# Introduction

What is 'artificial intelligence'?

These days, *artificial intelligence* is a buzzword we see everywhere. According to some, AI is poised to put humans out of their jobs, and ready to solve all major social problems. The concept of AI is used to designate so many different processes, systems, devices, and ideas that it almost loses any real meaning. What is behind this buzzword and the so-called intelligent technologies and their functions? How do our historical and cultural legacies affect our understanding, hopes, and projections for the future of AI? 

Earlier, [AI has been seen as applied semiotics because it ventures to manipulate symbols or signs](#user-content-fn-1)[^1]. At the same time, all computer systems—including AI—are essentially **semiotic technologies**, allowing for [human cognition and agency to be extended, delegated and offloaded in various manners and at different scales](#user-content-fn-2)[^2].

<mark style="background-color:purple;">**This nextbook investigates the meaning of AI in the contemporary western society, the historicity and the impact of this concept on our everyday lives.**</mark>&#x20;

The e-course is based on the topics discussed in the [Winter School on AI and Society](http://technosemiotics.com/2023-ws-ai/) (Palacký University Olomouc, January 16-20, 2023) and the PhD research of [Auli Viidalepp](http://auli.viidalepp.org).

\---

![](/files/hIEM5vAdzOYjHoxZesw9)

*The European Commission's support for the production of this publication does not constitute an endorsement of the contents, which reflect the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.*

[^1]: Meunier, Jean-Guy. 1989. “Artificial Intelligence and Sign Theory.” *Semiotica* 77 (1–3): 43–64. <https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1989.77.1-3.43>.

[^2]: Irvine, Martin. 2022. “Semiotics in Computing and Information Systems.” In *Bloomsbury Semiotics. Volume 2: Semiotics in the Natural and Technical Sciences*, edited by Jamin Pelkey and Stéphanie Walsh Matthews, 2:203–37. London: Bloomsbury Academic.


# Definitions of AI

### **AI in discourse indicates…**

… humanity’s Other, and defines the repositories of normativity\
… the human mirror, as a metaphor for making sense of the world\
… renegotiating values and rules in society\
… the relationship between science and technology\
… the role and agency of society and individuals in technological development

## &#x20;AI: The origins of the concept

The concept *artificial intelligence* originates from the historical Dartmouth Summer Research Project (1956) authored by JohnMcCarthy, Marvin Minsky, Nathaniel Rochester and Claude Shannon (written in 1955). The summer project laid foundations for the ideologies of AI as a field for decades to come.

As seen in the proposal, McCarthy and colleagues propose that they can make considerable progress on AI, working with a few dedicated researchers over the summer. Now, 70 years later, significant advancements have been made, although maybe not quite as far as they imagined. However, the discursive hopes and high expectations have remained the same. As we will see, this discursive projection of machines as replacement for humans is quite persistent throughout history, and dates back several hundred, if not thousands of years.

<figure><img src="/files/JRI9JM0x2K1pwxBtxCAD" alt=""><figcaption><p>A page from the proposal (McCarthy et al 1955; 2016). Red annotations added.</p></figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="/files/iDOF08V11VY9Bbx6QpfC" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="/files/qpLAfO8PoHNHagk5ab9I" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>

## AI: software, hardware and data

Today, AI usually signifies a form of machine learning and/or a combination of software, hardware, and data. For instance, in the AI special issue of Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) in 2019, Trevor Taylor defines AI as follows:

“AI refers to the output of three interacting elements:

1. &#x20;computer hardware, \[...]
2. &#x20;software, often referred to as algorithms \[...]; and
3. &#x20;data \[...] or statistics \[comprising] collections of ‘facts’ that are seen to be sufficiently similar as to be meaningfully aggregable” (Taylor 2019, 73).

He continues by outlining three types of outputs (functions) of such a system:

1. probablistic forecasts;
2. prescriptions or recommendations for action;
3. the capacity to act or implement the prescription (Taylor 2019, 74).

## AI as autonomy and decision-making

The concept of AI is also associated with autonomy and decision-making. According to Kenneth Payne, “AI is a decision-making technology, rather than a weapon,” while he sees no connection to the nature or concept of intelligence (Payne 2021, 3).

Recent literature on AI and the military recommends the distinctive use of the concepts of AI and autonomy (Scharre 2018; Taylor 2019; Payne 2021). In his book *Army of None: Autonomous Weapons and the Future of War*, Scharre argues that computer systems using AI technology are not necessarily autonomous, or vice versa — machine autonomy can also exist without any AI. Similarly, Kenneth Payne, Professor of Strategy at King's College London, argues in his book *I, Warbot* that autonomy ought to be taken as a spectrum.

At the same time, ‘autonomy’ is heavily criticized as an “intrinsically human term” : it is precisely due to the use of this concept that “we attribute \[machines] with human-like behaviour that they are not likely to possess in the near future” (Johansen 2018, 95, 90).

## AI as discursive practice

#### From a broader perspective, AI can be understood as a technical practice, a set of methods, a discursive practice, or a cultural and socio-political phenomenon.&#x20;

<figure><img src="/files/6PU2FwsPo0A2Jl48oF28" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="/files/LG2tV3jPMFxgZjS45mTQ" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>

## Public understanding of AI

In public consciousness, AI is understood mainly through specific objects and functions. The fields of cybernetics, behavioural psychology and economic theories have also contributed to the historical understanding and development of intelligent systems and functions.

