Generative AI and Society

Field Theory: AI as Social Science Question, Object & Tool

Uses of advanced artificial intelligence are changing how societies organize labor, govern, produce knowledge, and make meaning. In light of these developments, this essay argues that AI models, tools, and systems pose three interrelated imperatives for social science: they demand renewed attention to social theories of how technology, human experience, and social order are entangled; they require study as objects of inquiry in their own right; and they offer capabilities that may transform—or upend—the practice of social investigation itself. From Weber’s analysis of rationalization to Du Bois’s study of technology and inequality to contemporary scholarship on algorithmic governance, the essay examines what social science distinctively offers: the capacity to historicize the apparently unprecedented, to trace connections across scales, and to center those most affected by technological change. It identifies how algorithmic systems are remaking the distribution of opportunity and risk as a central task of social inquiry and asks what futures social science might help bring into being.

Social Physics in the Age of Generative AI: How, Exactly, Is Society Complex?

The aspiration for a social physics — a science that would reveal universal laws of social life analogous to those governing the natural world—has haunted the social sciences since Comte. Each new wave of quantitative and computational methods breathes fresh life into this vision. The current moment is no exception: advances in artificial intelligence and large language models have reinvigorated attempts to model society through the methods of social physics. This essay argues that these ambitions rest on a confusion about the nature of social complexity. Drawing a distinction between systems complexity and anthropological complexity, we identify the limitations of analyzing society as a complex system akin to natural systems. One crucial obstacle for social physics is the analysis of meaning and interpretation. Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) offers important opportunities to model language and reflexivity, inviting and perhaps compelling social physics to confront meaning and interpretation as constitutive features of the social world. At the same time, GenAI leaves untouched and may even aggravate social physics’ failure to grasp power, institutions, and inequality.

The social consequences of AI delegation

A substantial body of recent work has debated whether large language models (LLMs) can serve as substitutes for human participants in behavioural research. This debate, however, captures only one direction of a rapidly changing relationship. The more consequential question is not simply whether researchers should use LLMs as human surrogates, but whether - and under what conditions - humans are beginning to use LLMs as surrogates for their own deliberation. Across domains including health, law, finance, education, and personal guidance, increasing numbers of people consult generative AI systems before, alongside, or instead of human experts, peers, or independent judgment. Although evidence for actual delegation remains uneven, this uncertainty makes the phenomenon an urgent social-scientific object of study. We argue for a research programme that treats LLMs as consequential social actors in a functional sense: systems whose outputs shape human decisions, social norms, and collective dynamics.

Society-in-the-loop: programming the algorithmic social contract

Recent rapid advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning have raised many questions about the regulatory and governance mechanisms for autonomous machines. Many commentators, scholars, and policy-makers now call for ensuring that algorithms governing our lives are transparent, fair, and accountable. Here, I propose a conceptual framework for the regulation of AI and algorithmic systems. I argue that we need tools to program, debug and maintain an algorithmic social contract, a pact between various human stakeholders, mediated by machines. To achieve this, we can adapt the concept of human-in-the-loop (HITL) from the fields of modeling and simulation, and interactive machine learning. In particular, I propose an agenda I call society-in-the-loop (SITL), which combines the HITL control paradigm with mechanisms for negotiating the values of various stakeholders affected by AI systems, and monitoring compliance with the agreement. In short, ‘SITL = HITL + Social Contract.’

Where does the rigor go? Research software and the future of trustworthy science.

Generative AI now makes it dramatically easier to produce something that looks like research: analysis code, figures, literature reviews, even whole pap…

AI is turning research into a scientific monoculture

Generative AI deserves scientific attention. But the rush to study it is producing a feedback loop of topical and methodological convergence, flattening scientific imagination and crowding out the pluralism needed to keep research adaptive, resilient, and intellectually generative.

From the Platform Society to the AI Society: Towards Critical Studies of Generative AI

The era of AI has begun. Generative AI is rapidly reshaping knowledge production, culture, and political authority, giving rise to an emerging AI society. Yet this transformation did not emerge ex nihilo. This paper argues that the AI society can only be understood in relation to the platform society from which it arises. Tracing the transition from platforms to AI, we identify interlinked economic, epistemic, and political shifts. Economically, AI emerges within platform-based rentier capitalism but reconfigures the monopoly mechanisms on which its accumulation depends. Epistemically, LLMs mark a shift from predictive to generative epistemics, entangling theory formation and knowledge production with private research-as-a-service infrastructures. Politically, governance shifts from data politics to alignment politics: from shaping visibility to shaping what can be said, thought, and imagined. Together, these transformations signal a qualitative shift in mediation—from governing interaction to governing cognition itself—and call for a Critical AI Studies.

