Suchergebnisse

Big Tech is trying to water down the AI Act, which is supposed to be finalized before the end of this year. This is yet another chapter in the private sector's influence on governments to turn AI regulation into a toothless self-regulatory framework. The narratives that lobbying power is trying to install follow a well-known pattern. This blog post goes into detail and explains what's at stake.

Trustworthy artificial intelligence (TAI) is trending high on the political agenda. However, what is actually implied when talking about TAI, and why it is so difficult to achieve, remains insufficiently understood by both academic discourse and current AI policy frameworks. This paper offers an analytical scheme with four different dimensions that constitute TAI: a) A user perspective of AI as a quasi-other; b) AI's embedding in a network of actors from programmers to platform gatekeepers; c) The regulatory role of governance in bridging trust insecurities and deciding on AI value trade-offs; and d) The role of narratives and rhetoric in mediating AI and its conflictual governance processes. It is through the analytical scheme that overlooked aspects and missed regulatory demands around TAI are revealed and can be tackled. Conceptually, this work is situated in disciplinary transgression, dictated by the complexity of the phenomenon of TAI. The paper borrows from multiple inspirations such as phenomenology to reveal AI as a quasi-other we (dis-)trust; Science & Technology Studies (STS) to deconstruct AI's social and rhetorical embedding; as well as political science for pinpointing hegemonial conflicts within regulatory bargaining.

How to integrate artificial intelligence (AI) technologies in the functioning and structures of our society has become a concern of contemporary politics and public debates. In this paper, we investigate national AI strategies as a peculiar form of co-shaping this development, a hybrid of policy and discourse that offers imaginaries, allocates resources, and sets rules. Conceptually, the paper is informed by sociotechnical imaginaries, the sociology of expectations, myths, and the sublime. Empirically we analyze AI policy documents of four key players in the field, namely China, the United States, France, and Germany. The results show that the narrative construction of AI strategies is strikingly similar: they all establish AI as an inevitable and massively disrupting technological development by building on rhetorical devices such as a grand legacy and international competition. Having established this inevitable, yet uncertain, AI future, national leaders proclaim leadership intervention and articulate opportunities and distinct national pathways. While this narrative construction is quite uniform, the respective AI imaginaries are remarkably different, reflecting the vast cultural, political, and economic differences of the countries under study. As governments endow these imaginary pathways with massive resources and investments, they contribute to coproducing the installment of these futures and, thus, yield a performative lock-in function.

Facing the current rush towards artificial intelligence (AI) by private tech companies such as Google, Facebook, Baidu or Alibaba and current public media attention for the subject, governments around the globe have proclaimed to partake in a global AI race. During the past four years national AI strategies have been popping up all around the globe, identifying potentials and risks that go along AI development, leapfrogging AI research through huge sums of investments and proclaiming the aim to steer AI future through policy measures. In the present paper we identify these national AI policy papers as a peculiar hybrid between policy and discourse. They are at the same time tech policy, national strategic positioning and an imaginary of public goods. Conceptually the paper is informed by the the sociology of expectations, socio-technical imaginaries and myths. Empirically we analyse the socio-technical narratives articulated by AI policy documents of four key players in the field, namely China, USA, France and Germany. The discourse analysis of the documents' rhetoric and argumentative structures show how contested and vague policy documents establish a seemingly inevitable technological pathway towards AI deployment across almost every societal sector. Although the final imagined socio-technical orders differ across the compared countries, we identify the following themes that serve as shared building blocks in the process of AI imaginary construction in all four countries: (1) Situating AI in a grand historical legacy of technological progress and celebrating a "revolutionary" AI break-through moment, the strategy papers (re)create a myth of determinist technological development, and ascribe agency to a technology that "befalls" our societies. (2) Talk about an undecipherable AI future opens a window of uncertainty which invites for clarification and leadership intervention. National leaders coin uncertainty into an opportunity to take initiative and to mobilise societal attention in order to co-produce the ...

Abstract"Autonomous weapon systems" (AWS) have been subject to intense discussions for years. Numerous political, academic and legal actors are debating their consequences, with many calling for strict regulation or even a global ban. Surprisingly, it often remains unclear which technologies the term AWS refers to and also in what sense these systems can be characterised as autonomous at all. Despite being feared by many, weapons that are completely self-governing and beyond human control are more of a conceptual possibility than an actual military reality.As will be argued, the conflicting interpretations of AWS are largely the result of the diverse meanings that are constructed in political discourses. These interpretations convert specific understandings of AI into strategic assets and consequently hinder the establishment of common ethical standards and legal regulations. In particular, this article looks at the publicly available military AI strategies and position papers by China and the USA. It analyses how AWS technologies, understood as evoking sociotechnical imaginaries, are politicised to serve particular national interests.The article presents the current theoretical debate, which has sought to find a functional definition of AWS that is sufficiently unambiguous for regulatory or military contexts. Approaching AWS as a phenomenon that is embedded in a particular sociotechnical imaginary, however, flags up the ways in which nation states portray themselves as part of a global AI race, competing over economic, military and geopolitical advantages. Nation states do not just enforce their geopolitical ambitions through a fierce realpolitik rhetoric but also play around with ambiguities in definitions. This especially holds true for China and the USA, since they are regarded and regard themselves as hegemonic antagonists, presenting competing self-conceptions that are apparent in their histories, political doctrines and identities. The way they showcase their AI-driven military prowess indicates an ambivalent rhetoric of legal sobriety, tech-regulation and aggressive national dominance. AWS take on the role of signifiers that are employed to foster political legitimacy or to spark deliberate confusion and deterrence.

To date, the study of hype has become a productive but also eclectic field of research. This introduction provides an overview of the core characteristics of technology hype and distinguishes it from other future-oriented concepts. Further, the authors present promising approaches from various disciplines for studying, critiquing, and dealing with hype. The special issue assembles case studies, methodological and theoretical contributions that analyze tech hypes' temporality, agency, and institutional dynamics. It provides insights into how hypes are triggered and fostered, but also how they can be deconstructed and anticipated.