[Public understanding of science and technology](/technology-and-society/public-understanding-of-science-and-technology)


# AI myths

AI discourse contains sensationalist and misleading information about the technology. How can we recognise the hype and the myths?

## What is a myth, anyway?

<figure><img src="/files/O0bs8KQoyLOpb5KueJwS" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="/files/LwArxZC19vL8I6JYIwQb" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="/files/Is2UFExrNnuQipWYAXiN" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>


# Critique of AI concept

<figure><img src="/files/U97ss3dN18wzaXlJioBC" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="/files/gHf42odW5pVqZPokn157" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="/files/it87OBWTGiVpJ5eIvXxt" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="/files/sPT8JM8jE2bGt6o0cEd1" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="/files/hy4ZYsAsHl08rneCY2GG" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="/files/cktKAcrqDFh7FZWDgKpr" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>


# AI as general purpose technology

<figure><img src="/files/vFQkiesgTU35yOI5jdB5" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="/files/X8ZT75pSYF721yKYf8nf" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>


# Anthropomorphism

<figure><img src="/files/D3yon8QirWjowViBMgnS" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="/files/C6yYYOaF8DTwW6KMUP4s" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="/files/ePVH3erYoUCa0rfHB6O0" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="/files/nZSXfWHQaCkBc7aOEMSk" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="/files/o3PLtalRD1NvWHbbccPl" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="/files/A1LgqQSfMJWOarqkRmHM" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="/files/KkgZSH0qCObbQ6mwTsCz" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>


# Automation bias

In human-machine interaction, people sometimes tend to attribute greater authority to the machine than it deserves.

Automation bias causes problems in several fields; elsewhere, anthropomorphic design is seen as a positive choice for better usability.&#x20;

<figure><img src="/files/GCNHjzj7HHk15w1ZpybJ" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="/files/r7IVoVxz9aQ9Ptrf5TIb" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="/files/e3eOR07HpHcdat3GdDRe" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="/files/juxsCpF1ZlTyI8LYDwzy" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="/files/0lkxxbPmXzIjyE2z7NUO" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="/files/S9iJxofMwRjTr4qG3NO0" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="/files/nWvNJinIQUSXymsmzQxy" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>

![](/files/PCElO0f8g9JUaN2sCW5W)

<figure><img src="/files/BES60KnSEff4NKLWJoEV" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="/files/KYpBJYPtpKGAMjsmkV9d" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>

{% embed url="<https://twitter.com/PoliticsJOE_UK/status/1592513823151267840>" %}


# The historical entanglements of AI and semiotics

Semiotic models and theories have been implicitly coded within the AI field since the very beginning. Explicit calls for a semiotic theory of computers are more recent. Computer systems can be considered as inherently semiotic due to their function as extensions of human symbolic communication and signification. At the same time, computer systems remain assemblages of interactivity led by semiotic agents (humans). This section will focus on the vocabulary and implications of such entanglements and outline the semiotic parts in these supersystems.

<br>

<figure><img src="/files/1DEtMglwKJyxfoXBb4js" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="/files/eb8mkXsAiEACy2t6rNhx" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="/files/2jHDUPchBoX6CLr1K4LA" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>


# Technology and society

Is technology good, bad, or neutral? Can technology be neutral at all? These are questions still puzzling many researchers.

<figure><img src="/files/1yiNdMAqz52u4ii6mtAV" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="/files/72bzo5vG0hXr7eJcKkAu" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>

> “Determinism inhibits the development of democratic controls on technology because it suggests that all interventions are futile. This is as true for science as it is for technology (Bijker, 1985; Collins and Pinch, 1993).” (Bijker, 1995, p. 281)

## Kranzberg's laws

In 1986, Melvin Kranzberg published an article where he outlines the so-called Kranzberg's laws or "a series of truisms deriving from a longtime immersion in the study of the development of technology and its interactions with sociocultural change." (Kranzberg 1986: 544)

<figure><img src="/files/j9YzwMsmbelZ7q9cdwRP" alt=""><figcaption><p>Kranzberg, Melvin. 1986. “Technology and History: ‘Kranzberg’s Laws.’” <em>Technology and Culture</em> 27 (3): 544–60. <a href="https://doi.org/10.2307/3105385">https://doi.org/10.2307/3105385</a>.</p></figcaption></figure>

Kranzberg's laws state the following:&#x20;

1. "Technology is neither good or bad; nor is it neutral."\
   “...technical developments frequently have environmental, social, and human consequences that go far beyond the immediate purposes of the technical devices and practices themselves, and the same” (Kranzberg, 1986, p. 545)
2. "Invention is the mother of necessity."
3. "Technology comes in packages, big and small."
4. "Although technology might be a prime element in many public issues, nontechnical factors take precedence in technology-policy decisions.”
5. "All history is relevant, but the history of technology is the most relevant."
6. "Technology is a very human activity—and so is the history of technology."

