Cited by 254

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Enchanted Determinism: Power without Responsibility in Artificial Intelligence

Campolo, Alexander, Crawford, Kate·2020·Engaging Science, Technology, and Society

Abstract

Deep learning techniques are growing in popularity within the field of artificial intelligence (AI). These approaches identify patterns in large scale datasets, and make classifications and predictions, which have been celebrated as more accurate than those of humans. But for a number of reasons, including nonlinear path from inputs to outputs, there is a dearth of theory that can explain why deep learning techniques work so well at pattern detection and prediction. Claims about “superhuman” accuracy and insight, paired with the inability to fully explain how these results are produced, form a discourse about AI that we call enchanted determinism. To analyze enchanted determinism, we situate it within a broader epistemological diagnosis of modernity: Max Weber’s theory of disenchantment. Deep learning occupies an ambiguous position in this framework. On one hand, it represents a complex form of technological calculation and prediction, phenomena Weber associated with disenchantment. On the other hand, both deep learning experts and observers deploy enchanted, magical discourses to describe these systems’ uninterpretable mechanisms and counter-intuitive behavior. The combination of predictive accuracy and mysterious or unexplainable properties results in myth-making about deep learning’s transcendent, superhuman capacities, especially when it is applied in social settings. We analyze how discourses of magical deep learning produce techno-optimism, drawing on case studies from game-playing, adversarial examples, and attempts to infer sexual orientation from facial images. Enchantment shields the creators of these systems from accountability while its deterministic, calculative power intensifies social processes of classification and control.

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 · 10.17351/ests2020.277

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Image 1
CC-BY-NC-ND · From the PDF
Image 2
CC-BY-NC-ND · From the PDF
Image 3
CC-BY-NC-ND · From the PDF

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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 37

