Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
Conclusion
References
All Topics
Philosophy
Ethics

“Democratizing AI” and the Concern of Algorithmic Injustice

Profile image of Ting-An LinTing-An Lin

2024, Philosophy & Technology

https://doi.org/10.1007/S13347-024-00792-2
visibility

…

description

24 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

The call to make artificial intelligence (AI) more democratic, or to “democratize AI,” is sometimes framed as a promising response for mitigating algorithmic injustice or making AI more aligned with social justice. However, the notion of “democratizing AI” is elusive, as the phrase has been associated with multiple meanings and practices, and the extent to which it may help mitigate algorithmic injustice is still underexplored. In this paper, based on a socio-technical understanding of algorithmic injustice, I examine three notable notions of democratizing AI and their associated measures—democratizing AI use, democratizing AI development, and democratizing AI governance—regarding their respective prospects and limits in response to algorithmic injustice. My examinations reveal that while some versions of democratizing AI bear the prospect of mitigating the concern of algorithmic injustice, others are somewhat limited and might even function to perpetuate unjust power hierarchies. This analysis thus urges a more fine-grained discussion on how to democratize AI and suggests that closer scrutiny of the power dynamics embedded in the socio-technical structure can help guide such explorations.

Related papers

The Two-Edged Sword of AI: Exploitation and Empowerment Balancing Innovation with Human Values in the Age of AI
Kent Pedersen

The Two-Edged Sword of AI: Exploitation and Empowerment Balancing Innovation with Human Values in the Age of AI, 2025

This article explores the double-edged nature of artificial intelligence, as both a transformative force for global progress and a potential instrument of exploitation by elite interests. It critically examines deregulation efforts, including Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” and its AI clause, as well as broader concerns like digital colonialism, surveillance capitalism, and algorithmic bias. At the same time, it highlights AI’s capacity to democratize knowledge, support ethical governance, and foster collective uplift. The paper calls for a values-based framework, rooted in human dignity and ethical responsibility, to guide AI’s evolution toward the common good.

View PDFchevron_right
A shallow defence of a technocracy of artificial intelligence: Examining the political harms of algorithmic governance in the domain of government
Henrik S Sætra

Technology in Society, 2020

Artificial intelligence (AI) has proven to be superior to human decision-making in certain areas. This is particularly the case whenever there is a need for advanced strategic reasoning and analysis of vast amounts of data in order to solve complex problems. Few human activities fit this description better than politics. In politics we deal with some of the most complex issues humans face, short-term and long-term consequences have to be balanced, and we make decisions knowing that we do not fully understand their consequences. I examine an extreme case of the application of AI in the domain of government, and use this case to examine a subset of the potential harms associated with algorithmic governance. I focus on five objections based on political theoretical considerations and the potential political harms of an AI technocracy. These are objections based on the ideas of 'political man' and participation as a prerequisite for legitimacy, the non-morality of machines and the value of transparency and accountability. I conclude that these objections do not successfully derail AI technocracy, if we make sure that mechanisms for control and backup are in place, and if we design a system in which humans have control over the direction and fundamental goals of society. Such a technocracy, if the AI capabilities of policy formation here assumed becomes reality, may, in theory, provide us with better means of participation, legitimacy, and more efficient government.

View PDFchevron_right
The Intersection of Sociology and Economic Justice in AI Innovations
Constantinos Challoumis

Sociological perspectives, that examine the societal structures that delimit the possibilities of opportunity in people's lives, are necessary if this deep discussion of economic justice in the context of Artificial Intelligence technologies is to progress. It is asked how new technologies can reinforce or undermine old exclusivities and whether research can focus on technologies themselves not on individual morals and choices. It is investigated to what extent a new, sociologicallyengaged socio-technical perspective on those places where AI systems are developed reveals the ways in which these technologies can either further entrench long-standing economic inequalities or alternatively work to weaken them

View PDFchevron_right
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND THE SOCIETY: NAVIGATING THE IMPACT OF AI ON JUSTICE, FREEDOM AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Uchechukwu K I Z I T O Ogu

