pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.16106 · v2 · submitted 2026-04-17 · 💻 cs.CY · cs.AI

Reckoning with the Political Economy of AI: Avoiding Decoys in Pursuit of Accountability

Janet Vertesi , danah boyd , Alex Taylor , Benjamin Shestakofsky This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 06:58 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CY cs.AI
keywords AI accountabilitypolitical economy of AIdecoys in critiquepower networksmaterial conditionsAI ethicsworld-buildingSTS approaches
0
0 comments X

The pith

Meaningful accountability in AI requires spotting decoys that sustain industry power and directly addressing the political economy instead.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper contends that AI development forms a world-building project that expands access to resources while locking in networks of power and wealth for its funders and creators. Certain critiques and practices function as decoys that give the appearance of holding AI accountable yet actually help construct industry-favorable futures and mask the underlying extraction. A reader should care because these patterns shape everyday technologies and social conditions in ways that favor exploitation over equity or justice. If the claim holds, reform efforts focused on technical fixes or ethics guidelines alone will fall short without confronting material political realities.

Core claim

The Project of AI is a world-building endeavor wherein those who fund and develop AI systems both operate through and seek to sustain networks of power and wealth. As they expand their access to resources and configure our sociotechnical conditions, they benefit from the ways in which a suite of decoys animate scholars, critics, policymakers, journalists, and the public into co-constructing industry-empowering AI futures. Regardless of who constructs or nurtures them, these decoys often create the illusion of accountability while both masking the emerging political economies that the Project of AI has set into motion, and also contributing to the network-making power that is at the heart of

What carries the argument

Decoys that appear to critique AI systems but co-constitute its emergent power relations and material political economy by distracting attention from extraction and exploitation.

If this is right

  • Continued reliance on decoys will keep scholars and policymakers co-constructing futures that expand industry control over resources.
  • Direct attention to the material political economy will make visible the networks that render AI systems possible.
  • New visions for a just technologically entangled world become feasible only after decoys are set aside.
  • Accountability efforts that ignore political economy will reinforce the very conditions they aim to change.
  • The illusion of progress from decoys will persist in masking exploitation unless replaced by structural analysis.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Similar decoy patterns may operate in critiques of other data-intensive technologies such as surveillance platforms.
  • Reform strategies in AI could shift priority toward questions of labor, data ownership, and compute distribution.
  • This view connects AI accountability work to longstanding analyses of technological capitalism and resource extraction.
  • Empirical tests could examine whether decoy-focused policies alter actual power distributions in AI firms or supply chains.

Load-bearing premise

The identified decoys actively co-constitute and sustain the networks of power and extraction at the heart of AI development rather than functioning as imperfect or contested steps toward reform.

What would settle it

A concrete case where sustained focus on the listed decoys produces measurable reductions in AI-related extraction and power imbalances without any changes to underlying political economy structures.

read the original abstract

The Project of AI is a world-building endeavor, wherein those who fund and develop AI systems both operate through and seek to sustain networks of power and wealth. As they expand their access to resources and configure our sociotechnical conditions, they benefit from the ways in which a suite of decoys animate scholars, critics, policymakers, journalists, and the public into co-constructing industry-empowering AI futures. Regardless of who constructs or nurtures them, these decoys often create the illusion of accountability while both masking the emerging political economies that the Project of AI has set into motion, and also contributing to the network-making power that is at the heart of the Project's extraction and exploitation. Drawing on literature at the intersection of communication, science and technology studies, and economic sociology, we examine how the Project of AI is constructed. We then explore five decoys that seemingly critique - but in actuality co-constitute - AI's emergent power relations and material political economy. We argue that advancing meaningful fairness or accountability in AI requires: 1) recognizing when and how decoys serve as a distraction, and 2) grappling directly with the material political economy of the Project of AI. Doing so will enable us to attend to the networks of power that make 'AI' possible, spurring new visions for how to realize a more just technologically entangled world.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that the 'Project of AI' is a world-building endeavor sustained by networks of power and wealth extraction. It identifies five 'decoys' in accountability discourse—drawn from communication studies, STS, and economic sociology—that create an illusion of progress while masking these networks and actively contributing to their reproduction. The authors argue that meaningful fairness requires recognizing these decoys as distractions and directly addressing the material political economy of AI rather than engaging the decoys.

