Algorithmic IF  … THEN rules and the conditions and consequences of power

Neyland, Daniel; Möllers, Norma

doi:10.1080/1369118x.2016.1156141

Cited by 77 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Instead, this article deals with the social contexts, practices, and actors that surround, and affect, algorithms. Accordingly, this article sees algorithms as actors in diverse socio-technical assemblages (Kitchin, 2017: 16) that include constant interactions between human actors and computer code (Morris, 2015: 452), and that operate through "distributed agency," alongside a wide array of people and things (Neyland and Möllers, 2017).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The return of the social: Algorithmic identity in an age of symbolic demise

Kotliar

2020

New Media & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article explores the socio-algorithmic construction of identity categories based on an ethnographic study of the Israeli data analytics industry. While algorithmic categorization has been described as a post-textual phenomenon that leaves language, social theory, and social expertise behind, this article focuses on the return of the social—the process through which the symbolic means resurface to turn algorithmically produced clusters into identity categories. I show that such categories stem not only from algorithms’ structure or their data, but from the social contexts from which they arise, and from the values assigned to them by various individuals. I accordingly argue that algorithmic identities stem from epistemic amalgams—complex blends of algorithmic outputs and human expertise, messy data flows, and diverse inter-personal factors. Finally, I show that this process of amalgamation arbitrarily conjoins quantitative clusters with qualitative labels, and I discuss the implausibility of seeing named algorithmic categories as explainable.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The return of the social: Algorithmic identity in an age of symbolic demise

Kotliar

2020

New Media & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Tällöin keskiössä on algoritmi, joka määritelmällisesti tarkoittaa yksityiskohtaista ohjetta prosessin suorittamiseksi. Algoritmien yhteiskunnallisten seurausten tutkiminen ei ole pelkkä älyllinen kuriositeetti: algoritmit ovat mukana vaikuttamassa kansalaisten jokapäiväisiin sosiaalisiin suhteisiin, joihin liittyy esimerkiksi kysymys vallasta (Neyland & Möllers 2016).…”

Section: Johdantounclassified

“…Dreyfusin mukaan kontekstin ja taustan hallinta sekä kääntäminen äärelliseen ohjelmointikieleen on likipitäen mah dotonta. Tämä alati muuttuva konteksti tulisi joka tapauksessa huomioida, kun esimerkiksi algoritmien yhteiskunnallista valtaa tutkitaan (Neyland & Möllers 2016). Ehkä suurin ongelma on siinä, että konteksti ja tausta toimi vat eksistentiaalisilla eivätkä loogisilla oletuksilla.…”

Section: Tekoäly Ja Kontekstin Ongelmaunclassified

Tekoälyn yhteiskehittäminen julkisella sektorilla

Autioniemi

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Artificial intelligence co-creation in the public sector This article assesses the steps of AI co-creation in the public innovation ecosystem. However, in order to understand AI in the right context, two aims need to be fulfilled first. The limits and possibilities of AI in public administration are assessed by examining the contributions of AI research, phenomenology and philosopher Hubert Dreyfus. According to the article, the simpler the rules, the better for AI. Therefore, hierarchical and bureaucratic structures are best for AI application. However, bureaucratic structures are poor in innovating and exploration – AI innovations included. After this, co-creation is introduced as a way of innovating AI in the public sector. For identifying new opportunities for co-production, different forms of cross-sectoral and citizen involvement are needed.

show abstract

“…Surveillance. Numerous authors have explored the impacts of digital surveillance in the built environment (Murakami Wood 2015; Webster and Leleux 2018; Nagenborg et al 2010), particularly for public spaces questioning the efficacy of early CCTV in different urban spaces such as car parks (Norris and McCahill 2006) to concerns about smart CCTV using facial and gait recognition to survey train stations or subways (Neyland and Möllers 2017). In private spaces, the impact of surveillance in the home on family dynamics has been considered for smart homes (Crabtree, Tolmie, and Knight 2017;Mäkinen 2016) and as Kitchin and Dodge state, by augmenting every day, mundane, domestic tasks, it puts them under increased control with impacts for privacy and freedom (Kitchin and Dodge 2011).…”

Section: Regulation Surveillance and Adaptive Architecture Interactionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adaptive Architecture: regulating human building interaction

Urquhart

Schnädelbach

Jäger

2019

International Review of Law, Computers & Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper we explore regulatory, technical and interactional implications of Adaptive Architecture, a novel trend emerging in the built environment. We provide a comprehensive description of the emergence and history of the term, with reference to the current state of the art and policy foundations supporting it e.g. smart city initiatives and building regulations. As Adaptive Architecture is underpinned by the Internet of Things (IoT), we are interested in how regulatory and surveillance issues posed by the IoT manifest in buildings too. To support our analysis, we utilise a prominent concept from architecture, Stuart Brand's Shearing Layers model, which describes the different physical layers of a building and how they relate to temporal change. To ground our analysis, we use three cases of Adaptive Architecture, namely an IoT device (Nest Smart Cam IQ); an Adaptive Architecture research prototype, (ExoBuilding); and a commercial deployment (the Edge). In bringing together Shearing Layers, Adaptive Architecture and the challenges therein, we frame our analysis under 5 key themes. These are guided by emerging information privacy and security regulations. We explore the issues Adaptive Architecture needs to face for: A-'Physical & information security'; B-'Establishing responsibility'; C-'occupant rights over flows, collection, use & control of personal data'; D-'Visibility of Emotions and Bodies'; & E-'Surveillance of Everyday Routine Activities'. We conclude by summarising key challenges for Adaptive Architecture, regulation and the future of human building interaction.

show abstract

Algorithmic IF … THEN rules and the conditions and consequences of power

Cited by 77 publications

References 16 publications

The return of the social: Algorithmic identity in an age of symbolic demise

The return of the social: Algorithmic identity in an age of symbolic demise

Tekoälyn yhteiskehittäminen julkisella sektorilla

Adaptive Architecture: regulating human building interaction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About