Nnadiebube Journal of Philosophy (NJP) , 2024

In an era defined by rapid technological advancement, the transformative potential of Artificial Intelligence (AI) stands both as a beacon of hope, promise and a challenge. It has become increasingly evident that AI is not just a tool for innovation but, when deployed responsibly and ethically, can be a force for social innovation and change-improving equity and human rights, shaping societies and redefining the global landscape. The potential of AI to impact society has been noted by scholars, while it has been touted as providing solutions to many social problems, it also has the potential to perpetuate existing inequalities and injustices. It has been shown to replicate, amplify and even exacerbate biases related to race, gender and other social factors. It is, therefore, essential to consider the implication of AI development on issues like justice, human dignity and human rights in order to ensure that AI benefits equitably across populations and demographics without amplifying the already existing inequalities. This paper, seeks therefore, to examine the impact of AI on justice, human freedom and human rights especially those rights that are most impacted or most likely to be impacted by AI. The paper posits that AI can impact social justice through biased decision making, job displacement and so on. It therefore, recommends increased transparency and accountability in AI decision-making so that its benefits can be shared fairly and equitably across society.

View PDFchevron_right
Towards a Theory of Justice for Artificial Intelligence (Daedelus, 2022)
Iason Gabriel

Daedelus, 2022

This paper explores the relationship between artificial intelligence and principles of distributive justice. Drawing upon the political philosophy of John Rawls, it holds that the basic structure of society should be understood as a composite of socio-technical systems, and that the operation of these systems is increasingly shaped and influenced by AI. As a consequence, egalitarian norms of justice apply to the technology when it is deployed in these contexts. These norms entail that the relevant AI systems must meet a certain standard of public justification, support citizens rights, and promote substantively fair outcomes – something that requires specific attention be paid to the impact they have on the worst-off members of society.

View PDFchevron_right
AI governance: Compromising democracy or democratising AI
Mehmet B Unver

AI governance: Compromising democracy or democratising AI?, 2024

The increasing integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into society raises critical questions about its impact on democracy. The development of AI governance frameworks presents a convenient and crucial ground to strengthen democracy, particularly through the lens of participatory and deliberative theories. From this viewpoint, this article seeks to explore the extent to which emerging AI governance frameworks uphold participatory and deliberative democracy. Through a comparative analysis of proposed or existing legislation in the European Union (EU), Brazil and Canada, this study investigates the specific tools and mechanisms each framework uses to involve the citizens in AI governance. The analysis reveals that while all three jurisdictions emphasise ethical governance and assessment of AI along with regulatory dialogue and multi-stakeholder collaboration, this does not effectively extend to creation of robust and specific mechanisms to facilitate citizens' participation and deliberation. Exhibiting a stronger commitment to participatory and deliberative democracy, the Brazilian framework demonstrates a firmer position, incorporating a wider range of individual rights and direct avenues for citizen input and engagement, e.g. mandatory public consultation in advance of algorithmic impact assessment. Conversely, the Canadian and EU approaches largely rely on existing institutions and processes, overlooking the unique challenges, i.e. knowledge barriers, economic and social injustices, expert rule, that cannot be fully resolved by toolset of ethics governance or through alternative venues such as citizens' assemblies. Overall, this study concludes by advocating for the integration of novel mechanisms that can facilitate citizen participation and deliberation within AI governance frameworks, including specifically designed and institutionalised deliberative venues.

View PDFchevron_right
The political construction of artificial intelligence: A brief evaluation from the perspectives of biopolitics and governmentality 1
Ramazan Kubilay

2025

Artificial intelligence technologies are rapidly evolving and increasingly influencing nearly every aspect of social life. These technologies are typically assessed within ethical, legal, technical, or professional frameworks; consequently, their political implications are often overlooked. However, artificial intelligence is not merely a technical tool but also a form of governance that operates within specific political rationalities. In this context, the study examines the politicization of artificial intelligence as a contemporary extension of classical power relations and analyzes it through Michel Foucault's concepts of biopolitics and governmentality. The primary assertion of the study is that the peril or practicality of artificial intelligence technologies is determined by the political context in which they operate, rather than by their technical characteristics. Therefore, whether a technology serves as a tool of domination depends not on its inherent nature but on the strategies of power within which it functions. Artificial intelligence is employed to monitor, predict, and influence individual behavior, creating a space where traditional techniques of power are reproduced in more rational and less visible forms. This study analyzes this transformation by examining how individuals are subjectivized within the framework of governmentality and how populations are reduced to manageable categories. Consequently, while artificial intelligence diminishes the visibility of power, it emerges as a new and effective technique of political power through algorithmic decisionmaking mechanisms that align with knowledge-based norms.