Generative AI for Pro-Democracy Platforms · From Novel Chemicals to Opera

Online discourse faces challenges in facilitating substantive and productive political conversations. Recent technologies have explored the potential of generative AI to promote civil discourse, encourage the development of mutual understanding in a discussion, produce . . .

The Impossibility of Automating Ambiguity

Abstract. On the one hand, complexity science and enactive and embodied cognitive science approaches emphasize that people, as complex adaptive systems, are ambiguous, indeterminable, and inherently unpredictable. On the other, Machine Learning (ML) systems that claim to predict human behaviour are becoming ubiquitous in all spheres of social life. I contend that ubiquitous Artificial Intelligence (AI) and ML systems are close descendants of the Cartesian and Newtonian worldview in so far as they are tools that fundamentally sort, categorize, and classify the world, and forecast the future. Through the practice of clustering, sorting, and predicting human behaviour and action, these systems impose order, equilibrium, and stability to the active, fluid, messy, and unpredictable nature of human behaviour and the social world at large. Grounded in complexity science and enactive and embodied cognitive science approaches, this article emphasizes why people, embedded in social systems, are indeterminable and unpredictable. When ML systems “pick up” patterns and clusters, this often amounts to identifying historically and socially held norms, conventions, and stereotypes. Machine prediction of social behaviour, I argue, is not only erroneous but also presents real harm to those at the margins of society.

Sociotechnical Implications of Generative Artificial Intelligence for Information Access

Robust access to trustworthy information is a critical need for society with implications for knowledge production, public health education, and promoting informed citizenry in democratic societies. Generative AI technologies may enable new ways to access information and improve effectiveness of existing information retrieval systems but we are only starting to understand and grapple with their long-term social implications. In this chapter, we present an overview of some of the systemic consequences and risks of employing generative AI in the context of information access. We also provide recommendations for evaluation and mitigation, and discuss challenges for future research.

How public involvement can improve the science of AI

As AI systems from decision-making algorithms to generative AI are deployed more widely, computer scientists and social scientists alike are being called on to provide trustworthy quantitative evaluations of AI safety and reliability. These calls have included demands from affected parties to be given a seat at the table of AI evaluation. What, if anything, can public involvement add to the science of AI? In this perspective, we summarize the sociotechnical challenge of evaluating AI systems, which often adapt to multiple layers of social context that shape their outcomes. We then offer guidance for improving the science of AI by engaging lived-experience experts in the design, data collection, and interpretation of scientific evaluations. This article reviews common models of public engagement in AI research alongside common concerns about participatory methods, including questions about generalizable knowledge, subjectivity, reliability, and practical logistics. To address these questions, we summarize the literature on participatory science, discuss case studies from AI in healthcare, and share our own experience evaluating AI in areas from policing systems to social media algorithms. Overall, we describe five parts of any quantitative evaluation where public participation can improve the science of AI: equipoise, explanation, measurement, inference, and interpretation. We conclude with reflections on the role that participatory science can play in trustworthy AI by supporting trustworthy science.

AI Behavioral Science

We outline a foundation for a new field of ``AI Behavioral Science,'' covering three perspectives. First, as AI becomes ubiquitous and is increasingly proprietary and opaque, it becomes vital to develop techniques for assessing AI behavior. We outline how tools developed to assess people's behaviors by social scientists can be used to assess and infer AI's behaviors biases, tendencies, and heuristics. Second, we also discuss how AI can change the ways in which we learn about human behavior. Beyond its computational power, AI offers new techniques for simulating, inferring, and predicting human behaviors that we outline and discuss. Third, as humans and AI are interacting in increasingly complex and intertwined systems, we need to understand the implications for the resulting economic and political outcomes. We outline issues that are increasingly pressing concerning the future of human-AI interactions and potential changes and disruptions that can ensue.

Generative AI | The Paper Pilot

The Paper Pilot's digital garden of thoughts on philosophy, politics, and sociology

New Studies: How Commercial Forces Make Science Less Reliable

Computational social science has been distorted by commercial forces, and AI is making it worse.

AI as the Catalyst of the New Paradigm of Science? | Cadmus Journal

The rapid advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is reshaping the landscape of scientific inquiry. This article examines the challenges confronting modern science, including knowledge fragmentation, diminishing returns of current paradigms, and the disconnect between science and society. It explores how AI offers solutions enhancing collaboration and integrating knowledge—as well as considers the possible “darker side” of using AI in research. However, the advent of AI in science not only enhances scientific research but also redefines the role of human researchers and fosters a new paradigm of human understanding. By embracing these transformations, a more cohesive and responsive scientific enterprise can emerge.