The DOI matches its DataCite record.
Indigenous Protocol and Artificial Intelligence Position Paper
Open accessAbstract
This position paper on Indigenous Protocol (IP) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a starting place for those who want to design and create AI from an ethical position that centers Indigenous concerns. Each Indigenous community will have its own particular approach to the questions we raise in what follows. What we have written here is not a substitute for establishing and maintaining relationships of reciprocal care and support with specific Indigenous communities. Rather, this document offers a range of ideas to take into consideration when entering into conversations which prioritize Indigenous perspectives in the development of artificial intelligence. It captures multiple layers of a discussion that happened over 20 months, across 20 time zones, during two workshops, and between Indigenous people (and a few non-Indigenous folks) from diverse communities in Aotearoa, Australia, North America, and the Pacific. \n \nIndigenous ways of knowing are rooted in distinct, sovereign territories across the planet. These extremely diverse landscapes and histories have influenced different communities and their discrete cultural protocols over time. A single ‘Indigenous perspective’ does not exist, as epistemologies are motivated and shaped by the grounding of specific communities in particular territories. Historically, scholarly traditions that homogenize diverse Indigenous cultural practices have resulted in ontological and epistemological violence, and a flattening of the rich texture and variability of Indigenous thought. Our aim is to articulate a multiplicity of Indigenous knowledge systems and technological practices that can and should be brought to bear on the ‘question of AI.’ \n \nTo that end, rather than being a unified statement this position paper is a collection of heterogeneous texts that range from design guidelines to scholarly essays to artworks to descriptions of technology prototypes to poetry. We feel such a somewhat multivocal and unruly format more accurately reflects the fact that this conversation is very much in an incipient stage as well as keeps the reader aware of the range of viewpoints expressed in the workshops.
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.
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
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Rethinking Fairness: An Interdisciplinary Survey of Critiques of Hegemonic ML Fairness Approaches
Weinberg, L. (2022) · Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research · doi:10.1613/jair.1.13196 · Cited by 127
Decolonizing the digital landscape: the role of technology in Indigenous language revitalization
Meighan, P. J. (2021) · AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples · doi:10.1177/11771801211037672 · Cited by 86
Abundant intelligences: placing AI within Indigenous knowledge frameworks
Lewis, J. E., Whaanga, H., & Yolgörmez, C. (2025) · AI & SOCIETY · doi:10.1007/s00146-024-02099-4 · Cited by 80
Self-citationMoral consideration of nonhumans in the ethics of artificial intelligence
Owe, A., & Baum, S. D. (2021) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-021-00065-0 · Cited by 73
Metadata
- Authors
- Abdilla, A., Arista, N., Baker, K., Benesiinaabandan, S., Brown, M., Cheung, M., Coleman, M., Cordes, A., Davison, J., Duncan, K., Garzon, S., Harrell, D. F., Jones, P.-L., Kealiikanakaoleohaililani, K., Kelleher, M., Kite, S., Lagon, O., Leigh, J., Levesque, M., Lewis, J. E., Mahelona, K., Moses, C., Nahuewai, I. (., Noe, K., Olson, D., Parker Jones, '., Running Wolf, C., Running Wolf, M., Silva, M., Fragnito, S., & Whaanga, H.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Concordia University Library
- Publisher
- Concordia University Library
- Published
- 2020
- OpenAlex
- W3045389454
- Cited by
- 127
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 2
- FWCI
- 12.07
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- Spectrum Research Repository (Concordia University) (acceptedVersion)
- ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (acceptedVersion)
- Spectrum Research Repository (Concordia University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Law › Indigenous Peoples' Rights and Law
- Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
- Keywords
- Indigenous protocols, artificial intelligence, indigenous knowledge, AI ethics
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