Significance. If the interpretive framework holds, the paper could reorient AI accountability research away from technical or procedural fixes toward structural analysis of power and extraction. The interdisciplinary synthesis highlights how certain reform efforts may sustain rather than challenge dominant networks, offering a lens for evaluating governance proposals.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and introduction] Abstract and opening sections: The central claim that the five decoys 'co-constitute' AI's power relations and 'contribute to the network-making power' is asserted via synthesis but lacks specified mechanisms, historical traces, or rebuttals to the alternative that these are sites of contestation and incremental reform. This is load-bearing for the prescription to 'recognize decoys' and 'grapple directly with the material political economy.'
  2. [Decoys analysis] Section exploring the five decoys: No concrete case studies, empirical mappings, or detailed literature-to-mechanism linkages are supplied to demonstrate active sustenance of extraction networks for each decoy. The interpretive premises appear introduced by the authors rather than benchmarked against independent evidence.
  3. [Project of AI construction] Definition of 'Project of AI': Framing AI development as a singular, unified 'world-building endeavor' that 'operates through and seeks to sustain networks of power' requires explicit justification against views of AI as heterogeneous and contested; without this, the decoy analysis risks circularity.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract introduces 'decoys' and 'Project of AI' without a concise upfront definition; adding a one-sentence gloss for each term would improve accessibility for readers outside STS.
  2. [Literature review] Citation density in the synthesis sections could be strengthened by distinguishing which specific works support the co-constitution claim versus background context.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful and constructive engagement with our manuscript. Their comments highlight important areas for strengthening the justification of our framework and the linkages between literature and argument. We address each major comment below, indicating where revisions will be made to clarify our claims without shifting the paper's theoretical and synthetic orientation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and introduction] Abstract and opening sections: The central claim that the five decoys 'co-constitute' AI's power relations and 'contribute to the network-making power' is asserted via synthesis but lacks specified mechanisms, historical traces, or rebuttals to the alternative that these are sites of contestation and incremental reform. This is load-bearing for the prescription to 'recognize decoys' and 'grapple directly with the material political economy.'

    Authors: We acknowledge that the mechanisms of co-constitution are primarily derived from the interdisciplinary synthesis rather than laid out as a standalone causal model. To address this, we will revise the introduction to include a concise subsection outlining the general mechanisms (e.g., how accountability discourses confer legitimacy and channel resources toward industry-preferred solutions) with brief historical traces from analogous cases in corporate social responsibility and environmental governance. We will also add a short rebuttal paragraph engaging the incremental reform view, drawing on political economy scholarship that documents how such reforms can reproduce rather than disrupt extractive networks. These additions will make the load-bearing claim more explicit while retaining the paper's argumentative style. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Decoys analysis] Section exploring the five decoys: No concrete case studies, empirical mappings, or detailed literature-to-mechanism linkages are supplied to demonstrate active sustenance of extraction networks for each decoy. The interpretive premises appear introduced by the authors rather than benchmarked against independent evidence.

    Authors: The decoy analysis synthesizes established findings from communication studies, STS, and economic sociology, where the mechanisms of power reproduction are already documented. We agree that tighter linkages to AI contexts would strengthen the presentation. In revision, we will add one short illustrative paragraph per decoy that maps the cited literature premises onto recent AI developments (for example, linking the 'transparency' decoy to corporate adoption of model cards that do not address underlying data extraction). These will remain illustrative rather than full empirical case studies, consistent with the paper's scope as a conceptual intervention rather than an empirical mapping exercise. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Project of AI construction] Definition of 'Project of AI': Framing AI development as a singular, unified 'world-building endeavor' that 'operates through and seeks to sustain networks of power' requires explicit justification against views of AI as heterogeneous and contested; without this, the decoy analysis risks circularity.

    Authors: We agree that the definition requires explicit differentiation from heterogeneous accounts to avoid circularity. In the revised manuscript, we will expand the section introducing the 'Project of AI' to directly engage alternative views. We will clarify that while AI development involves diverse actors, practices, and sites of contestation, the dominant trajectories—characterized by concentrated capital, data extraction, and scalable deployment—are shaped by identifiable networks of power. This distinction will be grounded in observable patterns such as industry concentration and funding flows, allowing the decoy analysis to target the power-sustaining dimensions without denying heterogeneity elsewhere. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in the argumentative structure.

