Expert views about missing AI narratives: is there an AI story crisis?

Abstract

Stories are an important indicator of our vision of the future. In the case of artificial intelligence (AI), dominant stories are polarized between notions of threat and myopic solutionism. The central storytellers—big tech, popular media, and authors of science fiction—represent particular demographics and motivations. Many stories, and storytellers, are missing. This paper details the accounts of missing AI narratives by leading scholars from a range of disciplines interested in AI Futures. Participants focused on the gaps between dominant narratives and the untold stories of the capabilities, issues, and everyday realities of the technology. One participant proposed a “story crisis” in which these narratives compete to shape the public discourse on AI. Our findings indicate that dominant narratives distract and mislead public understandings and conceptions of AI. This suggests a need to pay closer attention to missing AI narratives. It is not simply about telling new stories, it is about listening to existing stories and asking what is wanted from AI. We call for realistic, nuanced, and inclusive stories, working with and for diverse voices, which consider (1) story-teller; (2) genre, and (3) communicative purpose. Such stories can then inspire the next generation of thinkers, technologists, and storytellers.

Implications of Identity in AI: Creators, Creations, and Consequences

“…Diversity is not just about fairness but is essential for creating AI systems that are unbiased, ethical, and beneficial for society (Shams, Zowghi, and Bano 2023). Thus, enhancing the diversity of AI creators is imperative to ensure that the technology reflects a broad spectrum of human experiences and values, contributing positively to societal progress (Chubb, Reed, and Cowling 2022). It is important to note that this layer of the ecosystem is closely connected with the internal dimension of AI identity.…”

Development of an AI literacy assessment for non-technical individuals: What do teachers know?

“…that mimic human intelligence or an embodied entity that can perform physical actions (Ding et al, In review). However, AI is seen by experts closer to algorithms (McCarthy, 2007) and tools for building computer programs (Chubb et al, 2022). A widely acceptable definition of AI is the science and engineering behind the development of intelligent machines that solve problems through techniques such as machine learning, natural language processing, and reinforcement learning (Mondal, 2020).…”

Machine guardians: The Terminator, AI narratives and US regulatory discourse on lethal autonomous weapons systems

“…Importantly, however, while the AI narratives literature provides an analytical framework for interpreting the plurality of different LAWS imaginaries presented in the Terminator films, it is underutilised in the study of the global regulatory debates on these technologies. Much of the existing AI narratives literature has focused on cataloguing the different types of stories which have (and have not) been told about intelligent machines in the Anglophone West (Cave et al, 2019; Cave and Dihal, 2021; Chubb et al, 2022; Hudson et al, 2023). This has invited the study of how these stories circulate among different audiences including the general public (Sartori and Bocca, 2023) and AI researchers (Dillon and Schaffer-Goddard, 2022).…”

“…2 This is surprising given the attention paid to other popular culture franchises featuring ‘killer robots’ such as Battlestar Galactica (Buzan, 2010; Kiersey and Neumann, 2013) and these film’s perceived influence on American politics (Broxmeyer, 2010). The AI narrative literature, in contrast, has so far been principally focused on categorising the different types of stories that have and have not been told about these technologies (Cave et al, 2018; Cave and Dihal, 2019; Chubb et al, 2022; Hudson et al, 2023). While it is suggested that awareness of AI narratives may influence the governance of AI-associated technologies (Cave and Dihal, 2019: 74; Hudson et al, 2023: 198; Sartori and Bocca, 2023: 454), their circulation in the global regulatory debates on LAWS remains unexplored.…”