View PDFchevron_right
Civil Society’s Struggle Against Algorithmic Injustice in Europe
Philip Di Salvo

The Human Error Project, 2024

View PDFchevron_right
To democratize or not to democratize AI? That is the question
Randon R Taylor

AI and Ethics

This paper advances the debate surrounding whether to democratize AI and explores some of the challenges and benefits of democratization through community-based work and direct democracy. We contend that community-based strategies can incorporate local knowledge and control, thereby providing more effective AI solutions that are human-centric and less harmful. However, democratization needs to be approached with caution and care, since this process requires a deeper understanding of who participates, the decision domain, and the different realities at stake. Moreover, we highlight the importance of participation in AI development to ensure its legitimacy, considering the capacity of this technology to shape reality. We emphasize that participation should be more than just involving stakeholders or seeking input from users. Rather, participation should involve local narratives that generate knowledge and shape information landscapes, thereby producing a different, anti-Cartesian scen...

View PDFchevron_right
The Forgotten Margins of AI Ethics
Johnathan C Flowers

2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency

How has recent AI Ethics literature addressed topics such as fairness and justice in the context of continued social and structural power asymmetries? We trace both the historical roots and current landmark work that have been shaping the field and categorize these works under three broad umbrellas: (i) those grounded in Western canonical philosophy, (ii) mathematical and statistical methods, and (iii) those emerging from critical data/algorithm/information studies. We also survey the field and explore emerging trends by examining the rapidly growing body of literature that falls under the broad umbrella of AI Ethics. To that end, we read and annotated peer-reviewed papers published over the past four years in two premier conferences: FAccT and AIES. We organize the literature based on an annotation scheme we developed according to three main dimensions: whether the paper deals with concrete applications, use-cases, and/or people's lived experience; to what extent it addresses harmed, threatened, or otherwise marginalized groups; and if so, whether it explicitly names such groups. We note that although the goals of the majority of FAccT and AIES papers were often commendable, their consideration of the negative impacts of AI on traditionally marginalized groups remained shallow. Taken together, our conceptual analysis and the data from annotated papers indicate that the field would benefit from an increased focus This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.

View PDFchevron_right

References (74)

