The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Atlas of AI: Power, Politics, and the Planetary Costs of Artificial Intelligence
Open accessAbstract
ATLAS OF AI: Power, Politics, and the Planetary Costs of Artificial Intelligence by Kate Crawford. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2021. 336 pages. Hardcover; $28.00. ISBN: 9780300209570. *Atlas of AI: Power, Politics, and the Planetary Costs of Artificial Intelligence is Kate Crawford's analysis of the state of the AI industry. A central idea of her book is the importance of redefining Artificial Intelligence (AI). She states, "I've argued that there is much at stake in how we define AI, what its boundaries are, and who determines them: it shapes what can be seen and contested" (p. 217). *My own definition of AI goes something like this: I imagine a future where I'm sitting in a cafe drinking coffee with my friends, but in this future, one of my friends is a robot, who like me is trying to make a living in this world. A future where humans and robots live in harmony. Crawford views this definition as mythological: "These mythologies are particularly strong in the field of artificial intelligence, where the belief that human intelligence can be formalized and reproduced by machines has been axiomatic since the mid-twentieth century" (p. 5). I do not know if my definition of artificial intelligence can come true, but I am enjoying the process of building, experimenting, and dreaming. *In her book, she asks me to consider that I may be unknowingly participating, as she states, in "a material product of colonialism, with its patterns of extraction, conflict, and environmental destruction" (p. 38). The book's subtitle illuminates the purpose of the book: specifically, the power, politics, and planetary costs of usurping artificial intelligence. Of course, this is not exactly Crawford's subtitle, and this is where I both agree and disagree with her. The book's subtitle is actually Power, Politics, and the Planetary Costs of Artificial Intelligence. In my opinion, AI is more the canary in the coal mine. We can use the canary to detect the poisonous gases, but we cannot blame the canary for the poisonous gas. It risks missing the point. Is AI itself to be feared? Should we no longer teach or learn AI? Or is this more about how we discern responsible use and direction for AI technology? *There is another author who speaks to similar issues. In Weapons of Math Destruction, Cathy O'Neil states it this way, "If we had been clear-headed, we all would have taken a step back at this point to figure out how math had been misused ... But instead ... new mathematical techniques were hotter than ever ... A computer program could speed through thousands of resumes or loan applications in a second or two and sort them into neat lists, with the most promising candidates on top" (p. 13). *Both Crawford and O'Neil point to human flaws that often lead to well-intentioned software developers creating code that results in unfair and discriminatory decisions. AI models encode unintended human biases that may not evaluate candidates as fairly as we would expect, yet there is a widespread notion that we can trust the algorithm. For example, the last time you registered an account on a website, did you click the checkbox confirming that "yes, I read the disclaimer" even though you did not? When we click "yes" we are accepting this disclaimer and placing trust in the software. Business owners place trust in software when they use it to make predictions. Engineers place trust in their algorithms when they write software without rigorous testing protocols. I am just as guilty. *Crawford suggests that AI is often used in ways that are harmful. In the Atlas of AI we are given a tour of how technology is damaging our world: strip mining, labor injustice, the misuse of personal data, issues of state and power, to name a few of the concerns Crawford raises. The reality is that AI is built upon existing infrastructure. For example, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Amazon, TikTok have been collecting our information for profit even before AI became important to them. The data centers, CPU houses, and worldwide network infrastructure were already in place to meet consumer demand and geopolitics. But it is true that AI brings new technologies to the table, such as automated face recognition and decision tools to compare prospective employment applicants with diverse databases and employee monitoring tools that can make automatic recommendations. Governments, militaries, and intelligence agencies have taken notice. As invasion of privacy and social justice concerns emerge, Crawford calls us to consider these issues carefully. *Reading Crawford's words pricked my conscience, convicting me to reconsider my erroneous ways. For big tech to exist, to supply what we demand, it needs resources. She walks us through the many resources the technology industry needs to provide what we want, and AI is the "new kid on the block." This book is not about AI, per se; it is instead about the side effects of poor business/research practices, opportunist behavior, power politics, and how these behaviors not only exploit our planet but also unjustly affect marginalized people. The AI industry is simply a new example of this reality: data mining, low wages to lower costs, foreign workers with fewer rights, strip mining, relying on coal and oil for electricity (although some tech companies have made strides to improve sustainability). This sounds more like a parable about the sins of the tech industry than a critique about the dangers of AI. *Could the machine learning community, like the inventors of dynamite who wanted to simply help railroads excavate tunnels, be unintentionally causing harm? Should we, as a community, be on the lookout for these potential harms? Do we have a moral responsibility? Maybe the technology sector needs to look more inwardly to ensure that process efficiency and cost savings are not elevated as most important. *I did not agree with everything that Crawford classified as AI, but I do agree that as a community we are responsible for our actions. If there are injustices, then this should be important to us. In particular, as people of faith, we should heed the call of Micah 6:8 to act justly in this world, and this includes how we use AI. *Reviewed by Joseph Vybihal, Professor of Computer Science, McGill University, Montreal, PQ H3A 0G4.
