Too Young or Too Old?

The New Digital Dilemma of the 21st Century

“If we design artificial intelligence based only on the past, we risk encoding
our oldest prejudices into our newest tools.” Virginia Eubanks. 2018

By Maureen Vargas Pizarro

Ageism, or age discrimination, has become a silent yet widespread phenomenon that
especially affects people over 45. This form of prejudice progressively manifests
depending on the context: from age 45 in technological and digital sectors; between 50
and 55 in the labor and professional spheres; and from 60 years onward in social
policies, health services, media, and workplaces (Delong, 2024). In fact, the report
*Ageism: A Global Report* indicates that more than half of people aged 60 to 80 have
experienced age discrimination (World Health Organization [WHO], 2021).

The WHO states that ageism is a form of stereotype and prejudice based on age,
primarily affecting older adults. However, both the European Commission and the
International Labour Organization (ILO) warn that this form of exclusion begins as early
as age 45, a stage where reduced hiring opportunities and limited access to professional
training become evident (Delong, 2024).

Changing Patterns of Aging

The perception of aging has changed radically over the past 25 years. A study by Weiss
and Zhang (2020), based on the German Ageing Survey, found that the perceived
threshold for being considered “old” has shifted approximately three years later every
two decades. Thus, a 64-year-old person considers that old age begins around 75.

Moreover, medical advancements and increased life expectancy have improved the
health and well-being of older adults. Today, being 70 years old is functionally
equivalent to being 60 in previous decades, in terms of physical, cognitive,
psychological, and sensory capacity. (Beard, J.R., Hanewald, K., Si, Y. et al 2025).
Subjective age has also changed: many people over 50 feel ten years younger, which is
associated with a higher quality of life and greater longevity. (Horovitz, B. 2019)

Additionally, recent research in the biology of aging reveals that biological markers—
such as proteins, cell repair, and vascular function—show slower deterioration due to
healthier lifestyles and improvements in public health.

Reverse Ageism: The Other Side of the Bias

1
Not only older people are victims of ageism. Reverse ageism also exists: discrimination
against young adults. In the workplace, young adults are often perceived as
inexperienced, uncommitted, or emotionally immature. It is assumed they seek rapid
promotions or are not reliable for complex tasks, limiting their professional growth.
(Lehewych, D. 2022)

This type of ageism, although less visible, is equally harmful. It is based on normalized
social prejudices and contributes to generational fragmentation. Recognizing its
existence and taking action is key to building truly inclusive and intergenerational
environments. (Murray. S. 2024)

Artificial Intelligence, Ageism and Reverse Ageism

Artificial intelligence (AI) has introduced new forms of age-based discrimination, both
toward older adults and young people. In the case of older adults, algorithms replicate
stereotypes such as low digital competence or resistance to change, leading to their
exclusion in recruitment processes or access to services (Binns, 2021; Lepri et al., 2018).
Meanwhile, reverse ageism affects young adults perceived as unstable or inexperienced,
particularly when automated systems penalize non-linear work trajectories—common
among younger generations (Francioli, Shaker & North, 2024; Pollack & Associates,
2024).

Both forms of ageism are reinforced by biased data and lack of context, contributing to
intergenerational exclusion. These discriminations intersect with other factors such as
gender, race, or social class, amplifying digital and labor exclusion (West, Whittaker &
Crawford, 2019). This scenario calls for ethical principles and algorithmic justice in the
development and deployment of automated technologies (Mittelstadt et al., 2016).

Final Reflections

Ageism, in all its forms, represents a structural barrier that limits equitable access to
employment, technology, health, and social participation. Whether directed at older or
younger people, this type of discrimination perpetuates stereotypes that affect both
social perception and real opportunities for development.

The emergence of AI has intensified some of these biases through algorithms trained on
historical data, replicating prejudices without human context. This reality reveals a
profound paradox: in an era of greater longevity, technological advances, and openness
to change, mechanisms that exclude individuals based on age persist.

These key questions invite critical thought:

• How can we ensure that AI systems do not reproduce or amplify social age biases
toward both older and younger individuals?

2
• What structural changes are necessary in organizations to truly value age diversity as a
source of innovation and equity?

• Are we, as a society, prepared to build a digital culture that recognizes and enhances
the capacities of all generations equally?

In the face of accelerated technological change and evolving demographics, it is no

References
Binns, R. (2021). On the apparent conflict between individual and group fairness. ACM
Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3287560.3287572

Delong, S. (2024). Why your perception of old changes as you age. Hello Future.
https://hellofuture.com/news/why-your-perception-of-old-changes-as-you-age/?
utm_source=shellytxt.com

Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and
punish the poor. St. Martin's Press.
https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250074317/automatinginequality

Francioli, S., Shaker, A., & North, M. (2024). Reverse ageism is real and overlooked.
Wharton Knowledge. https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/reverse-ageism-is-
real-and-overlooked/

Lepri, B., Oliver, N., Letouzé, E., Pentland, A., & Vinck, P. (2018). Fair, transparent, and
accountable algorithmic decision-making processes. Philosophy & Technology, 31, 611–
627. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-017-0279-x

Mittelstadt, B. D., Allo, P., Taddeo, M., Wachter, S., & Floridi, L. (2016). The ethics of
algorithms: Mapping the debate. Big Data & Society, 3(2).
https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951716679679

World Health Organization (WHO). (2021). Ageism: A global report on ageism.

Pollack & Associates PLLC. (2024, February 28). Discriminated for being younger:
Reverse ageism in the workplace.
https://www.pollacklawgroup.com/blog/discriminated-for-being-younger-reverse-
ageism-in-the-workplace/

3
Weiss, D., & Zhang, X. (2020). Subjective age and health outcomes: Evidence from the
German Ageing Survey. Psychology and Aging, 35(7), 965–972.

West, S. M., Whittaker, M., & Crawford, K. (2019). Discriminating systems: Gender, race
and power in AI. AI Now Institute. https://ainowinstitute.org/discriminatingsystems.pdf