(Kranzberg 1986)


# The history of AI

<figure><img src="/files/WNc2CQIPbvnxhqpv5QqG" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="/files/k3lyNts14uxvZv2eLMG4" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="/files/O1BwLX3D8wEwEUuBbMRz" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="/files/k4RTToNYIjlfF1qrkCJ8" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="/files/Xxrnnk8ZIfrPDdEDfj14" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>


# Ancient automata

The concept ‘robot’ originates from Czech writer Karel Čapek.&#x20;

<figure><img src="/files/wCyQ39trkKbPxLD39E0i" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>

However, automata are common through history both in the real world and in stories.&#x20;

<figure><img src="/files/aslYPSa26XZLVIlLDOSk" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="/files/b242RAdbqry5hZyyPQhw" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="/files/8Zc5dqQ2aqP9xKWyaEyg" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>

{% embed url="<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFrFi_Pq7vU>" %}

### Mechanical and psychological spectacle

<figure><img src="/files/uO2cSuENREbJWVOIQwDY" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="/files/RB08LsPX0k8uRp0ptyXF" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="/files/aCD6TNpBmPdjRoJwpIQ2" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>

{% embed url="<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cp4Y5SWz8ns>" %}

### Temple automatics as power mechanism

<figure><img src="/files/LXPpTy8HbSutLbk8KHt1" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="/files/n5Xlm5vl2gWUdTukvBht" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="/files/LVcquDjJwfdfwIFTDpGo" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>

Moving on to medieval Europe, the automata and artifice in stories merge with the concept of *Natura artifex*, inspiring the 17th-century notions of mechanical nature and clockwork-world, which have in turn contributed to our contemporary models of rationality, underlying the conceptualisation of current technologies.

<figure><img src="/files/qli3muQ6J3ZpFplvG4EZ" alt=""><figcaption><p><em>Natura artifex</em> forging babies. Harley MS 4425  f. 140r, ca 1490–1500. <br><a href="http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Harley_MS_4425 
">http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Harley_MS_4425 
</a></p></figcaption></figure>


# Public understanding of science and technology

<figure><img src="/files/OuDvsfQFG1pwUZuvJ7KX" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>

> "Narratives of intelligent machines matter because they form the backdrop against which AI systems are being developed, and against which these developments are interpreted and assessed. Those who are engaged with AI either as researchers or regulators are therefore rightfully concerned, for instance, about the fact that the dominant contemporary imaginings of AI, primarily those of Hollywood cinema and popular news coverage, are often out of kilter with the present state of the technology." — *AI narratives: a history of imaginative thinking about intelligent machines*, 2020, p. 7

<figure><img src="/files/C8BHZX2dE8xvyzLuHpS0" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>


# Technology and the military

Technologies have always been developed partly with military purpose and support, and AI is no exception. This entanglement has shaped a vocabulary that is now common in the discourse on intelligent or autonomous machine functions.&#x20;

## Military AI in the media

<figure><img src="/files/k8o0aDe6rrDoJT8ZV3Tj" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>


# Contemporary AI: Case studies


# Case study: Superheroes, cyborgs, and artificial creatures in science fiction narratives

In contemporary science fiction, robots are often depicted as perfect humans. The spectrum of artificial, non-human or half-human creatures in fiction is wide and their construction as the ‘human mirror’. We will also inquire into the role of fiction in relation to reality, how it criticizes contemporary society and how sci-fi imagery is used by technologists in discourse.

<br>

<figure><img src="/files/0wDdD34KduhtFCX19ZS1" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>


# Case study: problems with generative technologies

Until recently, language was the unique domain of human beings. Now, new language technologies challenge this assumption and enable the production of synthetically generated content. Additionally, deepfake algorithms enable the imitation of human voices and faces. It is increasingly difficult to recognise synthetic content as such. What does this mean for our culture(s)? How do text generators such as GPT-3 and deepfake technologies interfere with our traditional understanding of communication?

<figure><img src="/files/iaAvTWHHsYRqaVKSSwuo" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="/files/eQawqnOH7o63EHXbeYol" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="/files/YWON3tXurbpO4zTeIak4" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>


# Case study: generative AI and copyright

### AI and art

<figure><img src="/files/qS7Ee4bnMulQ4gr70iAb" alt=""><figcaption><p>"1960's art of cow getting abducted by UFO in midwest", generated with DALL E, August 2022<br><a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Encik_Tekateki">Encik Tekateki</a>, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons</p></figcaption></figure>

{% embed url="<https://artisticinquiry.org/AI-Open-Letter>" %}

<figure><img src="/files/9leMTG8wDQTVjr6UehJf" alt=""><figcaption><p>Chen, Min. 2023. “Artists and Illustrators Are Suing Three A.I. Art Generators for Scraping and ‘Collaging’ Their Work Without Consent.” <em>Artnet News</em> (blog). January 24, 2023. <br><a href="https://news.artnet.com/art-world/class-action-lawsuit-ai-generators-deviantart-midjourney-stable-diffusion-2246770">https://news.artnet.com/art-world/class-action-lawsuit-ai-generators-deviantart-midjourney-stable-diffusion-2246770</a>.</p></figcaption></figure>

### AI and copyright

<figure><img src="/files/owa0Q46oU4lbwqYS4SlL" alt=""><figcaption><p>Rosenberg, Louis. 2022. “I Used Generative AI to Create Pictures of Painting Robots, but I’m Not the Artist — Humanity Is.” <em>Big Think</em> (blog). September 9, 2022. <a href="https://bigthink.com/high-culture/generative-ai-pictures-humanity-artist/">https://bigthink.com/high-culture/generative-ai-pictures-humanity-artist/</a>.</p></figcaption></figure>

#### Who is the artist and author in generated artwork?

> every person who contributed to the billions of creative artifacts that generative AI systems are trained upon. — Louis Rosenberg