  1. Adamson, Adewole S., and Avery Smith. 2018. "Machine Learning and Health Care Disparities in Dermatology." JAMA Dermatology 154 (11): 1247-48.
  2. AI Index Steering Committee. 2023. "Artificial Intelligence Index Report 2023." Institute for Human- Centered AI, Stanford University. https://aiindex.stanford.edu/report/.
  3. AI Now Institute. 2023. "The Climate Costs of Big Tech." AI Now Institute. April 11, 2023. https://ainowinstitute.org/spotlight/climate.
  4. Allen, Bibb, Sheela Agarwal, Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer, and Keith Dreyer. 2019. "Democratizing AI." Journal of the American College of Radiology: JACR 16 (7): 961-63.
  5. Anderson, Elizabeth. 2006. "The Epistemology of Democracy." Episteme; Rivista Critica Di Storia Delle Scienze Mediche E Biologiche 3 (1-2): 8-22.
  6. Ardila, Rosana, Megan Branson, Kelly Davis, Michael Henretty, Michael Kohler, Josh Meyer, Reuben Morais, Lindsay Saunders, Francis M. Tyers, and Gregor Weber. 2019. "Common Voice: A Massively-Multilingual Speech Corpus." arXiv [cs.CL]. arXiv. http://arxiv.org/abs/1912.06670.
  7. Arnstein, Sherry R. 1969. "A Ladder of Citizen Participation." Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35 (4): 216-24.
  8. Benjamin, Ruha. 2019. Race After Technology: Abolitionist Tools for the New Jim Code. John Wiley & Sons.
  9. Bianchi, Federico, Pratyusha Kalluri, Esin Durmus, Faisal Ladhak, Myra Cheng, Debora Nozza, Tatsunori Hashimoto, Dan Jurafsky, James Zou, and Aylin Caliskan. 2023. "Easily Accessible Text- to-Image Generation Amplifies Demographic Stereotypes at Large Scale." In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 1493-1504. FAccT '23. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery.
  10. Binns, Reuben. 2020. "On the Apparent Conflict between Individual and Group Fairness." In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 514-24.
  11. FAT* '20. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery.
  12. Birhane, Abeba. 2021. "Algorithmic Injustice: A Relational Ethics Approach." Patterns (New York, N.Y.) 2 (2): 100205.
  13. Birhane, Abeba, William Isaac, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Mark Diaz, Madeleine Clare Elish, Iason Gabriel, and Shakir Mohamed. 2022. "Power to the People? Opportunities and Challenges for Participatory AI." In Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization, 1-8. EAAMO '22 6. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery.
  14. Bommasani, Rishi, Kathleen A. Creel, Ananya Kumar, Dan Jurafsky, and Percy Liang. 2022. "Picking on the Same Person: Does Algorithmic Monoculture Lead to Outcome Homogenization?" arXiv [cs.LG]. arXiv. http://arxiv.org/abs/2211.13972.
  15. Buolamwini, Joy, and Timnit Gebru. 2018. "Gender Shades: Intersectional Accuracy Disparities in Commercial Gender Classification." In Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency, edited by Sorelle A. Friedler and Christo Wilson, 81:77-91. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research. PMLR.
  16. Chung, Ryoa. 2021. "Structural Health Vulnerability: Health Inequalities, Structural and Epistemic Injustice." Journal of Social Philosophy 52 (2): 201-16.
  17. Clegg, Nick, and Global Affairs. 2023. "Bringing People Together to Inform Decision-Making on Generative AI." Meta. June 22, 2023. https://about.fb.com/news/2023/06/generative-ai-community- forum/.
  18. Collins, Patricia Hill. 2002. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. Routledge.
  19. Costanza-Chock, Sasha. 2018. "Design Justice, A.i., and Escape from the Matrix of Domination." Journal of Design and Science, July. https://doi.org/10.21428/96c8d426.
  20. ---. 2020. "Design Justice: Community-Led Practices to Build the Worlds We Need." https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/43542.
  21. Crawford, Kate. 2021. The Atlas of AI: Power, Politics, and the Planetary Costs of Artificial Intelligence. Yale University Press.
  22. Dahl, Robert A. 2008. Democracy and Its Critics. Yale University Press.
  23. Davis, Jenny L., Apryl Williams, and Michael W. Yang. 2021. "Algorithmic Reparation." Big Data & Society 8 (2): 20539517211044808.
  24. Delgado, Fernando, Stephen Yang, Michael Madaio, and Qian Yang. 2021. "Stakeholder Participation in AI: Beyond 'Add Diverse Stakeholders and Stir.'" arXiv [cs.AI]. arXiv. http://arxiv.org/abs/2111.01122.