full rationale

The paper advances an interpretive argument by drawing on external literature from communication studies, STS, and economic sociology to frame AI as a world-building project and to identify five decoys. Its central claim—that decoys co-constitute power networks rather than merely distracting from them—is presented as a conceptual synthesis of cited scholarship, not as a derivation that reduces by construction to the paper's own inputs, fitted parameters, or self-referential definitions. No equations, predictions, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes are invoked that loop back on the authors' prior work or the target conclusion. The reasoning chain relies on analysis of existing sources and remains self-contained as a critical essay without load-bearing steps that equate to their own premises.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that AI constitutes a singular 'Project' intentionally configured to sustain power and wealth networks, plus the introduction of 'decoys' as an analytical category whose effects are asserted without independent falsifiable evidence.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption AI development operates as a coordinated world-building Project that both uses and sustains networks of power and wealth
    Stated as the foundational premise in the opening sentences of the abstract.
invented entities (1)
  • Decoys in AI accountability discourse no independent evidence
    purpose: Mechanisms that create the illusion of accountability while masking and reinforcing the political economy of AI
    Introduced as the core analytical tool; no external validation or falsifiable prediction is supplied in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5552 in / 1414 out tokens · 52533 ms · 2026-05-10T06:58:47.521023+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

140 extracted references · 140 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Jeremias Adams-Prassl, Halefom Abraha, Aislinn Kelly-Lyth, Michael ‘Six’ Silberman, and Sangh Rakshita. 2023. Regulating algorithmic management: A blueprint.European Labour Law Journal14, 2 (2023), 124–151. doi:10.1177/20319525231167299

    work page doi:10.1177/20319525231167299 2023

  2. [2]

    Shazeda Ahmed, Klaudia Jaźwińska, Archana Ahlawat, Amy Winecoff, and Mona Wang. 2024. Field-building and the epistemic culture of AI safety.First Monday29, 4 (April 2024). doi:10.5210/fm.v29i4.13626

    work page doi:10.5210/fm.v29i4.13626 2024

  3. [3]

    Sam Altman. 2026. Tonight, we reached an agreement with the Department of War... @sama Twitter post (February 27, 2026). https://x.com/sama/status/2027578652477821175 Accessed: April 12, 2026

    work page arXiv 2026

  4. [4]

    2019.The Charisma Machine: The Life, Death and Legacy of One Laptop Per Child

    Morgan Ames. 2019.The Charisma Machine: The Life, Death and Legacy of One Laptop Per Child. MIT Press, Cambridge MA

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Dario Amodei. 2026. Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War.Anthropic(February 2026). https://www.anthropic.com/news/statement-department-of-war

    work page 2026

  6. [6]

    Translat- ing legalese: Enhancing public understanding of court opinions with legal summarizers

    María P. Angel and danah boyd. 2024. Techno-legal Solutionism: Regulating Children’s Online Safety in the United States. In Proceedings of the 2024 Symposium on Computer Science and Law(Boston, MA, USA)(CSLA W ‘24). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 86–97. doi:10.1145/3614407.3643705

    work page doi:10.1145/3614407.3643705 2024

  7. [7]

    Anthropic. 2023. Core Views on AI Safety: When, Why, What, and How.Announcements(March 2023). https://www.anthropic.com/ news/core-views-on-ai-safety

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Amelia Arsenault and Manuel Castells. 2008. Switching Power: Rupert Murdoch and the Global Business of Media Politics: A Sociological Analysis.International Sociology23, 4 (2008), 488–513. doi:10.1177/0268580908090725

    work page doi:10.1177/0268580908090725 2008

  9. [9]

    Jascha Bareis and Christian Katzenbach. 2022. Talking AI into Being: The Narratives and Imaginaries of National AI Strategies and Their Performative Politics.Science, Technology, & Human Values45, 5 (2022), 855–881. doi:10.1177/01622439211030007

    work page doi:10.1177/01622439211030007 2022

  10. [10]

    Stephen R. Barley. 1986. Technology as an Occasion for Structuring: Evidence from Observations of CT Scanners and the Social Order of Radiology Departments.Administrative Science Quarterly31, 1 (1986), 78. doi:10.2307/2392767

    work page doi:10.2307/2392767 1986

  11. [11]

    Juana Catalina Becerra Sandoval and Felicia S. Jing. 2025. Rethinking AI Safety: Provocations from the History of Community-based Practices of Road and Driver Safety. InProceedings of the 2025 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. ACM, Athens Greece, 964–974. doi:10.1145/3715275.3732062

    work page doi:10.1145/3715275.3732062 2025

  12. [12]

    1992.Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity

    Ulrich Beck. 1992.Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. SAGE Publications Ltd, London, UK

    work page 1992

  13. [13]

