AI and Social Theory

In this paper, we sketch a programme for AI driven social theory. We begin by defining what we mean by artificial intelligence (AI) in this context. We then lay out our model for how AI based models can draw on the growing availability of digital data to help test the validity of different social theories based on their predictive power. In doing so, we use the work of Randall Collins and his state breakdown model to exemplify that, already today, AI based models can help synthesize knowledge from a variety of sources, reason about the world, and apply what is known across a wide range of problems in a systematic way. However, we also find that AI driven social theory remains subject to a range of practical, technical, and epistemological limitations. Most critically, existing AI systems lack three essential capabilities needed to advance social theory in ways that are cumulative, holistic, open-ended, and purposeful. These are (1) semanticization, i.e., the ability to develop and operationalize verbal concepts to represent machine-manipulable knowledge, (2) transferability, i.e., the ability to transfer what has been learned in one context to another, and (3) generativity, i.e., the ability to independently create and improve on concepts and models. We argue that if the gaps identified here are addressed by further research, there is no reason why, in the future, the most advanced programme in social theory should not be led by AI-driven cumulative advances.

The Switch, the Ladder, and the Matrix: Models for Classifying AI Systems

Organisations that design and deploy artificial intelligence (AI) systems increasingly commit themselves to high-level, ethical principles. However, there still exists a gap between principles and practices in AI ethics. One major obstacle organisations face when attempting to operationalise AI Ethics is the lack of a well-defined material scope. Put differently, the question to which systems and processes AI ethics principles ought to apply remains unanswered. Of course, there exists no universally accepted definition of AI, and different systems pose different ethical challenges. Nevertheless, pragmatic problem-solving demands that things should be sorted so that their grouping will promote successful actions for some specific end. In this article, we review and compare previous attempts to classify AI systems for the purpose of implementing AI governance in practice. We find that attempts to classify AI systems found in previous literature use one of three mental model. The Switch, i.e., a binary approach according to which systems either are or are not considered AI systems depending on their characteristics. The Ladder, i.e., a risk-based approach that classifies systems according to the ethical risks they pose. And the Matrix, i.e., a multi-dimensional classification of systems that take various aspects into account, such as context, data input, and decision-model. Each of these models for classifying AI systems comes with its own set of strengths and weaknesses. By conceptualising different ways of classifying AI systems into simple mental models, we hope to provide organisations that design, deploy, or regulate AI systems with the conceptual tools needed to operationalise AI governance in practice.

The US Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2022 vs. The EU Artificial Intelligence Act: What can they learn from each other?

On the whole, the U.S. Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2022 (US AAA) is a pragmatic approach to balancing the benefits and risks of automated decision systems. Yet there is still room for improvement. This commentary highlights how the US AAA can both inform and learn from the European Artificial Intelligence Act (EU AIA).

Artificial intelligence, rationalization, and the limits of control in the public sector: the case of tax policy optimization

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the public sector is best understood as a continuation and intensification of long standing rationalization and bureaucratization processes. Drawing on Weber, we take the core of these processes to be the replacement of traditions with instrumental rationality, i.e., the most calculable and efficient way of achieving any given policy objective. In this article, we demonstrate how much of the criticisms, both among the public and in scholarship, directed towards AI systems spring from well known tensions at the heart of Weberian rationalization. To illustrate this point, we introduce a thought experiment whereby AI systems are used to optimize tax policy to advance a specific normative end, reducing economic inequality. Our analysis shows that building a machine-like tax system that promotes social and economic equality is possible. However, it also highlights that AI driven policy optimization (i) comes at the exclusion of other competing political values, (ii) overrides citizens sense of their noninstrumental obligations to each other, and (iii) undermines the notion of humans as self-determining beings. Contemporary scholarship and advocacy directed towards ensuring that AI systems are legal, ethical, and safe build on and reinforce central assumptions that underpin the process of rationalization, including the modern idea that science can sweep away oppressive systems and replace them with a rule of reason that would rescue humans from moral injustices. That is overly optimistic. Science can only provide the means, they cannot dictate the ends. Nonetheless, the use of AI in the public sector can also benefit the institutions and processes of liberal democracies. Most importantly, AI driven policy optimization demands that normative ends are made explicit and formalized, thereby subjecting them to public scrutiny and debate.

A Blueprint for Auditing Generative AI

The widespread use of generative AI systems is coupled with significant ethical and social challenges. As a result, policymakers, academic researchers, and social advocacy groups have all called for such systems to be audited. However, existing auditing procedures fail to address the governance challenges posed by generative AI systems, which display emergent capabilities and are adaptable to a wide range of downstream tasks. In this chapter, we address that gap by outlining a novel blueprint for how to audit such systems. Specifically, we propose a three-layered approach, whereby governance audits (of technology providers that design and disseminate generative AI systems), model audits (of generative AI systems after pre-training but prior to their release), and application audits (of applications based on top of generative AI systems) complement and inform each other. We show how audits on these three levels, when conducted in a structured and coordinated manner, can be a feasible and effective mechanism for identifying and managing some of the ethical and social risks posed by generative AI systems. That said, it is important to remain realistic about what auditing can reasonably be expected to achieve. For this reason, the chapter also discusses the limitations not only of our three-layered approach but also of the prospect of auditing generative AI systems at all. Ultimately, this chapter seeks to expand the methodological toolkit available to technology providers and policymakers who wish to analyse and evaluate generative AI systems from technical, ethical, and legal perspectives.