  25. Deng, Jianyang, and Yijia Lin. 2022. "The Benefits and Challenges of ChatGPT: An Overview." Frontiers in Computing and Intelligent Systems 2 (2): 81-83.
  26. Escobar, Oliver, and Stephen Elstub. 2017. "Forms of Mini-Publics." newDemocracy Foundation. Eveleth, Rose. 2014. "How Self-Tracking Apps Exclude Women." Atlantic 15. http://www.leeannhunter.com/digital/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Eveleth.SelfTrackingApps.pdf.
  27. Fishkin, James. 2009. When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation. OUP Oxford.
  28. Floridi, Luciano. 2019. "Translating Principles into Practices of Digital Ethics: Five Risks of Being Unethical." Philosophy & Technology 32 (2): 185-93.
  29. Gabriel, Iason. 2022. "Toward a Theory of Justice for Artificial Intelligence." Daedalus 151 (2): 218-31.
  30. Gebru, Timnit. 2020. "Race and Gender." In The Oxford Handbook of Ethics of AI, edited by Markus D. Dubber, Frank Pasquale, and Sunit Das, 253-70. Oxford University Press.
  31. Gilens, Martin. 2012. Affluence and Influence. Princeton University Press.
  32. Gochfeld, Michael, and Joanna Burger. 2011. "Disproportionate Exposures in Environmental Justice and Other Populations: The Importance of Outliers." American Journal of Public Health 101 Suppl 1 (Suppl 1): S53-63.
  33. Goodin, Robert E. 2007. "Enfranchising All Affected Interests, and Its Alternatives." Philosophy & Public Affairs 35 (1): 40-68.
  34. Green, Ben. 2022. "Escaping the Impossibility of Fairness: From Formal to Substantive Algorithmic Fairness." Philosophy & Technology 35 (4): 90.
  35. Grönlund, Kimmo, Maija Setälä, and Kaisa Herne. 2010. "Deliberation and Civic Virtue: Lessons from a Citizen Deliberation Experiment." European Political Science Review 2 (1): 95-117.
  36. Groves, Lara, Aidan Peppin, Andrew Strait, and Jenny Brennan. 2023. "Going Public: The Role of Public Participation Approaches in Commercial AI Labs." In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 1162-73. FAccT '23. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery.
  37. Gulshan, Varun, Lily Peng, Marc Coram, Martin C. Stumpe, Derek Wu, Arunachalam Narayanaswamy, Subhashini Venugopalan, et al. 2016. "Development and Validation of a Deep Learning Algorithm for Detection of Diabetic Retinopathy in Retinal Fundus Photographs." JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association 316 (22): 2402-10.
  38. Hacker, Jacob S., and Paul Pierson. 2010. Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer--and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class. Simon and Schuster.
  39. Hagendorff, Thilo. 2020. "The Ethics of AI Ethics: An Evaluation of Guidelines." Minds and Machines 30 (1): 99-120.
  40. Hamidi, Foad, Morgan Klaus Scheuerman, and Stacy M. Branham. 2018. "Gender Recognition or Gender Reductionism? The Social Implications of Embedded Gender Recognition Systems." In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1-13. CHI '18. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery.
  41. Harding, Sandra. 1992. "RETHINKING STANDPOINT EPISTEMOLOGY: WHAT IS 'STRONG OBJECTIVITY?'" The Centennial Review 36 (3): 437-70.
  42. Hasbe, Sudhir, and Ryan Lippert. 2020. "Democratization of Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence with Google Cloud," November 16, 2020. https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/data- analytics/democratization-of-ml-and-ai-with-google-cloud.
  43. Haslanger, Sally. 2016. "What Is a (social) Structural Explanation?" Philosophical Studies 173: 113-30.
  44. Himmelreich, Johannes. 2021. "Should We Automate Democracy?" In . Oxford University Press.
  45. ---. 2022. "Against 'democratizing AI.'" AI & Society, January. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021- 01357-z.
  46. Hoffmann, Anna Lauren. 2019. "Where Fairness Fails: Data, Algorithms, and the Limits of Antidiscrimination Discourse." Information, Communication and Society 22 (7): 900-915.
  47. Jo, Eun Seo, and Timnit Gebru. 2020. "Lessons from Archives: Strategies for Collecting Sociocultural Data in Machine Learning." In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and How Gender, Race, and Ethnicity Structure the World's Most Powerful Industry." Annual Review of Sociology 49 (1): 319-38.
  48. Nelson, Alan. 2002. "Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care." Journal of the National Medical Association 94 (8): 666-68.
