CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 15Ethics and Social Impacts of AIDigital Education and SocietyArtificial Intelligence in Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Tackling AI Hyping

Open access
Sloane, Mona, Danks, David, Moss, Emanuel·2024·AI and Ethics
DOI 10.1007/s43681-024-00481-y
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The introduction of a new generation of AI systems has kicked off another wave of AI hype. Now that AI systems have added the ability to produce new content to their predictive capabilities, extreme excitement about their alleged capabilities and opportunities is matched only by long held fears about job loss and machine control. We typically understand the dynamics of AI hype to be something that happens to us, but in this commentary, we propose to flip the script. We suggest that AI hype is not a social fact, but a widely shared practice. We outline some negative implications of this practice and suggest how these can be mitigated, especially with regards to shifting ways of knowing and learning about AI, in the classroom and beyond. Even though pedagogical efforts (broadly understood) have benefited from AI hyping (there is now more varied AI training than ever), such efforts can also help minimize the impacts of hyping on the public’s credulity toward extravagant claims made about AI’s potential benefits and dangers. Below, we consider steps that can be taken to address this issue and illustrate pathways for more holistic AI educational approaches that participate to a lesser degree in the practice of AI hyping. We contend that designing better AI futures will require that AI hyping be blunted to enable grounded debates about the ways that AI systems impact people’s lives both now and in the near future.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s43681-024-00481-y

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Because of prevalent sci-fitisation, anthropomorphism, and hyping, real AI is often combined with imagined AI and existing AI technologies are interpreted within the AI imaginary created by popular culture and marketing, abstracting from technological limitations.

    “We fear that because of the prevalent sci-fitisation, as well as anthropomorphism (Placani, 2024;Salles et al., 2020) and hyping (Sloane et al., 2024) in the discourse on AI (the three categories are not mutually exclusive; on the contrary, they can be considered complementary), the”

    From There is no such thing as conscious artificial intelligence (2025) · cites this paper as Sloane et al., 2024

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Fostering Responsible Computing Research: Foundations and Practices. National Academies, Washington, D.C. (2022)
  2. Brown, S.: Consequence Scanning: An Agile Event for Responsible Innovators. doteveryone, London (2019)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Sloane, M., Danks, D., & Moss, E.
Affiliations
  • University of Virginia (US)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • Intel (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Sloane, Mona
ORCID
Venue
AI and Ethics
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2024-04-24
Volume
4
Issue
3
Pages
669-677
ISSN
  • 2730-5953 (ISSN-L)
  • 2730-5961
DOI
10.1007/s43681-024-00481-y
OpenAlex
W4395115863
Cited by
15
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 2
FWCI
6.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
AI and Ethics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Education › Digital Education and Society
  • Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
Keywords
AI hype, generative AI, artificial intelligence in education, public understanding of AI, credulity, fear of job loss, pedagogy, ways of knowing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review