Send message to Authors

Short abstract

We explore the ‘politics of alternative’ in policy controversies about AI’s risks and benefits as a crucial task for re-orienting STS critique of techno-determinist rationales of the future towards the role of imaginations of human agency and control in the making of (AI) futures.

Long abstract

Visions of the future are increasingly shaped by controversies regarding the existential risks or opportunities of AI for humanity, pitching dystopian scenarios of “Artificial General Intelligence” against utopias of AI’s contribution to a “new human renaissance”. These debates extend to corollary controversies regarding appropriate responses by governments and policy makers to either prevent or accelerate the achievement of particular AI futures: whereas visions of AI’s existential risks justify the need for legal and regulatory action, such intervention is largely framed as a burdensome impediment and barrier for the unfolding of AI’s opportunities for humanity.

In this presentation, we inquire the ‘politics of alternative’ engendered by controversies about AI futures in global policy settings and ask how STS can critically engage with them. In particular, we follow deliberations at the OECD and the UN on the future of AI and the alternative futures discussed among experts for the anticipation and foresight of AI’s risks and benefits. Complementing recent scholarship in STS regarding the nature and role of public controversies on AI, we observe that these debates serve not only the closing down of policy discussions through the essentialization of particular AI futures against others. They also open up diverse, alternative visions of human agency and control for the achievement of particular socio-technical futures. We suggest that unpacking these ‘politics of alternative’ is a crucial task for re-orienting STS critique of techno-determinist rationales to the powerful role of imaginations of human agency and control in the making of (AI) futures.