Key Takeaways
- The 2025 Responsible Tech Guide by All Tech Is Human provides a framework for the intersection of technology and social impact
- The field of Responsible Tech is rapidly maturing, but faces challenges such as regulatory lag, fragmentation, and political pressures
- ICT4D professionals are already part of the Responsible Tech field, whether they realize it or not
- The guide identifies three main Responsible Tech disciplines: Responsible AI, Trust & Safety, and Public Interest Technology
- The intersection of RAI and PIT is particularly relevant for development practitioners, as it emphasizes inclusion and harm reduction for marginalized communities
- The guide highlights the need for career pathways and skills development in Responsible Tech, as well as the importance of bridging technical and non-technical communities
Introduction to Responsible Tech
The release of the 2025 Responsible Tech Guide by All Tech Is Human has sparked a new wave of discussion around the intersection of technology and social impact. The comprehensive guide reveals a field in rapid maturation, with ICT4D professionals already playing a crucial role, whether they realize it or not. However, the guide also highlights the challenges facing the Responsible Tech field, including regulatory lag, fragmentation, and political pressures. These challenges should sound familiar to anyone working in global development, and it is essential to address them to ensure that technology is used responsibly and for the greater good.
The Agency Question
The guide opens with a philosophical anchor, exploring the tension between Human Agency and Tech Determinism. This core question faces every digital development project, and it is essential to consider whether technology’s trajectory is inevitable or if humans can actively shape it. All Tech Is Human firmly stakes its position, stating that "our tech future happens BY us, not TO us." This framing should resonate with ICT4D practitioners, who have always had to bend technology to local realities, rather than the other way around. The guide’s survey of 275 practitioners reveals a troubling reality, with the biggest concern about AI governance in 2025 being regulatory lag and fragmentation, followed closely by political pressures and global governance challenges.
Intersections We Need to Explore
The guide identifies three main Responsible Tech disciplines: Responsible AI (RAI), Trust & Safety (T&S), and Public Interest Technology (PIT). For development practitioners, the intersection of RAI and PIT is where the action is, as both fields emphasize inclusion and harm reduction, particularly for marginalized communities. RAI focuses on how to build AI systems responsibly, while PIT ensures those systems serve democratic and societal goals. This isn’t theoretical, as countries in the Global South face significant challenges in regulating AI and protecting citizens from algorithmic harms. The guide notes that while Europe leads with frameworks like GDPR and the EU AI Act, the Global South faces a capacity gap, with limited resources for enforcement, oversight, and technical expertise.
Skills Gap as a Recognition Gap
One of the guide’s most valuable contributions is mapping career pathways. The 2025 careers report reveals that about 75% of jobs labeled "entry-level" in Responsible Tech require prior experience, a double impossibility that should sound familiar to anyone trying to break into international development. However, ICT4D professionals likely already have Responsible Tech skills, as the guide identifies "translation" – the ability to blend business, ethical, technical, and legal frameworks across different organizational structures – as the highest-value skill. The challenge is that ICT4D and Responsible Tech communities aren’t talking to each other enough, and the guide explicitly notes the need to bridge technical and non-technical communities.
From Principles to Practice
The guide’s case studies illustrate why siloed approaches fail, framing thorny tech and society issues as systemic challenges with technical, legal, cultural, and economic roots. Responsible Tech isn’t a separate field from ICT4D; it’s the same work with different terminology, facing parallel challenges at different scales. The sooner we recognize this, the sooner we can share lessons, build coalitions, and ensure that governance frameworks emerging in Brussels and Washington actually work in Nairobi and Dhaka. Our tech future isn’t inevitable, but shaping it requires showing up. For ICT4D practitioners, this suggests three practical shifts: stopping the treatment of "ethics" as a checkbox exercise, engaging with the growing governance infrastructure, and joining the conversation.
Conclusion
The 2025 Responsible Tech Guide by All Tech Is Human provides a valuable framework for the intersection of technology and social impact. The field of Responsible Tech is rapidly maturing, but faces significant challenges that must be addressed. By recognizing the intersection of RAI and PIT, bridging technical and non-technical communities, and sharing lessons and building coalitions, we can ensure that technology is used responsibly and for the greater good. The guide’s survey and case studies highlight the importance of career pathways and skills development in Responsible Tech, as well as the need for ICT4D professionals to engage with the growing governance infrastructure and join the conversation. By doing so, we can shape our tech future and create a more equitable and just world for all.