | Static or controlled, mechanical patterns. |
| Light | Natural : dappled sunlight, warm fire glow, soft blue dawn. | Artificial : cold screen glow, fluorescent tubes. |
| Depth | Rich texture and depth. Three-dimensional, interconnected, alive. | Flat. Screens within screens. Rectangles within rectangles. |
| Sound | Complex, layered : birds, insects, wind, water, ritual music. | Minimal, mechanical : mouse click, key tap, computer hum. |
| Signifies | Life, knowledge, community, depth | Reduction, isolation, alienation, control |
From a structuralist / film semiotic perspective, these two visual systems function as codes : systems of signs that produce meaning. The forest code signifies life, knowledge, community, and depth. The digital code signifies reduction, isolation, alienation, and control. The meaning of the film emerges from the tension between these two codes (Number Analytics, 2023).
As Deleuze (1983) argues in Cinema 1: The Movement Image, cinema creates philosophical ideas through movement and image, not just through dialogue or plot. Humans in the Loop is an excellent example of this : its philosophy is in its images.
2. Camera Techniques and Framing
The film's camera work is carefully designed to communicate meaning:
📸 CAMERA TECHNIQUES AS MEANING
🌄 Wide Shots (Forest)
Used in forest scenes to show the vastness and interconnectedness of the natural world. Multiple elements : trees, animals, people, water : all in the same frame, suggesting an ecological worldview where everything is related.
👤 Close-ups (Workspace)
Used in labelling scenes to show isolation and confinement. Nehma's face fills the frame, separated from everything else. The screen she looks at is a small rectangle within the larger rectangle of the cinema frame : a visual metaphor for the narrowing of perception that technology imposes.
👁️ Point-of-View Shots
Used when Nehma looks at the screen, placing the viewer in her position. This technique creates identification : we see what she sees, and we feel the inadequacy of the AI's categories.
These techniques are not random; they are part of a formalist strategy : using the specific tools of cinema (camera angle, frame size, shot duration) to create meaning. As Bordwell and Thompson (2019) explain, formalist analysis focuses on how the film's techniques shape the viewer's experience.
3. Editing and Sequencing
The film's editing is one of its most philosophically significant elements:
The juxtaposition of forest scenes and workspace scenes creates a dialectical structure. Each cut between the two worlds asks the viewer to compare them : to think about what is gained and what is lost when human knowledge enters the digital system.
The pacing shifts between the two worlds. Forest scenes have a slower rhythm : longer takes, fewer cuts, allowing the viewer to absorb the richness of the environment. Workspace scenes have a faster rhythm : quick cuts, abrupt transitions, suggesting the pressure and monotony of digital labour.
This contrast in pacing is not just aesthetic; it is philosophical. It suggests that the natural world operates on a different temporality than the digital world. The forest has its own time : seasonal, cyclical, patient. The digital workspace operates on clock time : measured, urgent, linear. The film suggests that something valuable is lost when human beings are forced to live in digital time rather than natural time.
From a narrative theory perspective, the sequencing of events is also significant. The film does not follow a conventional three-act structure (setup, conflict, resolution). Instead, it uses a circular or episodic structure : returning again and again to the same tension between forest and screen. This repetition itself is meaningful: it suggests that the problem is systemic, not individual, and that there is no easy resolution.
4. Sound Design
The sound design of the film works on multiple levels:
🔊 SOUND DESIGN : TWO ACOUSTIC WORLDS
Forest Soundscape
Complex and layered : birds, insects, wind, water, human voices, ritual music. Sounds overlap, creating a rich acoustic environment mirroring the ecological richness of the visual images.
Workspace Soundscape
Minimal and mechanical : mouse click, key tap, computer fan hum, distant workers. Acoustic flatness mirrors the visual flatness of the digital space.
The transition between these two soundscapes is often abrupt, creating a sonic shock that the viewer feels physically. This is an example of what sound design theorists call diegetic contrast : using the differences between sound environments to create meaning.
Occasionally, the film may blend the two soundscapes : a moment where forest sounds intrude into the workspace, or digital sounds intrude into the forest. These moments of sonic overlap suggest that the boundary between the two worlds is not firm : they bleed into each other, and Nehma lives in both.
5. Aesthetic Choices and the Viewer's Experience
The overall aesthetic of the film creates a specific viewer experience:
🎨 AESTHETIC STRATEGY : COMFORT vs. DISCOMFORT
🌳 Forest Scenes : Comfort
Create a feeling of peace, belonging, and meaning. The viewer relaxes, breathes, and connects with the natural world through the screen.