  49. Niemeyer, Simon. 2011. "The Emancipatory Effect of Deliberation: Empirical Lessons from Mini- Publics." Politics & Society 39 (1): 103-40.
  50. Noble, Safiya Umoja. 2018. Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism. NYU Press.
  51. Noorman, Merel, and Tsjalling Swierstra. 2023. "Democratizing AI from a Sociotechnical Perspective." Minds and Machines 33 (4): 563-86.
  52. Nordgren, Anders. 2022. "Artificial Intelligence and Climate Change: Ethical Issues." Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society 21 (1): 1-15.
  53. Obermeyer, Ziad, Brian Powers, Christine Vogeli, and Sendhil Mullainathan. 2019. "Dissecting Racial Bias in an Algorithm Used to Manage the Health of Populations." Science 366 (6464): 447-53.
  54. Ragnedda, Massimo, and Glenn W. Muschert. 2013. The Digital Divide: The Internet and Social Inequality in International Perspective. Routledge.
  55. Rahwan, Iyad. 2018. "Society-in-the-Loop: Programming the Algorithmic Social Contract." Ethics and Information Technology 20 (1): 5-14.
  56. Rini, Regina, and Leah Cohen. 2022. "Deepfakes, Deep Harms." Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 22 (2). https://doi.org/10.26556/jesp.v22i2.1628.
  57. Rubeis, Giovanni, Keerthi Dubbala, and Ingrid Metzler. 2022. "'Democratizing' Artificial Intelligence in Medicine and Healthcare: Mapping the Uses of an Elusive Term." Frontiers in Genetics 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2022.902542.
  58. Saetra, Henrik Skaug, Harald Borgebund, and Mark Coeckelbergh. 2022. "Avoid Diluting Democracy by Algorithms." Nature Machine Intelligence 4 (10): 804-6.
  59. Seger, Elizabeth, Aviv Ovadya, Ben Garfinkel, Divya Siddarth, and Allan Dafoe. 2023. "Democratising AI: Multiple Meanings, Goals, and Methods." In . New York, NY, USA: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3600211.3604693.
  60. Shankar, Shreya, Yoni Halpern, Eric Breck, James Atwood, Jimbo Wilson, and D. Sculley. 2017. "No Classification without Representation: Assessing Geodiversity Issues in Open Data Sets for the Developing World." arXiv [stat.ML]. arXiv. http://arxiv.org/abs/1711.08536.
  61. Siu, Alice. 2017. "Deliberation & the Challenge of Inequality." Daedalus 146 (3): 119-28.
  62. Sloane, Mona, Emanuel Moss, Olaitan Awomolo, and Laura Forlano. 2020. "Participation Is Not a Design Fix for Machine Learning." arXiv [cs.CY]. arXiv. http://arxiv.org/abs/2007.02423.
  63. Smith, Peter, and Laura Smith. 2021. "Artificial Intelligence and Disability: Too Much Promise, yet Too Little Substance?" AI and Ethics 1 (1): 81-86.
  64. Solaiman, Irene. 2023. "The Gradient of Generative AI Release: Methods and Considerations." In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 111-22.
  65. FAccT '23. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery.
  66. Strubell, Emma, Ananya Ganesh, and Andrew McCallum. 2020. "Energy and Policy Considerations for Modern Deep Learning Research." Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence 34 (09): 13693-96.
  67. Veer, Sabine N. van der, Lisa Riste, Sudeh Cheraghi-Sohi, Denham L. Phipps, Mary P. Tully, Kyle Bozentko, Sarah Atwood, et al. 2021. "Trading off Accuracy and Explainability in AI Decision- Making: Findings from 2 Citizens' Juries." Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association: JAMIA 28 (10): 2128-38.
  68. Wagner, Ben. 2018. Ethics as an Escape from Regulation. From "ethics-Washing" to Ethics-Shopping? Philipps-Universität Marburg.
  69. Wolf, Christine T. 2020. "Democratizing AI? Experience and Accessibility in the Age of Artificial Intelligence." XRDS 26 (4): 12-15.
  70. Wong, Pak-Hang. 2020. "Democratizing Algorithmic Fairness." Philosophy & Technology 33 (2): 225- 44.
  71. Wylie, Alison. 2003. "Why Standpoint Matters." In Science and Other Cultures: Issues in Philosophies of Science and Technology, edited by Robert Figueroa and Sandra G. Harding, 26-48. Routledge, New York.
  72. Young, Iris Marion. 2011. Responsibility for Justice. Oxford University Press.
  73. Zimmermann, Annette, Elena Di Rossa, and Hochan Kim. 2020. "Technology Can't Fix Algorithmic Injustice." Boston Review, January 9, 2020. https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/annette- zimmermann-algorithmic-political/.
  74. Zuboff, Shoshana. 2019. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. PublicAffairs.