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
Madan, R., & Ashok, M. (2023) · Government Information Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.giq.2022.101774 · Cited by 468
Generative AI and the politics of visibility
Gillespie, T. (2024) · Big Data & Society · doi:10.1177/20539517241252131 · Cited by 122
Artificial intelligence and clinical anatomical education: Promises and perils
Lazarus, M. D., Truong, M., Douglas, P., & Selwyn, N. (2024) · Anatomical Sciences Education · doi:10.1002/ase.2221 · Cited by 116
Artificial intelligence in the information ecosystem: Affordances for everyday information seeking
Hirvonen, N., Jylhä, V., Lao, Y., & Larsson, S. (2024) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.24860 · Cited by 107
Narrative responsibility and artificial intelligence
Coeckelbergh, M. (2023) · AI & SOCIETY · doi:10.1007/s00146-021-01375-x · Cited by 81
The use of generative AI by students with disabilities in higher education
Zhao, X., Cox, A., & Chen, X. (2025) · The Internet and Higher Education · doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2025.101014 · Cited by 134
A typology of artificial intelligence data work
Muldoon, J., Cant, C., Wu, B., & Graham, M. (2024) · Big Data & Society · doi:10.1177/20539517241232632 · Cited by 50
Ground truth tracings (GTT): On the epistemic limits of machine learning
Kang, E. B. (2023) · Big Data & Society · doi:10.1177/20539517221146122 · Cited by 47
In the nexus of integrity and surveillance: Proctoring (re)considered
Khalil, M., Prinsloo, P., & Slade, S. (2022) · Journal of Computer Assisted Learning · doi:10.1111/jcal.12713 · Cited by 47
van Es, K., & Nguyen, D. (2025) · AI & SOCIETY · doi:10.1007/s00146-024-02108-6 · Cited by 37
Seger, E., Dreksler, N., Moulange, R., Dardaman, E., Schuett, J., Wei, K., Winter, C., Arnold, M., Ó hÉigeartaigh, S., Korinek, A., et al. (2023) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4596436 · Cited by 31
We, the Data: Human Rights in the Digital Age
Wong, W. H. (2023) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/14703.001.0001 · Cited by 31
Zhang, R., Li, H., Chen, A., Liu, Z., & Lee, Y.-C. (2024) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/20563051241290845 · Cited by 23
Handbook of Research on Artificial Intelligence in Government Practices and Processes
(2022) · Advances in Electronic Government, Digital Divide, and Regional Development · doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-9609-8 · Cited by 18
Responsibility, care and repair in/of AI: Extinction threats and more-than-real worlds
McLean, J. (2024) · Environment and Planning F · doi:10.1177/26349825241228586 · Cited by 15
Smit, R., Smits, T., & Merrill, S. (2024) · Memory Studies Review · doi:10.1163/29498902-202400015 · Cited by 12
Towards Guaranteed Safe AI: A Framework for Ensuring Robust and Reliable AI Systems
Dalrymple, D. "., Skalse, J., Bengio, Y., Russell, S., Tegmark, M., Seshia, S., Omohundro, S., Szegedy, C., Goldhaber, B., Ammann, N., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.06624 · Cited by 12
Self‐Deception in Human–AI Emotional Relations
Kaczmarek, E. (2025) · Journal of Applied Philosophy · doi:10.1111/japp.12786 · Cited by 12
Trust and power in Airbnb's digital rating and reputation system
Christiaens, T. (2025) · Ethics and Information Technology · doi:10.1007/s10676-025-09825-6 · Cited by 11
AI As Artificial Memory: A Global Reconfiguration of Our Collective Memory Practices?
Schuh, J. (2024) · Memory Studies Review · doi:10.1163/29498902-202400012 · Cited by 10
A Network Approach to Public Trust in Generative AI
McIntyre, A., Conover, L., & Russo, F. (2025) · Philosophy & Technology · doi:10.1007/s13347-025-00974-6 · Cited by 9
Hidden Risks: Artificial Intelligence and Hermeneutic Harm
Rebera, A. P., Lauwaert, L., & Oimann, A.-K. (2025) · Minds and Machines · doi:10.1007/s11023-025-09733-0 · Cited by 6
Bhat, M. (2025) · Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society · doi:10.1609/aies.v8i1.36560 · Cited by 9
Encountering Generative AI: Narrative Self-Formation and Technologies of the Self Among Young Adults
Kvietkute, D., & Ness, I. J. (2026) · Societies · doi:10.3390/soc16010026 · Cited by 5
Shepherd, N. J. (2025) · Journal of Knowledge Learning and Science Technology ISSN: 2959-6386 (online) · doi:10.60087/jklst.vol4.n4.016
Saing, M. E. (2026) · Discourses on Culture · doi:10.2478/doc-2026-0010
Generative AI Usage and Information Literacy Skills among University Students in North-West Nigeria
Dada, K. S. J., & Quadir, O. R. (2026) · Data Science: Journal of Computing and Applied Informatics · doi:10.32734/jocai.v10.i1-24709
Metadata
- Authors
- Crawford, K.
- Venue
- Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith
- Published
- 2022-03
- Volume
- 74
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 61-62
- ISSN
- 0003-0988 (ISSN-L)
- 0892-2675
- OpenAlex
- W4294351233
- Cited by
- 567
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 153.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.