Talking AI into Being: The Narratives and Imaginaries of National AI Strategies and Their Performative Politics

Abstract

How to integrate artificial intelligence (AI) technologies in the functioning and structures of our society has become a concern of contemporary politics and public debates. In this paper, we investigate national AI strategies as a peculiar form of co-shaping this development, a hybrid of policy and discourse that offers imaginaries, allocates resources, and sets rules. Conceptually, the paper is informed by sociotechnical imaginaries, the sociology of expectations, myths, and the sublime. Empirically we analyze AI policy documents of four key players in the field, namely China, the United States, France, and Germany. The results show that the narrative construction of AI strategies is strikingly similar: they all establish AI as an inevitable and massively disrupting technological development by building on rhetorical devices such as a grand legacy and international competition. Having established this inevitable, yet uncertain, AI future, national leaders proclaim leadership intervention and articulate opportunities and distinct national pathways. While this narrative construction is quite uniform, the respective AI imaginaries are remarkably different, reflecting the vast cultural, political, and economic differences of the countries under study. As governments endow these imaginary pathways with massive resources and investments, they contribute to coproducing the installment of these futures and, thus, yield a performative lock-in function.

Public AI imaginaries: How the debate on artificial intelligence was covered in Danish newspapers and magazines 1956–2021

“…Following the launch of several political AI strategies at national (Dutton, 2018) and transnational levels (European Commission, 2018), an emerging body of academic literature is focusing on the intersection of AI imaginaries, discourses, and framings. Some of this literature deals with AI strategies in national settings, such as Australia (James & Whelan, 2021), Germany (Köstler & Ossewaarde, 2022), the UK (Brennen et al, 2020), and China (Zeng, 2021), whereas other studies take a global or transnational approach (e.g., Bareis & Katzenbach, 2021;de Sousa et al, 2019;Jobin et al, 2019;Natale & Ballatore, 2020;Paltieli, 2021;Radu, 2021;Roberge et al, 2020;Sinanan & McNamara, 2021). For instance, Bareis and Katzenbach (2021) conducted an empirical study of how AI imaginaries are being presented in the national AI strategies of China, the US, France, and Germany.…”

“…Some of this literature deals with AI strategies in national settings, such as Australia (James & Whelan, 2021), Germany (Köstler & Ossewaarde, 2022), the UK (Brennen et al, 2020), and China (Zeng, 2021), whereas other studies take a global or transnational approach (e.g., Bareis & Katzenbach, 2021;de Sousa et al, 2019;Jobin et al, 2019;Natale & Ballatore, 2020;Paltieli, 2021;Radu, 2021;Roberge et al, 2020;Sinanan & McNamara, 2021). For instance, Bareis and Katzenbach (2021) conducted an empirical study of how AI imaginaries are being presented in the national AI strategies of China, the US, France, and Germany. Their analysis reveals remarkable differences in the construction of AI imaginaries, although they identify a common rhetorical trait running through the strategies of framing the imagined AI future as an uncertain but inevitable path (Bareis & Katzenbach, 2021).…”

“…For instance, Bareis and Katzenbach (2021) conducted an empirical study of how AI imaginaries are being presented in the national AI strategies of China, the US, France, and Germany. Their analysis reveals remarkable differences in the construction of AI imaginaries, although they identify a common rhetorical trait running through the strategies of framing the imagined AI future as an uncertain but inevitable path (Bareis & Katzenbach, 2021). These findings correspond with the ambiguity identified by Roberge and colleagues (2020) in their study on public AI discourse in three cases of public debates on AI imaginaries.…”

“AI will fix this” – The Technical, Discursive, and Political Turn to AI in Governing Communication

“…The findings show that a range of actors construct the expectation that AI brings about massive economic opportunities but also ethical concerns. In many ways, expectations take a performative function here with actors "talking AI into being" (Bareis and Katzenbach, 2021) but saying little about the challenges of applying these technologies in particular social contexts. In consequence, the authors call for a less technology-oriented and much more situated and practice-based approach to the integration of AI into society, including more domain appropriate AI tools, updated professional practices, dignified places of work and robust regulatory and accountability frameworks.…”

Synthetic Governance: On the Impossibility of Taming Artificial Intelligence in Education

“…Attempts at taming AI Increasingly there are global efforts made to ensure AI is more trustworthy and explainable (Bareis & Katzenbach, 2021). These efforts are part what Zuboff describes as a strategy of 'taming' the digital platforms that constitute 'surveillance capitalism' (Zuboff, 2019).…”