    2016.Imagined Futures: Fictional Expectations and Capitalist Dynamics

    Jens Beckert. 2016.Imagined Futures: Fictional Expectations and Capitalist Dynamics. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    work page 2016

  14. [14]

    2018.Uncertain futures: imaginaries, narratives, and calculation in the economy

    Jens Beckert and Richard Bronk (Eds.). 2018.Uncertain futures: imaginaries, narratives, and calculation in the economy. Oxford University Press, New York, NY

    work page 2018

  15. [15]

    Bender, Timnit Gebru, Angelina McMillan-Major, and Shmargaret Shmitchell

    Emily M. Bender, Timnit Gebru, Angelina McMillan-Major, and Shmargaret Shmitchell. 2021. On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big?. InProceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT ’21). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 610–623. doi:10.1145/3442188.3445922

    work page doi:10.1145/3442188.3445922 2021

  16. [16]

    Bender and Alex Hanna

    Emily M. Bender and Alex Hanna. 2025.The AI Con: How to Fight Big Tech’s Hype and Create the Future We Want – Exposing Surveillance Capitalism and Artificial Intelligence Myths in Information Technology Today. Harper, New York, NY

    work page 2025

  17. [17]

    2019.Race After Technology: Abolitionist Tools for the New Jim Code

    Ruha Benjamin. 2019.Race After Technology: Abolitionist Tools for the New Jim Code. Polity, Medford, MA

    work page 2019

  18. [18]

    2023.Executive Order on Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence

    Joseph Biden, Jr. 2023.Executive Order on Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence. Number Executive Order 14110. The Federal Register, Washington DC. https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefing-room/statements- releases/2023/10/30/fact-sheet-president-biden-issues-executive-order-on-safe-secure-and-trustworthy-artifi...

    work page 2023

  19. [19]

    2020.Assetization: Turning Things into Assets in Technoscientific Capitalism

    Kean Birch and Fabian Muniesa (Eds.). 2020.Assetization: Turning Things into Assets in Technoscientific Capitalism. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    work page 2020

  20. [20]

    Borhane Blili-Hamelin, Leif Hancox-Li, and Andrew Smart. 2024. Unsocial Intelligence: An Investigation of the Assumptions of AGI Discourse.Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society7 (October 2024), 141–155. doi:10.1609/aies.v7i1.31625

    work page doi:10.1609/aies.v7i1.31625 2024

  21. [21]

    Jason Bohner and Janet Vertesi. 2026. Towards a Socioeconomics of Hype: Hype Dynamics and Symbolic Boundary Work Within the Speculative AI Bubble.Social Science Computer Review44, 1 (2026), 10–28. doi:10.1177/08944393251361935

    work page doi:10.1177/08944393251361935 2026

  22. [22]

    2017.Superintelligence: paths, dangers, strategies

    Nick Bostrom. 2017.Superintelligence: paths, dangers, strategies. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK

    work page 2017

  23. [23]

    1998.Labor and Monopoly Capital: The degradation of work in the twentieth century

    Harry Braverman. 1998.Labor and Monopoly Capital: The degradation of work in the twentieth century. Monthly Review Press, New York, NY

    work page 1998

  24. [24]

    Kate Brennan, Amba Kak, and Sarah Myers West. 2025. Artificial Power: AI Now 2025 Landscape.AI Now Institute(2025). https: //ainowinstitute.org/2025-landscape

    work page 2025

  25. [25]

    2023.Unmasking AI: My Mission to Protect What Is Human in a World of Machines

    Joy Buolamwini. 2023.Unmasking AI: My Mission to Protect What Is Human in a World of Machines. Random House, New York, NY

    work page 2023

  26. [26]

    Michel Callon. 2007. What Does It Mean to Say That Economics Is Performative? InDo economists make markets? on the performativity of economics, Donald MacKenzie, Fabian Muniesa, and Lucia Siu (Eds.). Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 311–357

    work page 2007

  27. [27]

    Robyn Caplan and danah boyd. 2018. Isomorphism through algorithms: Institutional dependencies in the case of Facebook.Big Data & Society5, 1 (2018), 205395171875725. doi:10.1177/2053951718757253

    work page doi:10.1177/2053951718757253 2018

  28. [28]

    2009.Communication power

    Manuel Castells. 2009.Communication power. Oxford University Press, New York, NY

    work page 2009

  29. [29]

    Manuel Castells. 2011. A Network Theory of Power.International Journal of Communication5 (2011), 15

    work page 2011

  30. [30]