Related papers

Deconstructing AI Power: From Political Capital to Algorithmic Control
Osama S Qatrani

2025

Artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping political, economic, and social systems, yet the narratives surrounding it often obscure the complex power structures driving its design and deployment. Policymakers navigate digital platforms without fully grasping their algorithmic foundations, while engineers master technical architectures but remain detached from the political, financial, and ideological forces directing their work. This gap creates a governance blind spot, enabling opaque algorithmic control to expand without democratic oversight. This paper introduces a symbolic governance model that maps the flow of influence from capital owners and political authorities through technological infrastructures and algorithmic design, down to societal targets and cultural feedback loops. By translating technical complexity into an accessible analytical language, the framework equips non-technical stakeholders—diplomats, journalists, and policy analysts—with tools to decode embedded power structures in AI ecosystems. In doing so, it reframes AI not as a neutral tool but as an encoded structure of influence, shaped by human actors in a continuous interplay between economics, politics, technology, and society.

View PDFchevron_right
Why AI Cannot Be an Agent of Equality: A Critique of Technological Utopianism and the Category Error of Algorithmic Justice
Amitabh V I K R A M Dwivedi

This paper presents a critique of the argument that artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to overcome social hierarchies and achieve equality. It contends that this position is misguided insofar as it commits a category error by confusing epistemic automatism with moral agency. This study challenges the separation of instrumental and moral rationality, as well as formal and substantive equality, to demonstrate how, despite popular imagination and representations of neutrality, AI functions to reify existing hierarchical systems while obscuring the range of human choices made about its design and deployment. The idea of AI as a leveler is a secular feat of metaphysical illusion in the tradition that Nietzsche criticized: projecting justice onto a bodiless future of technology. The paper argues that algorithmic optimization cannot replace normative judgment, ethical deliberation, and political action, which are necessary for true equality.

View PDFchevron_right
Andreas Sudmann, ed.: The Democratization of Artificial Intelligence. Net Politics in the Era of Learning Algorithms (transcript / Columbia UP, 2019)
Andreas Sudmann

The Democratization of Artificial Intelligence. Net Politics in the Era of Learning Algorithms, 2019

After a long time of neglect, Artificial Intelligence is once again at the center of most of our political, economic, and socio-cultural debates. Recent advances in the field of Artifical Neural Networks have led to a renaissance of dystopian and utopian speculations on an AI-rendered future. Algorithmic technologies are deployed for identifying potential terrorists through vast surveillance networks, for producing sentencing guidelines and recidivism risk profiles in criminal justice systems, for demographic and psychographic targeting of bodies for advertising or propaganda, and more generally for automating the analysis of language, text, and images. Against this background, the aim of this book is to discuss the heterogenous conditions, implications, and effects of modern AI and Internet technologies in terms of their political dimension: What does it mean to critically investigate efforts of net politics in the age of machine learning algorithms?

View PDFchevron_right
Artificial Intelligence in a Structurally Unjust Society
Ting-An Lin

Feminist Philosophy Quarterly, 2022

Increasing concerns have been raised regarding artificial intelligence (AI) bias, and in response, efforts have been made to pursue AI fairness. In this paper, we argue that the idea of structural injustice serves as a helpful framework for clarifying the ethical concerns surrounding AI bias-including the nature of its moral problem and the responsibility for addressing it-and reconceptualizing the approach to pursuing AI fairness. Using AI in health care as a case study, we argue that AI bias is a form of structural injustice that exists when AI systems interact with other social factors to exacerbate existing social inequalities, making some groups of people more vulnerable to undeserved burdens while conferring unearned benefits to others. The goal of AI fairness, understood this way, is to pursue a more just social structure with the development and use of AI systems when appropriate. We further argue that all participating agents in the unjust social structure associated with AI bias bear a shared responsibility to join collective action with the goal of reforming the social structure, and we provide a list of practical recommendations for agents in various social positions to contribute to this collective action.

View PDFchevron_right
The Political Affinities of AI
Dan McQuillan

The Democratization of Artificial Intelligence

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Technology Ethics
  • AI Ethics
  • Ethics of AI
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved