CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 8Cybernetics and Technology in SocietyEthics and Social Impacts of AIInformation Systems Theories and Implementation

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

The new ghosts in the machine: 'Pragmatist' AI and the conceptual perils of anthropomorphic description

Open access
Brooker, Phillip, Dutton, William, Mair, Michael·2019·Zentral- und Hochschulbibliothek Luzern
DOI 10.5281/zenodo.3459326
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Algorithms are becoming interwoven with increasingly many aspects of our affairs. That process of interweaving has brought with it a language laden with anthropomorphic descriptions of the technologies involved, which variously hint at ‘humanesque’ or ‘conscious-like’ activity occurring within or behind their operations. Indeed, the term ‘Artificial Intelligence’ (AI) seems to refer to a quality that is thought to be largely human; namely, intelligence. However, while anthropomorphic descriptions may be useful or harmless, when taken at face value they generate a false picture of algorithms as well as of our own thinking and reasoning practices by treating them as analogues of one another rather than as distinct. Focusing on the algorithm, and what it is misleadingly said to be and to be like, in this article we outline three ‘perspicuous representations’ (Wittgenstein 1953: §122) of AI in specific contexts. Drawing on Wes Sharrock’s ethnomethodological and Wittgensteinian work, our aim is to demonstrate that by attending to the particular, occasioned and locally accountable, not to say highly specified, usages of language that accompany the ‘New AI’ in particular, we can avoid being haunted by the new task performing ghosts currently being discursively conjured up in our algorithmic machines.

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

DataCite · 10.5281/zenodo.3459326

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.

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?

  • This approach shifts focus from how well or badly machines might be designed to emulate human interaction to exploring the social uses of anthropomorphism in HCI, resisting the conflation of computational processes with human minds through a cognitivist/materialist/behaviourist lens.

    “This approach shifts focus from how well or badly machines might be designed to emulate human interaction to exploring the social uses of anthropomorphism in HCI, strictly resisting the conflation of 'computational processes with human minds through a cognitivist/materialist/behaviourist lens' (Brooker et al. 2019: 273).”

    From AI in situated action: a scoping review of ethnomethodological and conversation analytic studies (2025) · cites this paper as Brooker et al. 2019

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Brooker et al. conclude that although using human-like language for machines might seem a convenient shorthand, it may hinder accurate understanding of the inner workings of the AI.

    “The main conclusion is that although using such language might seem a convenient shorthand, it may in fact hinder accurate understanding of the inner workings of the AI.”

    From Deanthropomorphising NLP: Can a language model be conscious? (2024) · cites this paper as [90]

    In “Anthropomorphically Describing AI” (page unavailable), the paper calls shorthand descriptions convenient. In “Discussion: Choosing the Language of AI” (page unavailable), it argues that importing anthropomorphic terms wholesale into philosophical accounts obstructs useful understanding. The claim captures that concern but shifts its focus: the paper specifically warns about decontextualized accounts of practical engagements with AI, rather than saying human-like language generally hinders understanding of AI’s inner workings. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Radically reflexive and praxeological EM/CA studies offer a distinctive contribution to social studies of AI that couples the Garfinkelian 'hands-on' approach with ordinary language philosophy.

    “Radically reflexive and praxeological EM/CA studies offer a distinctive contribution to social studies of AI that couples the Garfinkelian (2002) 'hands-on' approach with the work of 'ordinary language philosophers' such as Ryle and Wittgenstein (Reeves 2017; Brooker et al. 2019; Sormani 2020, 2022; Mair et al. 2021).”

    From AI in situated action: a scoping review of ethnomethodological and conversation analytic studies (2025) · cites this paper as Brooker et al. 2019

  • Through radical praxeology that places AI in its practical contexts, we can study AI as a social praxis involving configurations of humans, machines, and their interrelations rather than misattributing cognitive capacities to 'ghosts in the machine'.

    “Through these forms of radical praxeology that place AI in its practical contexts, we can study it as a social praxis involving configurations of humans, machines, and their interrelations 21 rather than misattributing cognitive capacities to 'ghosts in the machine' (Brooker et al. 2019; Mair et al. 2021).”

    From AI in situated action: a scoping review of ethnomethodological and conversation analytic studies (2025) · cites this paper as Brooker et al. 2019

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

Still being checked.

Research works printed but not linked: 32

  1. Anderson, Digby C., and W. W. Sharrock. 1979. 'Biasing the News: Technical Issues in "Media Stud- ies"'. Sociology 13 (3): 367-85.
  2. Austin, J. L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  3. Brooker, Phillip. 2019. 'My Unexpectedly Militant Bots: A Case for Programming-as-Social-Science'. The Sociological Review. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0038026119840988 (Accessed: 16 May 2019). · DOI
  4. Brooks Jr., Frederick P. 1987 'No Silver Bullet: Essence and Accidents of Software Engineering'. Computer 20 (4): 10-19.
  5. Burrell, Jenna. 2016. 'How the Machine "thinks": Understanding Opacity in Machine Learning Al- gorithms'. Big Data and Society 3 (1): 1-12.
  6. Button, Graham, Jeff Coulter, John R. E. Lee, and Wes Sharrock. 1995. Computers, Minds and Con- duct. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  7. Coulter, Jeff, and Wes Sharrock. 2007. Brain, Mind and Human Behavior in Contemporary Cogni- tive Science. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press
  8. Dennett, Daniel. 1987. The Intentional Stance. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books.
  9. Dreyfus, Hubert L. 1992. What Computers Still Can't Do: A Critique of Artificial Reason. London: MIT Press.
  10. Fodor, Jerry A. 1981. 'On the Impossibility of Acquiring "More Powerful" Structures: Fixation of Belief and Concept Acquisition'. In Language and Learning: The Debate Between Jean Piaget and Noam Chomsky, edited by M. Piattelli-Palmarini. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  11. Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  12. Kasabov, Nikola. 1998. 'Introduction: Hybrid Intelligence Adaptive Systems'. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 6: 453-54.
  13. Mackenzie, Adrian. 2015. 'The Production of Prediction: What Does Machine Learning Want?'. Eu- ropean Journal of Culture Studies 18 (4-5): 429-45.
  14. Mills, C. Wright. 2000. The Sociological Imagination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  15. Runciman, David. 2018. 'Diary: AI'. London Review of Books 40 (2): 38-39.
  16. Russell, Stuart J., and Peter Norvig. 2003. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  17. Ryle, Gilbert. [1949] 2000. The Concept of Mind. London: Penguin.
  18. Sacks, Harvey. 1963. 'Sociological Description'. Berkeley Journal of Sociology 8: 1-16.
  19. Sacks, Harvey. 1992. Lectures on Conversation. Oxford: Blackwell.
  20. Schutz, Alfred. 1962. Collected Papers, vol. 1: The Problem of Social Reality. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
  21. Shanker, Stuart. 1987. 'Wittgenstein Versus Turing on the Nature of Church's Thesis'. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 28 (4): 615-49.
  22. Sharrock, Wes. 1989. 'Ethnomethodology'. British Journal of Sociology 40 (4): 657-77.
  23. Sharrock, Wes, and Graham Button. 1999. 'Do the Right Thing! Rule Finitism, Rule Scepticism and Rule Following'. Human Studies 22 (2-4): 193-210.
  24. Sharrock, Wes, and Jeff Coulter. 2004. 'ToM: A Critical Commentary'. Theory and Psychology 14 (5): 579-600.
  25. Sharrock, Wes, and Jeff Coulter. 2009. '"Theory of Mind": A Critical Commentary Continued'. In Against Theory of Mind, edited by I. Leudar and A. Costall, 56-88. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  26. Stich, Stephen. 1983. From Folk Psychology to Cognitive Science: The Case Against Belief. Cam- bridge, MA: MIT Press.
  27. Stilgoe, Jack. 2018. 'Machine Learning, Social Learning and the Governance of Self-Driving Cars'. Social Studies of Science 48 (1): 25-56.
  28. Turing, Alan M. 1950. 'Computing Machinery and Intelligence'. Mind 59 (236): 433-60.
  29. Winch, Peter. 1958. The Idea of a Social Science and its Relation to Philosophy. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
  30. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1956. Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
  31. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1953. Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
  32. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1959. Remarks on Frazer's Golden Bough. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humani- ties Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Brooker, P., Dutton, W., & Mair, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Liverpool (GB)
  • Peak, Manchester
ORCID
Venue
Zentral- und Hochschulbibliothek Luzern
Publisher
Zentral- und Hochschulbibliothek Luzern
Published
2019-10-04
ISSN
1366-4964 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.5281/zenodo.3459326
OpenAlex
W3022901424
Cited by
8
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Ethnographic Studies (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Cybernetics and Technology in Society
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
Keywords
artificial intelligence, anthropomorphism, algorithms, pragmatism, Wittgenstein, ethnomethodology, language of technology, algorithmic thinking

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