Trained Judgements Artificial Intelligence, Epistemic Tensions and the Production of Scientific Objectivity

IF 3.1 2区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL ISSUES
Giulia Anichini, Baptiste Kotras
{"title":"Trained Judgements Artificial Intelligence, Epistemic Tensions and the Production of Scientific Objectivity","authors":"Giulia Anichini, Baptiste Kotras","doi":"10.1177/01622439241262854","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, we investigate uses of AI (Artificial intelligence) in two distinct fields: radiology and prehistoric archaeology. We examine the normative tensions between the scripts encapsulated within the technology and pre-existing professional and epistemic cultures, as well as the situations in which mechanical objectivity fits with local norms. Through ethnographic observation and interviews in French field sites, we show how in radiology a specific definition of “normal” bodies, embedded within detection tools, conflicts with medical practice, and the way in which non-consensual knowledge in archaeology can challenge the prediction of soil occupation in a prehistoric site. We also highlight the conditions under which AI tools can adhere to certain epistemic norms and become part of professional practices in radiology and prehistoric archaeology. While in radiology AI is judged by its ability to close uncertainties without imposing binary categories, in prehistoric archaeology, its epistemic validity depends on mobilizing exogenous scientific data to increase researchers’ reflexivity about their practices and knowledge, suggesting new clues and explanatory paths. This article demonstrates the effectiveness of AI technologies is shaped by local constraints, and why their objectivity is not a given property but an emergent feature arising from specific contexts of use.","PeriodicalId":48083,"journal":{"name":"Science Technology & Human Values","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science Technology & Human Values","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01622439241262854","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL ISSUES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this paper, we investigate uses of AI (Artificial intelligence) in two distinct fields: radiology and prehistoric archaeology. We examine the normative tensions between the scripts encapsulated within the technology and pre-existing professional and epistemic cultures, as well as the situations in which mechanical objectivity fits with local norms. Through ethnographic observation and interviews in French field sites, we show how in radiology a specific definition of “normal” bodies, embedded within detection tools, conflicts with medical practice, and the way in which non-consensual knowledge in archaeology can challenge the prediction of soil occupation in a prehistoric site. We also highlight the conditions under which AI tools can adhere to certain epistemic norms and become part of professional practices in radiology and prehistoric archaeology. While in radiology AI is judged by its ability to close uncertainties without imposing binary categories, in prehistoric archaeology, its epistemic validity depends on mobilizing exogenous scientific data to increase researchers’ reflexivity about their practices and knowledge, suggesting new clues and explanatory paths. This article demonstrates the effectiveness of AI technologies is shaped by local constraints, and why their objectivity is not a given property but an emergent feature arising from specific contexts of use.
训练有素的判断力 人工智能、认识论张力与科学客观性的产生
在本文中,我们研究了 AI(人工智能)在放射学和史前考古学这两个不同领域中的应用。我们研究了技术中包含的脚本与原有的专业文化和认识论文化之间的规范性紧张关系,以及机械客观性与当地规范相适应的情况。通过在法国实地进行人种学观察和访谈,我们展示了在放射学中,检测工具对 "正常 "人体的特定定义是如何与医疗实践相冲突的,以及在考古学中,未经同意的知识是如何对史前遗址的土壤占用预测提出挑战的。我们还强调了人工智能工具能够遵守某些认识论规范并成为放射学和史前考古学专业实践一部分的条件。在放射学中,人工智能的评判标准是其在不强加二元分类的情况下消除不确定性的能力,而在史前考古学中,其认识论有效性则取决于调动外源科学数据来提高研究人员对其实践和知识的反思能力,提出新的线索和解释路径。这篇文章说明了人工智能技术的有效性是由当地的限制因素决定的,也说明了为什么人工智能技术的客观性不是一种既定属性,而是在特定使用环境下产生的新兴特征。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
6.50%
发文量
49
期刊介绍: As scientific advances improve our lives, they also complicate how we live and react to the new technologies. More and more, human values come into conflict with scientific advancement as we deal with important issues such as nuclear power, environmental degradation and information technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values is a peer-reviewed, international, interdisciplinary journal containing research, analyses and commentary on the development and dynamics of science and technology, including their relationship to politics, society and culture.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信