\+ everyone who shared, commented on or upvoted it

#### Who should be compensated for such artwork?

> *It’s reasonable to consider a “humanity tax” on generative systems trained on massive datasets of human artifacts. It could be a modest fee on transactions, maybe paid into a central “humanity fund” or distributed to decentralized accounts using blockchain. I know this sounds like a strange idea but think of it this way: **If a spaceship full of entrepreneurial aliens showed up on Earth and asked humanity to contribute our collective works to a database** so they could generate derivative artifacts for profit, **we would likely ask for compensation**.*\
> — Louis Rosenberg

{% embed url="<https://bigthink.com/high-culture/generative-ai-pictures-humanity-artist/>" %}

<figure><img src="/files/tkMW3xKL28KmmSVZro4r" alt=""><figcaption><p>Coles, Cameron. 2023. “11% of Data Employees Paste into ChatGPT Is Confidential.” <em>Cyberhaven</em> (blog). February 28, 2023. <a href="https://www.cyberhaven.com/blog/4-2-of-workers-have-pasted-company-data-into-chatgpt/">https://www.cyberhaven.com/blog/4-2-of-workers-have-pasted-company-data-into-chatgpt/</a>.</p></figcaption></figure>

### AI and plagiarism

{% embed url="<https://www.aiweirdness.com/facts-about-whales-20-07-13/>" %}

<figure><img src="/files/yUYADERkEOuZLygg0ZRG" alt=""><figcaption><p>Shane, Janelle. 2020. “Facts about Whales.” <em>AI Weirdness</em> (blog). July 13, 2020. <br><a href="https://www.aiweirdness.com/facts-about-whales-20-07-13/">https://www.aiweirdness.com/facts-about-whales-20-07-13/</a>.</p></figcaption></figure>

> *...then I started googling individual sentences. It turns out most of them are near word-for-word reproductions of Wikipedia sentences. **If the AI were a student, it would be flunked for plagiarism.*** \
> — Janelle Shane

## The referential reality of synthetic content

* is constructed and determined by a (human) judge comparing their expectations to the outcome (**output**)
* if the result meets expectations — ‘whale facts’ are correct, or the opinion piece is satisfactory in style and content — the judging editor may state that the text is ‘about external reality’, and publish it
* If the result is incorrect, insufficient or inconsistent with the respective possible world (fictional or non-fictional) — e.g., the requested whale facts contain statements such as ‘dolphins also live in the desert’ (Shane 2020) or other statements that are false or nonsensical in relation to the external reality, the judgement may evaluate that the text is ‘about nothing’.

— Viidalepp, Auli. 2022. “The Semiotic Functioning of Synthetic Media.” *Információs Társadalom* 22 (4): 109–18. <https://doi.org/10.22503/inftars.XXII.2022.4.9>.

<figure><img src="/files/ACZcIr8jsRfoaBv4vSKo" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>


# Case study: mistaking CGI for miltech

In public discourse, military AI and autonomous weapons are often depicted with exaggerated expectations. The following example demonstrates the mixing of the fictional and the real.

On 26 Oct 2019, Corridor Digital—a media company that offers CGI[^1] video production services—published a video titled "New Robot Makes Soldiers Obsolete" depicting a robot character loosely resembling Boston Dynamics technologies. The video was intended mainly as a showcase of what kind of effects the company can produce in CGI.&#x20;

{% embed url="<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3RIHnK0_NE&ab_channel=Corridor>" %}

Despite the explicit watermark "**Bosstown** Dynamics" in the lower right corner, many people mistakenly took it for the real Boston Dynamics bipedal robots and caused an uproar in social media.&#x20;

{% embed url="<https://twitter.com/joerogan/status/1188161500336328705>" %}

The video went viral and prompted media outlets to do "fact checks", eventually "debunking" the video (which was never intended as a misinformation campaign in the first place).

<figure><img src="/files/XSywyt4h1HDQ4QW15mzf" alt=""><figcaption><p>Mozafari, Ariana. 2019. “Does an Armed Robot Really Turn on Humans in This Viral Video?” <em>The Observers - France 24</em>, October 30, 2019. <a href="https://observers.france24.com/en/20191030-does-armed-robot-really-turn-humans-viral-video">https://observers.france24.com/en/20191030-does-armed-robot-really-turn-humans-viral-video</a>.</p></figcaption></figure>

Other social media users shared the video, acknowledging it as a parody or staged production. Nevertheless, several were tempted to extrapolate the fictional topic to real-world future. ([This blog post refers to the following tweets.](http://www.thesporteasy.com/detail/the-future-war-fighting))

{% embed url="<https://twitter.com/meshekah/status/1188479548352008193>" %}

{% embed url="<https://twitter.com/JinboLiang/status/1189809882947440641>" %}

## Corridor Digital's response to the viral reaction

As a response, Corridor crew recorded another video with before-and-after images showing the initial actor for the robot, and the CGI results, posted on 31 Oct 2019.

{% embed url="<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIdqiwHsuI8&ab_channel=CorridorCrew>" %}

## 2021

On 19 Sep 2021, Corridor posted yet another video explaining how they made the first one, and explaining some ways of how one can tell from the imagery that it is CGI-edited, not a real video of real objects.

{% embed url="<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ1WEiMwV7Y&ab_channel=CorridorCrew>" %}

## 2022

In January 2022, the original parody video was picked up again and started making rounds in social media.

{% embed url="<https://twitter.com/JesseCohenInv/status/1482418725814951937>" %}

This prompted—again—new "fact check" publications from serious media.

