The uncontroversial ‘thingness’ of AI
Open accessAbstract
This commentary starts with the question ‘How is it that AI has come to be figured uncontroversially as a thing, however many controversies “it” may engender?’ Addressing this question takes us to knowledge practices that philosopher of science Helen Verran has named a ‘hardening of the categories’, processes that not only characterise the onto-epistemology of AI but also are central to its constituent techniques and technologies. In a context where the stabilization of AI as a figure enables further investments in associated techniques and technologies, AI's status as controversial works to reiterate both its ontological status and its agency. It follows that interventions into the field of AI controversies that fail to trouble and destabilise the figure of AI risk contributing to its uncontroversial reproduction. This is not to deny the proliferating data and compute-intensive techniques and technologies that travel under the sign of AI but rather to call for a keener focus on their locations, politics, material-semiotic specificity, and effects, including their ongoing enactment as a singular and controversial object.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Others highlight the lack of reflection and investigation into common ways of speaking about 'AI' that ascribe psychological and agentic properties and contribute to ongoing conceptual/philosophical confusion on the nature of the phenomenon.
“Others highlight the lack of reflection and investigation into common ways of speaking about 'AI' (e.g., Suchman 2023b) that ascribe psychological and agentic properties and contribute to ongoing conceptual/philosophical confusion on the nature of the phenomenon.”
From AI in situated action: a scoping review of ethnomethodological and conversation analytic studies (2025) · cites this paper as Suchman 2023b
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 14 · Cited by 229
- Authors
- Suchman, L.
- Affiliations
- Lancaster University (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Suchman, Lucy
- ORCID
- Suchman, Lucy
- Venue
- Big Data & Society
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2023-07
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 2
- ISSN
- 2053-9517 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4388541808
- Cited by
- 229
- References
- 14
- Citations by year
- 2026: 95 · 2025: 94 · 2024: 40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Big Data & Society (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Cybernetics and Technology in Society
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Cultural Studies › Posthumanist Ethics and Activism
- Keywords
- artificial intelligence, thingness, agency, onto-epistemology
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