Public Computing Intellectuals in the Age of AI Crisis

Overview

• The paper discusses the growing concerns about the potential negative social and political impacts of AI technology, even from within the tech sector itself.
• It argues that this presents an opportunity for the academic field of computing to engage in self-examination and reconfiguration.
• The paper outlines four key sections: 1) the nature of the AI crisis for computing, 2) possible critical responses and a focus on power relations, 3) a new characterization of computing's epistemological field, and 4) the concept of the "Public Computer Intellectual" as a way to imagine expanded academic practice.

Plain English Explanation

There is growing worry that AI technology could cause significant social problems. Even people in the tech industry are voicing these concerns. While some of this may be exaggerated, the paper argues there are real issues that need to be addressed.

This presents an opportunity for the academic field of computing to take a hard look at itself and figure out how to respond. The paper explores four key points:

1. What exactly is the "AI crisis" that computing as a discipline is facing?
2. How can computing take a more critical approach that focuses on power dynamics?
3. Computing's knowledge and research should include not just practical, technical knowledge but also self-reflection and consideration of the public impact.
4. The paper introduces the idea of the "Public Computer Intellectual" - academics in computing who both critique the field and work to benefit the broader public.

The goal is for computing to evolve in a way that allows it to thoughtfully address the social ramifications of the technology it creates.

Technical Explanation

The paper argues that the growing public and industry concerns about the negative social impacts of AI present an opportunity for the academic field of computing to critically examine itself.

It proposes four key elements:

1. The AI Crisis for Computing: The paper expands on how current developments in machine learning and data science are leading to troubling social, political, and personal implications that the computing discipline must grapple with.

2. Critical Responses and Power Relations: The paper advocates for computing to take a more critical, power-focused analytical approach, going beyond just the instrumental goals of the field.

3. Expanding Computing's Epistemological Field: The paper suggests computing should incorporate not just practical technical knowledge, but also reflexive knowledge that integrates critical and public-facing functions as equal intellectual partners.

4. The Public Computer Intellectual: The paper introduces this conceptual archetype as a way for computing academics to both self-critique the field and orient their work towards serving the public good.

The overall goal is for the computing discipline to evolve its knowledge, practices, and public engagement to responsibly address the social ramifications of the technologies it develops.

Critical Analysis

The paper raises important points about the need for computing as an academic field to grapple with the societal impacts of the technologies it creates. The call for more critical analysis of power dynamics and a broader epistemological scope that includes public-facing and reflective knowledge is well-founded.

However, the paper could benefit from more specific details on what this "reconfiguration" of computing might look like in practice. While the "Public Computer Intellectual" is an interesting concept, the paper does not provide a clear roadmap for how this role could be cultivated and integrated into standard academic computing practices.

Additionally, the paper does not address potential challenges or resistance that may arise from within the field itself. Academics deeply invested in the instrumental, technical goals of computing may be reluctant to embrace a more critical, public-oriented approach.

Further research and discussion are needed to work out the practical implications and implementation challenges of the changes proposed in this paper. But overall, it makes a compelling case for the computing discipline to evolve in response to the broader social ramifications of the technologies it develops.

Conclusion

This paper argues that the growing public and industry concerns about the potential negative social impacts of AI present a valuable opportunity for the academic field of computing to critically examine itself. It proposes that computing should take a more power-focused, reflexive approach that integrates public-facing knowledge and roles, such as the conceptual "Public Computer Intellectual."

The goal is for computing to evolve its practices and knowledge in a way that allows the discipline to responsibly address the societal implications of the technologies it creates. While the specifics of implementation require further exploration, the paper makes a compelling case for computing to broaden its scope and reckon with its social responsibilities.