The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Conjuring algorithms: Understanding the tech industry as stage magicians
Abstract
In this article, we introduce the term “conjuration of algorithms” to describe how the tech industry uses the language of magic to shape people’s perceptions of algorithms. We use the image of the magician as a metaphor for how the tech industry strategically deploys narrative devices to present their algorithms. After presenting a brief history of the Western European and North American understanding of stage magic, we apply three principles of magic to a recent case: OpenAI’s discussion of ChatGPT to show how tech leaders present algorithms as magical entities. We argue that the conjuration of algorithms allows the tech industry to forge vivid, overly positive, and deterministic narratives that make it challenging for their critics to call attention to the very real harms that algorithmic systems pose to users. We call for discourses of reality instead of magic, as a way to support responsible technology design, development, use, and governance.
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
Figures
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Nagy and Neff (2024) further speak to our current moment, saying that when the tech industry discusses algorithms by invoking magic, they try 'to manipulate people's perceptions of algorithms in order to deflect attention and calls for accountability away from their own already immense power' (Nagy and Neff, 2024).”
From AI Séance: Recounts from designing artificial intelligence for transcendence, interpretive lenses and chance (2025) · cites this paper as Nagy and Neff, 2024
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
On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big? 🦜
Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3442188.3445922 · Cited by 6,988 · cited 3×
“Bender et al. (2021) call such technologies stochastic parrots.”
The Age of Surveillance Capitalism
Zuboff, S. (2023) · Social Theory Re-Wired · doi:10.4324/9781003320609-27 · Cited by 764
Algorithmic injustice: A relational ethics approach
Birhane, A. (2021) · Patterns · doi:10.1016/j.patter.2021.100205 · Cited by 707 · cited 1×
“While the tech industry is often heavily criticized for their potential to perpetuate harm to historically marginalized communities (e.g., Birhane, 2021), violate citizens’ privacy rights (e.g., Gebru et al., 2017), or exacerbate existing racial discriminatory practices (e.g., Benjamin, 2019), the…”
How Is ChatGPT’s Behavior Changing Over Time?
Chen, L., Zaharia, M., & Zou, J. (2024) · Harvard Data Science Review · doi:10.1162/99608f92.5317da47 · Cited by 507
How is ChatGPT's behavior changing over time?
Chen, L., Zaharia, M., & Zou, J. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.09009 · Cited by 507
Assessing risk, automating racism
Benjamin, R. (2019) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aaz3873 · Cited by 378
“Gaming the System”: Platform Paternalism and the Politics of Algorithmic Visibility
Petre, C., Duffy, B. E., & Hund, E. (2019) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/2056305119879995 · Cited by 225
Toxicity in chatgpt: Analyzing persona-assigned language models
Deshpande, A., Murahari, V., Rajpurohit, T., Kalyan, A., & Narasimhan, K. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023 · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.88 · Cited by 178
Red teaming ChatGPT via Jailbreaking: Bias, Robustness, Reliability and Toxicity
Zhuo, T. Y., Huang, Y., Chen, C., & Xing, Z. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2301.12867 · Cited by 164 · cited 1×
“Various studies have already demonstrated that ChatGPT can produce a wide range of harmful and racist content (e.g., Deshpande et al., 2023; Zhuo et al., 2023).”
Artificial intelligence in fiction: between narratives and metaphors
Hermann, I. (2023) · AI & SOCIETY · doi:10.1007/s00146-021-01299-6 · Cited by 134
Research works printed but not linked: 54
- Alkaissi H, 2023, Cureus, 15, 1
- Balbi G, 2015, Theorien des Medienwandels, 231
- 10.4135/9781473910492 · DOI
- 10.1353/mrw.0.0131 · DOI
- Brown MF, 1986, Tsewa’s Gift: Magic and Meaning in an Amazonian Society
- 10.48550/arXiv.2303.12712. · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1080/1369118X.2016.1154086 · DOI
- 10.1146/annurev-soc-090820-020800 · DOI
- Camí J, 2022, The Illusionist Brain: The Neuroscience of Magic
- 10.17351/ests2020.277 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1177/0162243915589635 · DOI
- de Ascanio A, 2005, The Magic of Ascanio: The Structural Conception of Magic, 63
- 10.48550/arXiv.2304.05335. · DOI · Paper page
- Dessoir M, 1893, Revue Philosophique de la France et de L’etranger, 36, 659
- 10.1177/2053951716665128 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1080/03637751.2017.1375130 · DOI
- Finn E, 2018, What Algorithms Want: Imagination in the Age of Computing
- 10.1073/pnas.1700035114 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.2307/3033230 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10791-020-09386-w · DOI
- 10.7551/mitpress/9042.003.0013 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/S0022-1031(76)80006-6 · DOI
- 10.1057/s41290-016-0004-8 · DOI
- 10.1057/9780230617124_2 · DOI
- 10.1080/23736992.2016.1258990 · DOI
- 10.7208/chicago/9780226276663.003.0001 · DOI
- 10.1017/S0010417509990338 · DOI
- Jones GM, 2017, Magic’s Reason: An Anthropology of Analogy
- 10.1080/17460654.2018.1512543 · DOI
- 10.1126/science.adi0248 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.tics.2008.05.008 · DOI
- Lamdan S, 2023, Data Cartels: The Companies That Control and Monopolize Our Information
- 10.1177/0163443719855301 · DOI
- 10.1038/nrn2473 · DOI
- 10.1007/s13347-020-00405-8 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1177/1354856517715164 · DOI
- Neale RE, 2002, The Magic Mirror: Reflections on the Nature and Relevance of Magic
- 10.1057/9780230617124_11 · DOI
- OpenAI (2023c) GPT-4 technical report. Available at: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2303.08774.pdf (accessed 29 June 2023). · arXiv
- 10.1177/08944393211073169 · DOI
- 10.1038/d41586-023-01833-0 · DOI
- 10.1177/0021886393292007 · DOI
- 10.4324/9781003084471-6 · DOI
- 10.1177/0162243918806061 · DOI
- Sandvig C, 2016, International Journal of Communication, 10, 1
- 10.1177/01634437221136014 · DOI
- Sharkey N, 2006, Artificial Intelligence Review, 25, 9
- 10.1177/0306312715577461 · DOI
- 10.1177/2053951717751552 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1525/can.2000.15.3.327 · DOI
- 10.1177/09636625211013513 · DOI
- 10.1080/17460654.2018.1510615 · DOI
- Zhang Q, 2023, arXiv [preprint]
- 10.1177/0162243915608948 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Schroeder, H., Smith, A., & Epstein, Z. (2025) · European Journal of Cultural Studies · doi:10.1177/13675494251351223 · Cited by 3
Metadata
- Authors
- Nagy, P., & Neff, G.
- Affiliations
- Arizona State University, USA
- University of Cambridge, UK
- ORCID
- Nagy, Peter
- Venue
- New Media & Society
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2024-08-30
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 4938-4954
- ISSN
- 1461-4448
- 1461-7315
- Cited by
- 26
- References
- 10
- 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