<figure><img src="/files/n7m2tzkERJlUpflUiQPa" alt=""><figcaption><p>Reuters Fact Check. 2022. “Fact Check-Combat Robot Featured in Videos Was Not Designed by Boston Dynamics.” <em>Reuters</em>, January 19, 2022, sec. Reuters Fact Check. <br><a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-robot-video-boston-dynamics-idUSL1N2TZ1I3">https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-robot-video-boston-dynamics-idUSL1N2TZ1I3</a>.</p></figcaption></figure>

A recent video from 18 Sep 2022 again remixes moments from the Corridor video with frames from real Boston Dynamics product tests. While acknowledging the Corridor video as a parody, it still presents the CGI vision as if depicting an idea of "what the future will look like" and stressing that "we are not far behind".&#x20;

{% embed url="<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wu1kpnCylKQ&ab_channel=SimplyTech>" %}

{% embed url="<https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/robots.png>" %}

[^1]: CGI stands for Computer-Generated Imagery. Read more in Wikipedia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer-generated_imagery>


# Case study: renegotiating the social contract

{% embed url="<https://twitter.com/PoliticsJOE_UK/status/1592513823151267840>" %}


# Computer systems as social and semiotic technologies

> **“Determinism inhibits the development of democratic controls on technology because it suggests that all interventions are futile. This is as true for science as it is for technology (Bijker, 1985; Collins and Pinch, 1993).”**&#x20;
>
> (Bijker, 1995, p. 281)

<figure><img src="/files/qYGKfoMmUium6rYAu5rU" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="/files/xBnDzaCodKSGLzNESK6b" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>


# Exercises


# Headline rephrasing

Check the following tools:

{% embed url="<https://www.aimyths.org/ai-has-agency#headline-rephraser>" %}

{% embed url="<https://www.aimyths.org/the-term-ai-has-a-clear-meaning#terminology-swap-tool>" %}

* Find a media article using the keyword "artificial intelligence", the more sensational the better :smile:
* Rephrase the headline
* Identify any possible myths or moves in the article that you notice
* Try to write a short but technically/essentially correct summary on what the described Al tool actually does, as opposed to the exaggerations


# Anthropomorphism awareness

Watch the following video. Be aware of the thoughts that appear while you're watching the objects move on their own: how does it feel like? What do you feel about the objects and their movement?&#x20;

{% embed url="<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QN2nIhOpPIY&ab_channel=theVAPE>" %}
ETUDE 75110674 | the VAPE <https://youtu.be/QN2nIhOpPIY>
{% endembed %}


# References

Agre, Philip E. 1997. “Toward a Critical Technical Practice: Lessons Learned in Trying to Reform AI.” In *Social Science, Technical Systems, and Cooperative Work: Beyond the Great Divide*, 131–57. New York, London: Psychology Press.

———. 1998a. “Beyond the Mirror World: Privacy and the Representational Practices of Computing.” In *Technology and Privacy: The New Landscape*, edited by Philip E. Agre and Marc Rotenberg, 29–61. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

———. 1998b. “Introduction.” In *Technology and Privacy: The New Landscape*, edited by Philip E. Agre and Marc Rotenberg, 1–28. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

Agre, Philip E., and Marc Rotenberg, eds. 1998. *Technology and Privacy: The New Landscape*. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

Bender, Emily M., Timnit Gebru, Angelina McMillan-Major, and Shmargaret Shmitchell. 2021. “On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big? 🦜.” In *Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency*, 610–23. Virtual Event Canada: ACM. <https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922>.

Bijker, Wiebe E. 1995. *Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs: Toward a Theory of Sociotechnical Change*. Inside Technology. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

Bijker, Wiebe E., Thomas Parke Hughes, and Trevor J. Pinch, eds. 1987. *The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology*. Cambridge, MA; London: MIT Press.

Born, Rainer, ed. 1987. *Artificial Intelligence: The Case Against*. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

———, ed. 2018. *Artificial Intelligence: The Case Against*. New York: Routledge.

Born, Rainer, and Ilse Born-Lechleitner. 1987. “Introduction.” In *Artificial Intelligence: The Case Against*, edited by Rainer Born, i–xxxv. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Brown, Tom B., Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, et al. 2020. “Language Models Are Few-Shot Learners.” *ArXiv:2005.14165 \[Cs]*, July. <http://arxiv.org/abs/2005.14165>.

Bryson, Joanna J. 2010. “Robots Should Be Slaves.” *Close Engagements with Artificial Companions: Key Social, Psychological, Ethical and Design Issues*, 63–74. <https://doi.org/10.1075/nlp.8.11bry>.

Bryson, Joanna J., and Philip P. Kime. 2011. “Just an Artifact: Why Machines Are Perceived as Moral Agents.” In *Twenty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence*.

“Buolamwini, Gebru and Raji Win AI Innovation Award for Research into Biometric Bias | Biometric Update.” n.d. Accessed January 25, 2023. <https://www.biometricupdate.com/201907/buolamwini-gebru-and-raji-win-ai-innovation-award-for-research-into-biometric-bias>.

Bur, Tatiana Claudine Danielle. 2016. “Mechanical Miracles: Automata in Ancient Greek Religion.” Thesis. <https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/15398>.

Cave, Stephen, Claire Craig, Kanta Sarasvati Dihal, Sarah Dillon, Jessica Montgomery, Beth Singler, and Lindsay Taylor. 2018. *Portrayals and Perceptions of AI and Why They Matter*. London: The Royal Society. <https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/ai-narratives/AI-narratives-workshop-findings.pdf>.

