The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Artificial Intelligence and the Temporalities of Responsibility and Risk
Abstract
As creators of artificial intelligence (AI) begin to express regret over their role in its development, some are suggesting the need to take responsibility for the technology‘s effects. As part of the TIBG Themed Intervention which asks, ‘What does it mean to take responsibility and enact care and repair in the realm of AI?’, we consider how responsibility is being mobilised in and through AI. We first track the spatio‐temporal dimensions of responsibility in AI and, second, chart the connections and gaps between a language of responsibility and a language of risk in recent AI developments. Thinking through where, and when, responsibility surfaces in the genealogy of AI and how responsibility does, and does not, feed into conversations around AI, we suggest, is essential to better understanding the complicated spatio‐temporalities of responsibility to, within, and of AI systems.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“The authors point to the ways the AI of the future will not offer us the respect and do the care work we need.”
From A Reply on Responsibility and Repair in AI : Lessons From Outer Space, Agriculture and Gay Hookup Apps (2026) · cites this paper as Walker and Winders 2025
In the citing paper
“Yet, Walker and Winders argue, it is women of colour and trans people of colour like Alex Hanna (Hanna et al. 2020;Paullada et al. 2021) and Timnit Gebru (Buolamwini and Gebru 2018;Raji et al. 2020), and femme of colour scholars like Safiya Noble (2018), Lisa Nakamura (2014), and Ruha Benjamin (2019aBenjamin ( , 2019b) ) who 'mobilize, not the origin, responsibility narrative, but narratives of ob”
From A Reply on Responsibility and Repair in AI : Lessons From Outer Space, Agriculture and Gay Hookup Apps (2026) · cites this paper as Walker and Winders 2025
In the citing paper
“Walker and Winders astutely write that the creators of AI 'capitalize on the doom and gloom they helped produce', and which is based upon a now famous 'origin story' claimed by AI's predominantly white, cisgender male 'creators' (see also McPherson 2012).”
From A Reply on Responsibility and Repair in AI : Lessons From Outer Space, Agriculture and Gay Hookup Apps (2026) · cites this paper as Walker and Winders 2025
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
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- England K., 2016, Handbook of Neoliberalism, 50
- 10.1111/j.1467‐8306.2007.00520.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/0277-5395(94)90032-9 · DOI
- 10.1080/13562576.2021.1985868 · DOI
Cited by
Stevens, N., & Gieseking, J. J. (2026) · Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers · doi:10.1111/tran.70046 · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- Walker, M. A., & Winders, J. L.
- Affiliations
- Department of Geographic and Environmental Sciences University of Louisville Louisville Kentucky USA
- Department of Geography Syracuse University Syracuse New York USA
- ORCID
- Walker, Margath A.
- Venue
- Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2025-11-23
- Volume
- 51
- Issue
- 2
- ISSN
- 0020-2754
- 1475-5661
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
