Should it be researchers who solely must decide this? I feel as though that not only puts a lot of responsibility onto individuals alone but also leaves potentially detrimental ambiguity across social research. I know many research studies must receive approval via the IRB to ensure responsible conduct, so this phrasing seems a little flawed

The author emphasizes that both social and data science must be considered in tandem with one another to inform comprehensive research and to optimize the opportunities offered by this digital era. It seems that a limitation then could be a lack of resources like time or monetary means to ensure quality considerations in both aspects.

In my Intro to Information class, I recall my professor discussing the substantial impact that many researchers deem AI to have — an impact that is only comparable to that of the introduction of the Internet. It makes me think about how revolutionary AI feels to be in the midst of its development and how I often overlook this scale when thinking about the internet simply because it's all I've known throughout my upbringing. The digitization and automation of many once manual processes is so commonplace now, I can only imagine how much it'll change in the upcoming years

I wonder where the discrepancies lied, as I am sure there were some valuable differences between Blumenstock's aggregate estimates and that of the Demographic and Health Survey's. Additionally, I wonder about the extent to which the results of this machine learning model approach would be successful in other countries or via a different means of database. This first section really highlights how how incredibly nuanced the implications of Machine Learning are