Cave, Stephen, and Kanta Dihal. 2020. “The Whiteness of AI.” *Philosophy & Technology* 33 (4): 685–703. <https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-020-00415-6>.

Cave, Stephen, Kanta Sarasvati Monique Dihal, and Sarah Dillon, eds. 2020. *AI Narratives: A History of Imaginative Thinking about Intelligent Machines*. First edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Chandler, Daniel. 2017. *Semiotics: The Basics*. Taylor & Francis.

Chesterman, Simon. 2021. *We, the Robots? Regulating Artificial Intelligence and the Limits of the Law*. Cambridge, United Kingdom ; New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.

Dale, Robert. 2021. “GPT-3: What’s It Good for?” *Natural Language Engineering* 27 (1): 113–18. <https://doi.org/10.1017/S1351324920000601>.

Davison, Joe. 2018. “No, Machine Learning Is Not Just Glorified Statistics.” Medium. June 27, 2018. <https://towardsdatascience.com/no-machine-learning-is-not-just-glorified-statistics-26d3952234e3>.

DoD. 2012. “Autonomy in Weapon Systems. Department of Defense Directive Number 3000.09.” United States. Department of Defense. <https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=726163>.

Elkins, Katherine, and Jon Chun. 2020. “Can GPT-3 Pass a Writer’s Turing Test.” *Journal of Cultural Analytics* 2371: 1–16.

Fragaki, Hélène. 2012. “Automates et statues merveilleuses dans l’Alexandrie antique.” *Journal des Savants* 1 (1): 29–67. <https://doi.org/10.3406/jds.2012.6293>.

Gardner, Nikolas. 2021. “Clausewitzian Friction and Autonomous Weapon Systems.” *Comparative Strategy* 40 (1): 86–98. <https://doi.org/10.1080/01495933.2021.1853442>.

Gell, Alfred. 1994. “The Technology of Enchantment and the Enchantment of Technology.” In *Anthropology, Art, and Aesthetics*, edited by Jeremy Coote. Clarendon Press.

Geraci, Robert M. 2008. “Apocalyptic AI: Religion and the Promise of Artificial Intelligence.” *Journal of the American Academy of Religion* 76 (1): 138–66. <https://doi.org/10.1093/jaarel/lfm101>.

Glickman, Moshe, and Tali Sharot. 2022. “Biased AI Systems Produce Biased Humans.” OSF Preprints. <https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/c4e7r>.

Goddard, Kate, Abdul Roudsari, and Jeremy C Wyatt. 2012. “Automation Bias: A Systematic Review of Frequency, Effect Mediators, and Mitigators.” *Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association* 19 (1): 121–27. <https://doi.org/10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000089>.

Goodman, C. P. 2003. “The Tacit Dimension.” *Polanyiana* 2 (1): 133–57.

GPT-3. 2020. “A Robot Wrote This Entire Article. Are You Scared yet, Human?” *The Guardian*, September 8, 2020. <http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/08/robot-wrote-this-article-gpt-3>.

Gray, Chris Hables. 1997. “Artificial Intelligence at War: An Analysis of the Aegis System in Combat.” In *Reinventing Technology, Rediscovering Community: Critical Explorations of Computing as a Social Practice*, edited by Philip E. Agre and Douglas Schuler, 127–42. London: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Greene, Tristan. 2022. “DeepMind’s New Gato AI Makes Me Fear Humans Will Never Achieve AGI.” TNW | Neural. May 13, 2022. <https://thenextweb.com/news/deepminds-astounding-new-gato-ai-makes-fear-humans-will-never-achieve-agi>.

Harbers, Maaike, Marieke M. M. Peeters, and Mark A. Neerincx. 2017. “Perceived Autonomy of Robots: Effects of Appearance and Context.” In *A World with Robots: International Conference on Robot Ethics: ICRE 2015*, edited by Maria Isabel Aldinhas Ferreira, Joao Silva Sequeira, Mohammad Osman Tokhi, Endre E. Kadar, and Gurvinder Singh Virk, 19–33. Intelligent Systems, Control and Automation: Science and Engineering. Cham: Springer International Publishing. <https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46667-5_2>.

Horowitz, Michael C., Lauren Kahn, Julia Macdonald, and Jacquelyn Schneider. 2022. “COVID-19 and Public Support for Autonomous Technologies—Did the Pandemic Catalyze a World of Robots?” *PLOS ONE* 17 (9): e0273941. <https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0273941>.

Irvine, Martin. 2022. “Semiotics in Computing and Information Systems.” In *Bloomsbury Semiotics*, edited by Jamin Pelkey, 2:203–37. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Johansen, Sigrid Redse. 2018. “So Man Created Robot in His Own Image: The Anthropomorphism of Autonomous Weapon Systems and the Law of Armed Conflict.” *Oslo Law Review* 5 (2): 89–102. <https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.2387-3299-2018-02-03>.

Johnson, Deborah G., and Mario Verdicchio. 2017. “Reframing AI Discourse.” *Minds and Machines* 27 (4): 575–90. <https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-017-9417-6>.

Johnson, James. 2022. “Delegating Strategic Decision-Making to Machines: Dr. Strangelove Redux?” *Journal of Strategic Studies* 45 (3): 439–77. <https://doi.org/10.1080/01402390.2020.1759038>.

Kang, Minsoo. 2011. *Sublime Dreams of Living Machines: The Automaton in the European Imagination*. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Katz, Yarden. 2020. *Artificial Whiteness: Politics and Ideology in Artificial Intelligence*. New York: Columbia University Press.

