Voice-Activated Artificial Intelligence (VAI) is increasingly ubiquitous, whether appearing as context-specific conversational assistants or more personalised and generalised personal assistants such as Alexa or Siri. CSCW and other fields have regularly studied the (positive and negative) social consequences of VAI design and deployment. One particular focus has been questions of gender, and the implications that the (often-feminine) gendering of VAIs has for societal norms and user experiences. Studies into this have largely elided transgender (trans) existences; the few exceptions to this operate largely from an external and predetermined idea of trans and/or non-binary user needs, centered on representation. In this study, we undertook a series of qualitative interviews with trans and/or non-binary users of VAIs to explore their experiences and needs. Our results show that these needs are far more than simply improvements to representation, and that users raise substantial concerns around the underlying framing of gender by even well-intentioned developers, the privacy and safety implications of ubiquitous VAI, and the motivations of the vast for-profit companies that deploy much of this technology. We provide both immediate recommendations for designers and researchers seeking to create trans-inclusive VAIs, and wider, critical proposals for how we as researchers go about assessing technological systems and appropriate points of intervention. @en

In October 2016, the White House, the European Parliament, and the UK House of Commons each issued a report outlining their visions on how to prepare society for the widespread use of artificial intelligence (AI). In this article, we provide a comparative assessment of these three reports in order to facilitate the design of policies favourable to the development of a ‘good AI society’. To do so, we examine how each report addresses the following three topics: (a) the development of a ‘good AI society’; (b) the role and responsibility of the government, the private sector, and the research community (including academia) in pursuing such a development; and (c) where the recommendations to support such a development may be in need of improvement. Our analysis concludes that the reports address adequately various ethical, social, and economic topics, but come short of providing an overarching political vision and long-term strategy for the development of a ‘good AI society’. In order to contribute to fill this gap, in the conclusion we suggest a two-pronged approach.@en

This paper is the introduction to the special issue entitled: 'Governing artificial intelligence: ethical, legal and technical opportunities and challenges. Artificial intelligence (AI) increasingly permeates every aspect of our society, from the critical, like urban infrastructure, law enforcement, banking, healthcare and humanitarian aid, to the mundane like dating. AI, including embodied AI in robotics and techniques like machine learning, can improve economic, social welfare and the exercise of human rights. Owing to the proliferation of AI in high-risk areas, the pressure is mounting to design and govern AI to be accountable, fair and transparent. How can this be achieved and through which frameworks? This is one of the central questions addressed in this special issue, in which eight authors present in-depth analyses of the ethical, legal-regulatory and technical challenges posed by developing governance regimes for AI systems. It also gives a brief overview of recent developments in AI governance, how much of the agenda for defining AI regulation, ethical frameworks and technical approaches is set, as well as providing some concrete suggestions to further the debate on AI governance. This article is part of the theme issue 'Governing artificial intelligence: ethical, legal, and technical opportunities and challenges'.@en

Ongoing political, environmental, and economic crises require infrastructures that can respond to crises in ways that do not replicate and reinforce inequality. To this end, we use a case study method of analysis that compares the authors’ previous work on Internet infrastructure at the levels of development, governance, and use to explore how these imaginaries promote or impede people-centered change in the development and maintenance of Internet infrastructure. This theoretical work puts the three existing cases in conversation to better understand how Internet infrastructure alternatives presented as radical, new, or non-hierarchical present shortcomings and opportunities, so that it might be more possible to imagine better, more truly radical, people-centered alternatives. From this comparison, we close our discussion with three heuristics for radical infrastructure: the need for pushing for alternative ensembles of support, busting the myth of technosolutionism, re-politicizing Internet infrastructure, and encouraging technical communities to build around cooperativity, not connectivity.@en

This article is an ethnographic analysis of recent efforts in the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) to consider human rights values in the development of Internet networking standards and protocols. By deploying qualitative methods—65 semi-structured interviews and two years of ethnography—I provide a detailed anthropological picture of how IETF participants understand technology, and what consequences their perspectives have for human rights advocacy. Internet governance scholars have recently debated the “turn to the infrastructure” and the role of human rights advocacy in the IETF. Bringing these insights together, I argue that the IETF's shared view about the non-prescriptive nature of technology encourages participants to resist the inclusion of human rights values through standardization. I identify this non-prescriptive view of technology as a barrier to addressing human rights through direct civil society engagement in standardization organizations. This view explains why standards rarely reflect human rights concerns as a contextually embedded and social issue more than a technological or communicative problem. My findings inform ongoing academic and policy debates about the role of human rights advocates in the IETF and provide an epistemic grounding for the recent “turn to the infrastructure” in Internet governance research.@en

The debate on whether and how the Internet can protect and foster human rights has become a defining issue of our time. This debate often focuses on Internet governance from a regulatory perspective, underestimating the influence and power of the governance of the Internet’s architecture. The technical decisions made by Internet Standard Developing Organisations (SDOs) that build and maintain the technical infrastructure of the Internet influences how information flows. They rearrange the shape of the technically mediated public sphere, including which rights it protects and which practices it enables. In this article, we contribute to the debate on SDOs’ ethical responsibility to bring their work in line with human rights. We defend three theses. First, SDOs’ work is inherently political. Second, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), one of the most influential SDOs, has a moral obligation to ensure its work is coherent with, and fosters, human rights. Third, the IETF should enable the actualisation of human rights through the protocols and standards it designs by implementing a responsibility-by-design approach to engineering. We conclude by presenting some initial recommendations on how to ensure that work carried out by the IETF may enable human rights.@en

In this commentary, we respond to the editorial letter by Professor Luciano Floridi entitled “AI as a public service: Learning from Amsterdam and Helsinki.” Here, Floridi considers the positive impact of municipal AI registers, which collect a limited number of algorithmic systems used by the city of Amsterdam and Helsinki. We question a number of assumptions about AI registers as a governance model for automated systems. We start with recent attempts to normalize AI by decontextualizing and depoliticizing it, which is a fraught political project that encourages what we call ‘ethics theater’ given the proven dangers of using these systems in the context of the digital welfare state. We agree with Floridi that much can be learned from these registers about the role of AI systems in municipal city management. The lessons we draw, on the basis of our extensive ethnographic engagement with digital wellfare states, are distinctly less optimistic.@en

In ‘Your Thoughts for a Penny? Capital, Complicity and AI Ethics,’ Corinne Cath and Os Keyes describe the industry sponsorship of PhD scholarships and collaborative projects as a cunning investment. They provide vignettes from their experiences as PhD students across the U.S. and the U.K., providing illuminating detail on how people on the ground navigate and negotiate the tensions and discomfort that can arise when one’s wage is tied to one’s enemy. ‘Critique does not avoid complicity,’ they write, and as their examples demonstrate, in many cases it operates as a mode of recuperation. They end with a call for feminist refusal, a position that helps situate researchers in relations of power by acknowledging that no engagement—however critical—is outside of it.@en