💻 Workspace Scenes : Discomfort
Create a feeling of tension, isolation, and frustration. The viewer becomes uncomfortable, restless : mirroring Nehma's own experience.
🔄 Alternation : Deliberate Strategy
The film does not want the viewer to be passive. It wants the viewer to feel the problem : to experience, even briefly, the alienation of digital labour and the richness of what is being lost.
From a phenomenological perspective (drawing on Bazin, 1967), the film uses cinema's unique ability to capture reality to make the viewer present in both worlds. The forest scenes feel real because they are shot with respect for the real : real light, real sound, real people. The workspace scenes feel oppressive because they are shot with an awareness of how technology mediates reality.
Conclusion
Humans in the Loop is a film that thinks through its form. Every camera angle, every cut, every sound carries philosophical meaning. The interplay of natural imagery and digital spaces communicates a deep concern about what happens when human knowledge is reduced to data, when forests become images on a screen, and when human labour becomes invisible. The film's aesthetic choices do not merely illustrate its themes : they embody them. In this sense, Sahay's film is not just a narrative about AI; it is a cinematic argument : an argument made not with words but with images, sounds, and rhythms.
References: Deleuze (1983); Bazin (1967); Bordwell & Thompson (2019); Number Analytics (2023); Sui & Wang (2025).
📚 Complete References
Alonso, D. V. (2026). Imagining AI futures in mainstream cinema: Socio-technical narratives and social imaginaries. AI & Society. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-026-02880-7
Anjum, N. (2026). Aranya Sahay's Humans in the Loop and the politics of AI data labelling. The Federal. https://thefederal.com/films/aranya-sahay-humans-in-the-loop-oscar-adivasi-data-labelling-jharkhand-ai-tribal-216946
Barad, D. (2026, January). Humans in the loop: Exploring AI, labour and digital culture [Blog post]. https://blog.dilipbarad.com/2026/01/humans-in-loop-film-review-exploring-ai.html
Bazin, A. (1967). What is cinema? (Vol. 1). University of California Press.
Bordwell, D., & Thompson, K. (2019). Film art: An introduction (12th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
Cave, S., Dihal, K., Drage, E., & McInerney, K. (2023). Shuri in the sea of dudes: The cultural construction of the AI engineer in popular film, 1920-2020. In Feminist AI (pp. 65-82). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192889898.003.0005
Deleuze, G. (1983). Cinema 1: The movement image. University of Minnesota Press.
Frías, C. L. (2024). The paradox of artificial intelligence in cinema. Cultura Digital, 2(1), 5-25. https://doi.org/10.23882/cdig.240999
Göker, D. (2025). Human-like artificial intelligence in Indian cinema. International Journal of Cultural and Social Studies, 11(2), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.46442/intjcss.1799907
Haris, M. J., et al. (2023). Identifying gender bias in blockbuster movies through the lens of machine learning. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10, 94. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01576-3
Indian Express Editorial. (2026). Humans in the Loop: Technology, AI and digital lives. The Indian Express.
McDonald, K. (2023). Film theory: The basics (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Mehrotra, K. (2022). Human Touch. Fifty Two (52).
Number Analytics. (2023). Film theory essentials: Key concepts and frameworks. https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/film-theory-essentials
Sahay, A. (Director). (2024). Humans in the loop [Film]. India.
Shepherdson, C., Simpson, J., & Utterson, A. (Eds.). (2004). Film theory: Critical concepts in media and cultural studies (Vols. 1-4). Routledge.
Sui, Z., & Wang, S. (2025). Dogme 25: Media primitivism and new auteurism in the age of artificial intelligence. Frontiers in Communication, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2025.1659731
Vighi, F. (2019). Critical theory and film: Rethinking ideology through film noir. Bloomsbury Academic India.
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Humans in the Loop (film). Retrieved February 15, 2026.
Yu, Y. (2025). The reel deal? An experimental analysis of perception bias and AI film pitches. Journal of Cultural Economics, 49, 281-300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10824-025-09534-4
📸 Film Screening at Department of English, MKBU
Film Screening of Humans in the Loop at Department of English, MKBU
🎬 KEY INSIGHTS FROM THE FILM
AI Bias
is cultural, not technical
Indigenous Knowledge
is erased by algorithms
Invisible Labour
makes AI possible
Cinema
as political resistance
🎬 "Behind every algorithm, there is a human being : and that human being's knowledge, culture, and dignity matter." 🎬
This blog presents a post-viewing reflective analysis of Aranya Sahay's Humans in the Loop (2024), exploring how the film reveals AI bias, epistemic violence, invisible labour, and data colonialism through the story of an Adivasi data-labeller in Jharkhand.
No comments:
Post a Comment