Kennedy, J. S. 1992. *The New Anthropomorphism*. Cambridge \[England] ; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kline, Ronald. 2010. “Cybernetics, Automata Studies, and the Dartmouth Conference on Artificial Intelligence.” *IEEE Annals of the History of Computing* 33 (4): 5–16. <https://doi.org/10.1109/MAHC.2010.44>.

Korngiebel, Diane M., and Sean D. Mooney. 2021. “Considering the Possibilities and Pitfalls of Generative Pre-Trained Transformer 3 (GPT-3) in Healthcare Delivery.” *Npj Digital Medicine* 4 (1): 1–3. <https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-021-00464-x>.

Krishnan, Armin. 2016. *Killer Robots: Legality and Ethicality of Autonomous Weapons*. London, England ; New York, New York: Routledge.

Leveson, Nancy G. 2017. “The Therac-25: 30 Years Later.” *Computer* 50 (11): 8–11. <https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2017.4041349>.

Leveson, Nancy G., and C.S. Turner. 1993. “An Investigation of the Therac-25 Accidents.” *Computer* 26 (7): 18–41. <https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.1993.274940>.

Lovelace, Douglas C., ed. 2016. *Autonomous and Semiautonomous Weapons Systems*. Vol. 144. Terrorism: Commentary on Security Documents. New York: Oxford University Press.

Martin, C. Dianne. 1993. “The Myth of the Awesome Thinking Machine.” *Communications of the ACM* 36 (4): 120–33. <https://doi.org/10.1145/255950.153587>.

Mayor, Adrienne. 2018. *Gods and Robots: Myths, Machines, and Ancient Dreams of Technology*. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

McCarthy, John, Marvin L. Minsky, Nathaniel Rochester, and Claude E. Shannon. 1955. “A Proposal for the Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence.” <http://raysolomonoff.com/dartmouth/boxa/dart564props.pdf>.

———. 2006. “A Proposal for the Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence, August 31, 1955.” *AI Magazine* 27 (4): 12–14.

McGuffie, Kris, and Alex Newhouse. 2020. “The Radicalization Risks of GPT-3 and Advanced Neural Language Models.” *ArXiv Preprint ArXiv:2009.06807*.

Meunier, Jean-Guy. 1989. “Artificial Intelligence and Sign Theory.” *Semiotica* 77 (1–3): 43–64. <https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1989.77.1-3.43>.

Mosco, Vincent. 2004. *The Digital Sublime: Myth, Power, and Cyberspace*. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

Natale, Simone, and Andrea Ballatore. 2020. “Imagining the Thinking Machine: Technological Myths and the Rise of Artificial Intelligence.” *Convergence* 26 (1): 3–18. <https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856517715164>.

Payne, Kenneth. 2021. *I, Warbot: The Dawn of Artificially Intelligent Conflict*. London: Hurst & Company.

Penn, Jonathan. 2021. “Inventing Intelligence: On the History of Complex Information Processing and Artificial Intelligence in the United States in the Mid-Twentieth Century.” Thesis, University of Cambridge. <https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.63087>.

Pinch, Trevor J., and Wiebe E. Bijker. 1984. “The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts: Or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other.” *Social Studies of Science* 14 (3): 399–441. <https://doi.org/10.1177/030631284014003004>.

Polanyi, Michael. 1966. *The Tacit Dimension*. Garden City, N.Y: Doubleday.

Polanyi, Michael, and Amartya Sen. 2009. *The Tacit Dimension*. Chicago ; London: University of Chicago Press.

Raji, Inioluwa Deborah, I. Elizabeth Kumar, Aaron Horowitz, and Andrew Selbst. 2022. “The Fallacy of AI Functionality.” In *2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency*, 959–72. Seoul Republic of Korea: Association for Computing Machinery. <https://doi.org/10.1145/3531146.3533158>.

Roberts, John Michael, and Colin Cremin. 2017. “Contested Meanings, Myths and Hyperimages of the Apocalypse: The Bakhtin Circle and the Politicisation of Catastrophism.” *Social Semiotics* 27 (2): 178–94. <https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2016.1182303>.

Salvatore, Sergio, Jaan Valsiner, and Giuseppe Alessandro Veltri. 2019. “The Theoretical and Methodological Framework. Semiotic Cultural Psychology, Symbolic Universes and Lines of Semiotic Forces.” In *Symbolic Universes in Time of (Post) Crisis*, 25–49. Springer.

Sayler, Kelley M. 2021. “Defense Primer: U.S. Policy on Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems.” CRS In Focus, IF11150. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. <https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=861619>.

Scharre, Paul. 2018. *Army of None: Autonomous Weapons and the Future of War*. First edition. New York ; London: W. W. Norton & Company.

Scharre, Paul, and Michael Horowitz. 2015. “An Introduction to Autonomy in Weapon Systems.” Project on Ethical Autonomy. Center for a New American Security. <http://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/188865/Ethical%20Autonomy%20Working%20Paper_021015_v02.pdf>.

Shane, Janelle. 2019. *You Look like a Thing and I Love You: How Artificial Intelligence Works and Why It’s Making the World a Weirder Place*. First edition. New York: Voracious/Little, Brown and Company.

Sharkey, Amanda, and Noel Sharkey. 2020. “We Need to Talk about Deception in Social Robotics!” *Ethics and Information Technology*, 1–8.

