{"id":5458,"date":"2025-04-16T10:45:51","date_gmt":"2025-04-16T08:45:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/leibniz-hbi.de\/?post_type=hbi-news&p=5458"},"modified":"2025-04-16T14:58:45","modified_gmt":"2025-04-16T12:58:45","slug":"special-issue-ijpp-global-myth-and-magic-around-ai","status":"publish","type":"hbi-news","link":"https:\/\/leibniz-hbi.de\/en\/hbi-news\/news\/special-issue-ijpp-global-myth-and-magic-around-ai\/","title":{"rendered":"Special Issue of IJPP “Global Myth and Magic around AI”"},"content":{"rendered":"

For a special issue of the International Journal of Press\/Politics on \u201cGlobal Myth and Magic around AI: Enchanted Determinism and Folk Theories in Public Discourses on AI\u201d, the guest editors Michael Reiss<\/a> and Judith M\u00f6ller<\/a> (both HBI), Tom\u00e1s Dodds (University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA) and Aleksandra Urman (University of Zurich, Switzerland) welcome submissions until 15 June 2025<\/b>.<\/p>\n

In many countries, public debates suggest that the rapid spread of generative AI is inevitable, portraying its application and implementation as essential for individuals, businesses, and even economies and societies as a whole. Such narratives, promoted by politicians, observers, and tech companies use a strategy described as enchanted determinism (Campolo & Crawford 2020) to present AI as an unstoppable force beyond human comprehension and control, without genuinely addressing its complexities. These actors deflect scrutiny from the technology\u2019s biases, limitations, and ethical concerns by exaggerating AI\u2019s capabilities. Consequently, this techno-optimism might shift the focus from critical evaluation to accepting AI\u2019s supposed benefits, potentially sidestepping accountability and framing AI as a magical panacea for all kinds of social and political challenges\u2014such as Milei\u2019s proposal to use AI for crime prediction in Argentina, plans by the new U.S. government to let AI find budget savings or attempts in several countries to rely on AI to combat misinformation.<\/p>\n

At the same time, enchanted determinism finds fertile ground in existing folk theories that view AI as objective, autonomous, and mythically powerful, reinforcing the misconception that these systems operate without human bias or error and are universally applicable. Together, enchanted determinism and folk theories limit transparent discussions by reducing the public\u2019s ability to question or challenge these technologies. Fueling these folk theories by portraying AI as an autonomous force rather than a product of human choices narrows the scope of debate, limiting civic engagement, tech companies\u2019 accountability, and regulatory oversight.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, the dominance of U.S. and Chinese tech companies in the realm of AI, including hardware, software, and infrastructure, has been described as algorithmic colonialism (Birhane, 2023) and technocoloniality (Mboa Nkoudou, 2023). This domination is also reflected in a cycle of epistemological and consequential inequalities that disadvantage local and non-Western countries and societies. First, these tech giants control the development and operation of key AI systems, limiting others’ access to agency and knowledge. Second, they often ignore local needs and contexts. These factors create an opaque environment where narratives of enchanted determinism and techno-utopianism easily take hold, imposing a U.S.\/China-centric worldview and further reducing local agency and the opportunity for constructive and open societal debate.<\/p>\n

As AI continues to integrate more deeply into various societal contexts globally, it becomes increasingly important to foster a transparent and inclusive societal conversation about its development and use. The imperative for such discourse is growing as AI technologies must adhere to societal values, ethical principles and the public interest\u2013particularly in non-Western contexts such as in Africa (Adams et al., 2023). This special issue seeks to advance our understanding of contemporary AI-related debates by critically examining the discursive strategies and power dynamics that shape public discourse around AI. We invite contributions that engage with these themes through empirical or theoretical approaches, including but not limited to:<\/p>\n