The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Artificial Unintelligence: How Computers Misunderstand the World
Abstract
A guide to understanding the inner workings and outer limits of technology and why we should never assume that computers always get it right. In Artificial Unintelligence, Meredith Broussard argues that our collective enthusiasm for applying computer technology to every aspect of life has resulted in a tremendous amount of poorly designed systems. We are so eager to do everything digitally—hiring, driving, paying bills, even choosing romantic partners—that we have stopped demanding that our technology actually work. Broussard, a software developer and journalist, reminds us that there are fundamental limits to what we can (and should) do with technology. With this book, she offers a guide to understanding the inner workings and outer limits of technology—and issues a warning that we should never assume that computers always get things right. Making a case against technochauvinism—the belief that technology is always the solution—Broussard argues that it's just not true that social problems would inevitably retreat before a digitally enabled Utopia. To prove her point, she undertakes a series of adventures in computer programming. She goes for an alarming ride in a driverless car, concluding “the cyborg future is not coming any time soon”; uses artificial intelligence to investigate why students can't pass standardized tests; deploys machine learning to predict which passengers survived the Titanic disaster; and attempts to repair the U.S. campaign finance system by building AI software. If we understand the limits of what we can do with technology, Broussard tells us, we can make better choices about what we should do with it to make the world better for everyone.
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
What is AI Literacy? Competencies and Design Considerations
Long, D., & Magerko, B. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3313831.3376727 · Cited by 3,241
Budhwar, P., Chowdhury, S., Wood, G., Aguinis, H., Bamber, G. J., Beltran, J. R., Boselie, P., Lee Cooke, F., Decker, S., DeNisi, A., et al. (2023) · Human Resource Management Journal · doi:10.1111/1748-8583.12524 · Cited by 908
Felten, E., Raj, M., & Seamans, R. (2021) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.3286 · Cited by 574
Substituting Human Decision-Making with Machine Learning: Implications for Organizational Learning
Balasubramanian, N., Ye, Y., & Xu, M. (2022) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2019.0470 · Cited by 377
Rosenbacke, R., Melhus, Å., McKee, M., & Stuckler, D. (2024) · JMIR AI · doi:10.2196/53207 · Cited by 305
The Fallacy of AI Functionality
Raji, I. D., Kumar, I. E., Horowitz, A., & Selbst, A. (2022) · 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness Accountability and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3531146.3533158 · Cited by 251
For You, or For"You"?: Everyday LGBTQ+ Encounters with TikTok
Simpson, E., & Semaan, B. (2021) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3432951 · Cited by 230
Robo-apocalypse cancelled? Reframing the automation and future of work debate
Willcocks, L. (2020) · Journal of Information Technology · doi:10.1177/0268396220925830 · Cited by 215
How to cheat on your final paper: Assigning AI for student writing
Fyfe, P. (2023) · AI & SOCIETY · doi:10.1007/s00146-022-01397-z · Cited by 205
Ethics and diversity in artificial intelligence policies, strategies and initiatives
Roche, C., Wall, P. J., & Lewis, D. (2023) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-022-00218-9 · Cited by 179
Algorithmic realism: expanding the boundaries of algorithmic thought
Green, B., & Viljoen, S. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3351095.3372840 · Cited by 161
Human–AI collaborative decision-making as an organization design problem
Puranam, P. (2021) · Journal of Organization Design · doi:10.1007/s41469-021-00095-2 · Cited by 162
Higher Education's Generative Artificial Intelligence Paradox: The Meaning of Chatbot Mania
Rudolph, J., Mohamed Ismail, F. M., & Popenici, S. (2024) · Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice · doi:10.53761/54fs5e77 · Cited by 189
Representative Bureaucracy and Attitudes Toward Automated Decision Making
Miller, S. M., & Keiser, L. R. (2021) · Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory · doi:10.1093/jopart/muaa019 · Cited by 127
‘ChatGPT et al.’: The ethics of using (generative) artificial intelligence in research and science
Schlagwein, D., & Willcocks, L. (2023) · Journal of Information Technology · doi:10.1177/02683962231200411 · Cited by 97
Nonhuman humanitarianism: when 'AI for good' can be harmful
Madianou, M. (2021) · Information, Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2021.1909100 · Cited by 91
Dehnert, M., & Mongeau, P. A. (2022) · Human Communication Research · doi:10.1093/hcr/hqac006 · Cited by 86
The false promise of risk assessments: epistemic reform and the limits of fairness
Green, B. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3351095.3372869 · Cited by 80
Mechanism design for social good
Abebe, R., & Goldner, K. (2018) · AI Matters · doi:10.1145/3284751.3284761 · Cited by 45
A thousand brains: toward biologically constrained AI
Hole, K. J., & Ahmad, S. (2021) · SN Applied Sciences · doi:10.1007/s42452-021-04715-0 · Cited by 42
Ramaul, L., Ritala, P., Kostis, A., & Aaltonen, P. (2026) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/joms.13246 · Cited by 41
Scherer, A. G., & Neesham, C. (2023) · Organization Theory · doi:10.1177/26317877231204083 · Cited by 30
Tanksley, T., Smith, A. D. R., Sharma, S., & Huff, E. W. (2025) · Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3706598.3713510 · Cited by 19
University students’ trust in AI: Examining reliance and strategies for critical engagement.
Abuzar, M., Mahmudulhassan, & Muthoifin (2025) · International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM) · doi:10.3991/ijim.v19i07.52875 · Cited by 20
Sloane, M., Danks, D., & Moss, E. (2024) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-024-00481-y · Cited by 15
Olaniyan, Y. D., Martins, M. O., & Al Maqrashi, R. H. (2026) · Frontiers in Human Dynamics · doi:10.3389/fhumd.2026.1790324 · Cited by 8
Metadata
- Authors
- Broussard, M.
- Venue
- The MIT Press eBooks
- Publisher
- The MIT Press
- Published
- 2018-04-27
- OpenAlex
- W4252306240
- Cited by
- 559
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 34.88
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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.