———. 2021. “Sunlight Glinting on Clouds: Deception and Autonomous Weapons Systems.” In *Counter-Terrorism, Ethics and Technology*, 35–47. Springer, Cham.

Sharkey, Noel. 2014. “Killing Made Easy: From Joysticks to Politics.” In *Robot Ethics: The Ethical and Social Implications of Robotics*, 111–28. Cambridge, MA; London: MIT Press.

Sharkey, Noel E. 2012. “The Evitability of Autonomous Robot Warfare.” *International Review of the Red Cross* 94 (886): 787–800. <https://doi.org/10.1017/S1816383112000732>.

Singler, Beth. 2020a. “The AI Creation Meme: A Case Study of the New Visibility of Religion in Artificial Intelligence Discourse.” *Religions* 11 (5): 253. <https://doi.org/10.3390/rel11050253>.

———. 2020b. “‘Blessed by the Algorithm’: Theistic Conceptions of Artificial Intelligence in Online Discourse.” *AI & SOCIETY* 35 (4): 945–55. <https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-00968-2>.

Sismondo, Sergio. 2010. *An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies*. 2nd ed. Chichester, West Sussex, U.K. ; Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Smith, Gary. 2018. *The AI Delusion*. First edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Stahl, Bernd Carsten, Tonii Leach, Oluyinka Oyeniji, and George Ogoh. 2023. “AI Policy as a Response to AI Ethics? Addressing Ethical Issues in the Development of AI Policies in North Africa.” In *Responsible AI in Africa: Challenges and Opportunities*, edited by Damian Okaibedi Eke, Kutoma Wakunuma, and Simisola Akintoye, 141–67. Social and Cultural Studies of Robots and AI. Cham: Springer International Publishing. <https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08215-3_7>.

Taylor, Trevor. 2019. “Artificial Intelligence in Defence.” *The RUSI Journal* 164 (5–6): 72–81. <https://doi.org/10.1080/03071847.2019.1694229>.

Tiku, Nitasha. 2021. “Google Fired Its Star AI Researcher One Year Ago. Now She’s Launching Her Own Institute.” *Washington Post*, December 2, 2021. <https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/12/02/timnit-gebru-dair/>.

Tresch, John. 2011. “The Machine Awakens: The Science and Politics of the Fantastic Automaton.” *French Historical Studies* 34 (1): 87–123. <https://doi.org/10.1215/00161071-2010-024>.

Truitt, Elly Rachel. 2004. “‘Trei Poete, Sages Dotors, Qui Mout Sorent Di Nigromance’: Knowledge and Automata in Twelfth-Century French Literature.” *Configurations* 12 (2): 167–93. <https://doi.org/10.1353/con.2006.0006>.

———. 2015. *Medieval Robots*. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Uexküll, Jakob von. 2001. “The New Concept of Umwelt: A Link between Science and the Humanities.” *Semiotica* 2001 (134). <https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.2001.018>.

Vannuccini, Simone, and Ekaterina Prytkova. 2020. “Artificial Intelligence’s New Clothes? From General Purpose Technology to Large Technical System.” SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 3704011. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. <https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3704011>.

Viidalepp, Auli. 2020. “Representations of Robots in Science Fiction Film Narratives as Signifiers of Human Identity.” *Információs Társadalom* 20 (4): 19. <https://doi.org/10.22503/inftars.XX.2020.4.2>.

———. 2022. “Sociocommunicative Functions of a Generative Text: The Case of GPT-3.” *Lexia. Rivista Di Semiotica* 39–40: 177–92. <https://doi.org/10.53136/979122180426310>.

Visser, Ewart J. de, Samuel S. Monfort, Ryan McKendrick, Melissa A. B. Smith, Patrick E. McKnight, Frank Krueger, and Raja Parasuraman. 2016. “Almost Human: Anthropomorphism Increases Trust Resilience in Cognitive Agents.” *Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied* 22 (3): 331–49. <https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000092>.

Waal, Frans B. M. de. 1999. “Anthropomorphism and Anthropodenial: Consistency in Our Thinking about Humans and Other Animals.” *Philosophical Topics* 27 (1): 255–80. <https://doi.org/10.5840/philtopics199927122>.

Winner, Langdon. 1978. *Autonomous Technology: Technics-out-of-Control as a Theme in Political Thought*. 9. printing. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Pr.

Zhai, Yujia, Jiaqi Yan, Hezhao Zhang, and Wei Lu. 2020. “Tracing the Evolution of AI: Conceptualization of Artificial Intelligence in Mass Media Discourse.” *Information Discovery and Delivery* 48 (3): 137–49. <https://doi.org/10.1108/IDD-01-2020-0007>.


# About this project

This website is part of a class materials collection on New Media and Technosemiotics at Palacký University Olomouc.&#x20;

You can find the hub with other study materials here:

{% embed url="<https://cjhey.github.io/crnm-home/>" %}

The AI & Society Nextbook is written and maintained by [Auli Viidalepp](https://auliviidalepp.ee/).

\---

The development of these materials was supported by the project [Humanities going digital (HUGOD)](https://digital-humanities.upol.cz/), project no. 2020-1-CZ01-KA226-HE-094363.&#x20;

*The European Commission’s support for the production of this publication does not constitute an endorsement of the contents, which reflect the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.*

<div align="right"><figure><img src="/files/hIEM5vAdzOYjHoxZesw9" alt="" width="375"><figcaption></figcaption></figure></div>