  1. Ames, Morgan G. 2014. "Translating Magic: The Charisma of One Laptop per Child's XO Laptop in Paraguay." In Beyond Imported Magic: Essays on Science, Technology, and Society in Latin America, edited by Eden Medina, Ivan da Costa Marques and Christina Holmes, 207-224. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. __________. 2015. "Charismatic Technology." In Proceedings of The Fifth Decennial Aarhus Conference on Critical Alternatives, 109-120. AA '15. Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus University Press. https://doi.org/10.7146/aahcc.v1i1.21199. __________. 2018. "Deconstructing the Algorithmic Sublime." Big Data & Society 5 (1): 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951718779194. · DOI
  2. Asad, Talal. 2003. Formations of the Secular: Christianity, Islam, Modernity. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  3. Bellman, Richard. 1957. Dynamic Programming. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  4. Bennett, Jane. 2001. The Enchantment of Modern Life: Attachments, Crossings, and Ethics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  5. Bowker, Geoffrey C., and Susan Leigh Star. 1999. Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  6. Browne, Simone. 2015. Dark Matters: On the Surveillance of Blackness. Durham: Duke University Press.
  7. Citron, Danielle Keats, and Frank A. Pasquale. 2014. "The Scored Society: Due Process for Automated Predictions." Washington Law Review 89 (1): 1-33.
  8. Collins, Harry. 2010. Tacit and Explicit Knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  9. Domingos, Pedro. 2012. "A Few Useful Things to Know About Machine Learning." Communications of the ACM 55 (10): 78-87. https://doi.org/10.1145/2347736.2347755. · DOI · Paper page
  10. Espeland, Wendy Nelson, and Michael Sauder. 2007. "Rankings and Reactivity: How Public Measures Recreate Social Worlds." American Journal of Sociology 113 (1): 1-40.
  11. Eubanks, Virginia. 2018. Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor. New York: St. Martin's Press.
  12. Galison, Peter. 1994. "The Ontology of the Enemy: Norbert Wiener and the Cybernetic Vision." Critical Inquiry 21 (1): 228-66.
  13. Cs, Stat], December. http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.6572. · arXiv
  14. __________, Yoshua Bengio, and Aaron Courville. 2016. Deep Learning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  15. Greenberger, Martin. 1962. Management and the Computer of the Future. New York: Wiley.
  16. Guidotti, R., Anna Monreale, Salvatore Ruggieri, Franco Turini, Fosca Giannotti, and Dino Pedreschi. 2019. "A Survey of Methods for Explaining Black Box Models." ACM Computing Surveys 51 (5): 1-42. https://doi.org/10.1145/3236009. · DOI · Paper page
  17. Hacking, Ian. 1990. The Taming of Chance Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
  18. Hu, Lily, Nicole Immorlica, and Jennifer Wortman Vaughan. 2019. "The Disparate Effects of Strategic Manipulation." In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 259-268. FAT* '19. New York, NY, USA: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287560.3287597. · DOI
  19. Hutson, Matthew. 2018. "AI Researchers Allege That Machine Learning Is Alchemy." Science. May 3. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/05/ai-researchers-allege-machine- learning-alchemy.
  20. Jannini, Emmanuele A., Ray Blanchard, Andrea Camperio-Ciani, and John Bancroft. 2010. "Male Homosexuality: Nature or Culture?" The Journal of Sexual Medicine 7 (10): 3245-53.
  21. Josephson-Storm, Jason A. 2017. The Myth of Disenchantment: Magic, Modernity, and the Birth of the Human Sciences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  22. Kleinberg, Jon, Himabindu Lakkaraju, Jure Leskovec, Jens Ludwig, and Sendhil Mullainathan. 2018. "Human Decisions and Machine Predictions." The Quarterly Journal of Economics 133 (1): 237-93. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjx032. · DOI · Paper page
  23. Latour, Bruno. 1993. We Have Never Been Modern, translated by Catherine Porter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  24. Lu, Zhou, Hongming Pu, Feicheng Wang, Zhiqiang Hu, and Liwei Wang. 2017. "The Expressive Power of Neural Networks: A View from the Width." ArXiv:1709.02540 [Cs], September. http://arxiv.org/abs/1709.02540. · arXiv
  25. Noble, Safiya Umoja. 2018. Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism. New York: NYU Press.
  26. Principe, Lawrence M., and William R. Newman. 2001. "Some Problems with the Historiography of Alchemy." In Secrets of Nature: Astrology and Alchemy in Early Modern Europe, 385-431. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  27. Raghu, Maithra, Ben Poole, Jon Kleinberg, Surya Ganguli, and Jascha Sohl-Dickstein. 2017. "On the Expressive Power of Deep Neural Networks." In International Conference on Machine Learning, 2847-54. http://proceedings.mlr.press/v70/raghu17a.html.
  28. Riesebrodt, Martin. 1999. "Charisma in Max Weber's Sociology of Religion." Religion 29 (1): 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1006/reli.1999.0175. · DOI
  29. Scott, Joan. 2017. Sex and Secularism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  30. Selbst, Andrew, and Solon Barocas. 2018. "The Intuitive Appeal of Explainable Machines." Fordham Law Review 87 (3): 1085.
  31. Szegedy, Christian, Wojciech Zaremba, Ilya Sutskever, Joan Bruna, Dumitru Erhan, Ian Goodfellow, and Rob Fergus. 2013. "Intriguing Properties of Neural Networks." ArXiv:1312.6199 [Cs], December. https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.6199. · arXiv
  32. Taylor, Charles. 2007. A Secular Age. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
  33. Udry, J. Richard, and Kim Chantala. 2006. "Masculinity-Femininity Predicts Sexual Orientation in Men but Not in Women." Journal of Biosocial Science 38 (6): 797-809. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002193200500101X. · DOI
  34. Weber, Max. 1946. "Science as a Vocation." In From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, translated by H.H. Gerth and C.W. Mills, 129-56. New York: Oxford University Press.
  35. __________. 1992. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, translated by Talcott Parsons. London: Routledge.
  36. Winkelman, Michael. 1982. "Magic: A Theoretical Reassessment." Current Anthropology 23 (1): 37- 66.
  37. Zeng, Jiaming, Berk Ustun, and Cynthia. Rudin. 2017. "Interpretable Classification Models for Recidivism Prediction." Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society) 180 (3): 689-722. https://doi.org/10.1111/rssa.12227. · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 254

Metadata

Authors
Campolo, A., & Crawford, K.
Venue
Engaging Science, Technology, and Society
Published
2020-01-08
Volume
6
Pages
1-19
ISSN
2413-8053
Cited by
254
References
6

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