· 6 min read
Vilhelmiina Vulli is the Head of Media at illuminem – which has emerged as the world's largest and premier expert network in sustainability. She devises comprehensive communication strategies, manages content creation, and nurtures the vibrant community of illuminem Voices.
Working with a creative agency gave her a front-row seat to the rise of AR, VR, and AI. She has been closely following their adoption, independently testing tools, and engaging with the evolving conversation. At university, Vilhelmiina focused on media studies with international politics and linguistics.
Originally from Finland, she has always been drawn to technology. She was part of a SaaS startup in Helsinki focused on 3D performance optimization and has worked with large players such as Kone, Valmet, and Yaskawa.
Vilhelmiina’s deeply international perspective is shaped by living across Europe, including the UK, Ireland, Finland, Germany, Italy, and Spain. She shares her unique perspective on the eve of IWD.
US exiting the Paris Agreement and abandoning DEI. Isn’t this a significant environmental and societal setback? Your personal thoughts?
Sustainability is not only about the environment, it’s about sustaining life — creating a world that supports livable conditions for all.
Far-right extremism and focus on the US domestic economy are part of the on-going development since Trump’s previous term and will affect Europe. Financially struggling governments and individuals are trying to find solutions to cope with actual and perceived aggressors, and this naturally leads to a focus on defence in Europe. Not to mention how the EU is already preventing immigration. Nationalising agendas are likely to further emphasise the division between those "born and raised" in a country and everyone else. This is something we will need to actively try to tackle.
How do we attempt that at illuminem: by diverse hiring (team mates for example from Zambia and Liberia), by working with and listening to diverse groups/people, by representing diversity through our news and illuminem Voices, and making sure that this is part of our editorial policy.
On a positive note, I see sustainability as an incremental part of defence in terms of resilience and adaptation, on a regional and global level. With more resources in innovation there is a possibility to use tech and solutions to advance the cause. I’m also hoping that the market that is evolving around sustainability (from nature-based solutions, to EVs, to renewables, to CDR) grows inclusively and with the value of sustaining life (not only for the few, but for the many). Climate change has a global effect, and we cannot predict how the weather will change in a specific place, for a specific person — sustainability should be a concern everywhere, and those who have the financial means and power have a responsibility to drive it forward.
How is it being perceived in Europe? Would an imminent NATO reorder be any surprise?
The general perception has been devastation, but I also see the sustainability community reacting quickly. Everyone from politics and academia to engineering to finance or charity, are reacting to the US/Ukraine/China/Russia situation. The way I see it, is that even if the US stepped out of NATO, it would be first and foremost for cost reasons, not spending money on military or other aid for Ukraine or elsewhere, but taking care of domestic “sustainability”. In the same line of thinking, thinking about the economy and future costs, one could argue that it is in US interest to adopt sustainable solutions.
Given your insights into AI, are the virtues and vices too hyped?
- Inclusivity: AI is a technology, developed and trained by humans. With any technology there will be a chance to develop it in many directions — and of course, we should intentionally develop inclusive technologies. Unfortunately, we humans are naturally afraid of anything different and at times of war or defence – nations and individuals have the tendency to turn inward, find the enemy, fight the difference. This is why the EU is investing in developing its own AI solutions. How inclusive they will be, is a great question.
- Energy: AI and our digital environments in general, require a lot of data processing, which requires a lot of space, energy, and infrastructure. Whether we really need all of this technology is one question, and another one is, what do we power it with? From what I see, all energy options are on the table, but should be used in the most sustainable way, i.e. if you must continue using fossil fuels, it still makes very much sense to invest in alternatives like renewables to safeguard remaining natural resources.
- Information: I think the biggest potential problem, even an existing one, is humans being “locked-in”, separated from each other, not having conversations and sharing information, whether through writing, reading, etc. but taking information from a selective system, in a selective format, and failing to make their own informed and critical decisions. AI has the potential to entirely monopolise what we think — therefore should be developed with this consideration in mind.
How to mitigate the gender and racial bias of AI? Would the likes of Deep Seek be the answer?
Kind of in the above. And yes, more options typically means less monopoly, which is more democratic, so to speak. The driver behind different countries developing their own solutions is a political one now. If there is war, data and information equal direct power. Thus, the US wouldn’t like all of their data to be shared with China, and so on.
Equally, it’s evident that innovation is constant and somehow information has ways of finding people. But, will the right information find the right people at the right scale?
A recent HBR report finds women adopting AI slower than men. Is it about digital divide and accessibility, or a more discerning and judicious usage?
With a background in the tech industry, I’d say the whole process starts from a societal level. Are women encouraged to be inquisitive, encouraged to enter tech, are they supported if faced with obstacles, what is the surrounding culture and working culture in the industry? Is it easy for women to attain the education and respect needed?
Of course, one could argue, that whether for genetic or cultural reasons, women are more altruistic/empathetic (or am I just repeating a false narrative?) and that they don’t want to jump into new tech because it perpetuates one view-point more than the other. I strongly believe you can be both discerning and learn new things.
“The next civilisation is being birthed in large part by deep-thinking women, but hundreds of millions are highly vulnerable to planetary and social risks… and likely to become more so unless we can change the systems of resilience and self-sufficiency”. I quote Dr. Phoebe Barnard. What are your thoughts?
Fully agree, but also think we have come to a level of education/economic stability/know-how for larger global minority communities, who have power to create change — for the many.
Grateful for these unique perspectives, Vilhelmiina. Happy IWD!
This article is also available on The Diversity Blog.