Auditing of AI: Legal, Ethical and Technical Approaches

AI auditing is a rapidly growing field of research and practice. This review article, which doubles as an editorial to Digital Societys topical collection on Auditing of AI, provides an overview of previous work in the field. Three key points emerge from the review. First, contemporary attempts to audit AI systems have much to learn from how audits have historically been structured and conducted in areas like financial accounting, safety engineering and the social sciences. Second, both policymakers and technology providers have an interest in promoting auditing as an AI governance mechanism. Academic researchers can thus fill an important role by studying the feasibility and effectiveness of different AI auditing procedures. Third, AI auditing is an inherently multidisciplinary undertaking, to which substantial contributions have been made by computer scientists and engineers as well as social scientists, philosophers, legal scholars and industry practitioners. Reflecting this diversity of perspectives, different approaches to AI auditing have different affordances and constraints. Specifically, a distinction can be made between technology-oriented audits, which focus on the properties and capabilities of AI systems, and process oriented audits, which focus on technology providers governance structures and quality management systems. The next step in the evolution of auditing as an AI governance mechanism, this article concludes, should be the interlinking of these available (and complementary) approaches into structured and holistic procedures to audit not only how AI systems are designed and used but also how they impact users, societies and the natural environment in applied settings over time.

Conformity Assessments and Post-market Monitoring: A Guide to the Role of Auditing in the Proposed European AI Regulation

The proposed European Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA) is the first attempt to elaborate a general legal framework for AI carried out by any major global economy. As such, the AIA is likely to become a point of reference in the larger discourse on how AI systems can (and should) be regulated. In this article, we describe and discuss the two primary enforcement mechanisms proposed in the AIA: the conformity assessments that providers of high-risk AI systems are expected to conduct, and the post-market monitoring plans that providers must establish to document the performance of high-risk AI systems throughout their lifetimes. We argue that AIA can be interpreted as a proposal to establish a Europe-wide ecosystem for conducting AI auditing, albeit in other words. Our analysis offers two main contributions. First, by describing the enforcement mechanisms included in the AIA in terminology borrowed from existing literature on AI auditing, we help providers of AI systems understand how they can prove adherence to the requirements set out in the AIA in practice. Second, by examining the AIA from an auditing perspective, we seek to provide transferable lessons from previous research about how to refine further the regulatory approach outlined in the AIA. We conclude by highlighting seven aspects of the AIA where amendments (or simply clarifications) would be helpful. These include, above all, the need to translate vague concepts into verifiable criteria and to strengthen the institutional safeguards concerning conformity assessments based on internal checks.

On the Limits of Design: What Are the Conceptual Constraints on Designing Artificial Intelligence for Social Good?

Artificial intelligence AI can bring substantial benefits to society by helping to reduce costs, increase efficiency and enable new solutions to complex problems. Using Floridi's notion of how to design the 'infosphere' as a starting point, in this chapter I consider the question: what are the limits of design, i.e. what are the conceptual constraints on designing AI for social good? The main argument of this chapter is that while design is a useful conceptual tool to shape technologies and societies, collective efforts towards designing future societies are constrained by both internal and external factors. Internal constraints on design are discussed by evoking Hardin's thought experiment regarding 'the Tragedy of the Commons'. Further, Hayek's classical distinction between 'cosmos' and 'taxis' is used to demarcate external constraints on design. Finally, five design principles are presented which are aimed at helping policymakers manage the internal and external constraints on design. A successful approach to designing future societies needs to account for the emergent properties of complex systems by allowing space for serendipity and socio-technological coevolution.

Ethics-Based Auditing to Develop Trustworthy AI

A series of recent developments points towards auditing as a promising mechanism to bridge the gap between principles and practice in AI ethics. Building on ongoing discussions concerning ethics-based auditing, we offer three contributions. First, we argue that ethics-based auditing can improve the quality of decision making, increase user satisfaction, unlock growth potential, enable law-making, and relieve human suffering. Second, we highlight current best practices to support the design and implementation of ethics-based auditing: To be feasible and effective, ethics-based auditing should take the form of a continuous and constructive process, approach ethical alignment from a system perspective, and be aligned with public policies and incentives for ethically desirable behaviour. Third, we identify and discuss the constraints associated with ethics-based auditing. Only by understanding and accounting for these constraints can ethics-based auditing facilitate ethical alignment of AI, while enabling society to reap the full economic and social benefits of automation.