    Brian J. Chen. 2026. The Big AI State: How the Trump Administration Is Shaping US Industrial Policy Toward ‘Global Technological Dominance’.Data & Society(January 2026). https://datasociety.net/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/TheBigAIState.pdf

    work page 2026

  31. [31]

    John Cheney-Lippold. 2025. The silicon future.New Media & Society27, 7 (2025), 4164–4180. doi:10.1177/14614448241234864

    work page doi:10.1177/14614448241234864 2025

  32. [32]

    Christensen

    Clayton M. Christensen. 1997.The innovator’s dilemma: when new technologies cause great firms to fail. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA

    work page 1997

  33. [33]

    Christensen, Michael Raynor, and Rory McDonald

    Clayton M. Christensen, Michael Raynor, and Rory McDonald. 2015. What is Disruptive Innovation?Harvard Business Review19, 12 (2015), 44–53

    work page 2015

  34. [34]

    Coe and Henry Wai-chung Yeung

    Neil M. Coe and Henry Wai-chung Yeung. 2015.Global Production Networks: Theorizing Economic Development in an Interconnected World. Oxford University Press, New York, NY

    work page 2015

  35. [35]

    Julie E. Cohen. 2025. Oligarchy, State, And Cryptopia.Fordham Law Review94, 2 (2025), 563–625

    work page 2025

  36. [36]

    Julie E Cohen and Ari Ezra Waldman. 2023. Introduction: Framing Regulatory Managerialism as an Object of Study and Strategic Displacement.Law and Contemporary Problems86 (2023), i–xxi

    work page 2023

  37. [37]

    Dubal, and Christopher L

    Ruth Berins Collier, V.B. Dubal, and Christopher L. Carter. 2018. Disrupting Regulation, Regulating Disruption: The Politics of Uber in the United States.Perspectives on Politics16, 4 (2018), 919–937. doi:10.1017/S1537592718001093

    work page doi:10.1017/s1537592718001093 2018

  38. [38]

    Jay Cunningham, Gabrielle Benabdallah, Daniela Rosner, and Alex Taylor. 2023. On the grounds of solutionism: Ontologies of blackness and HCI.ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction30, 2 (2023), 1–17

    work page 2023

  39. [39]

    DiMaggio and Walter W

    Paul J. DiMaggio and Walter W. Powell. 1983. The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields.American Sociological Review48, 2 (1983), 147–160. doi:10.2307/2095101

    work page doi:10.2307/2095101 1983

  40. [40]

    2023.The internet con: how to seize the means of computation

    Cory Doctorow. 2023.The internet con: how to seize the means of computation. Verso, London, UK

    work page 2023

  41. [41]

    2025.Enshittification Why Everything Suddenly Got Worse and What To Do About It

    Cory Doctorow. 2025.Enshittification Why Everything Suddenly Got Worse and What To Do About It. Verso, New York, NY

    work page 2025

  42. [42]

    John Downer. 2014. Disowning Fukushima: Managing the credibility of nuclear reliability assessment in the wake of disaster.Regulation & Governance8, 3 (2014), 287–309. doi:10.1111/rego.12029

    work page doi:10.1111/rego.12029 2014

  43. [43]

    2024.Rational Accidents: Reckoning with Catastrophic Technologies

    John Downer. 2024.Rational Accidents: Reckoning with Catastrophic Technologies. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    work page 2024

  44. [44]

    Ebersman

    David A. Ebersman. 2012. Facebook, Inc.Form S-1 Registration Statement Under The Securities Act of 1933(February 2012). https: //www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/000119312512034517/d287954ds1.htm

    work page arXiv 2012

  45. [45]

    Dave Elder-Vass. 2021. Assets need audiences: How venture capitalists boost valuations by recruiting investors to asset circles.Finance and Society7, 1 (2021), 1–19. doi:10.2218/finsoc.v7i1.5588

    work page doi:10.2218/finsoc.v7i1.5588 2021

  46. [46]

    Neil Fligstein. 1996. Markets as Politics: A Political-Cultural Approach to Market Institutions.American Sociological Review61, 4 (1996), 656–673. doi:10.2307/2096398

    work page doi:10.2307/2096398 1996

  47. [47]

    2002.The Architecture of Markets: An Economic Sociology of Twenty-First-Century Capitalist Societies

    Neil Fligstein. 2002.The Architecture of Markets: An Economic Sociology of Twenty-First-Century Capitalist Societies. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

    work page 2002

  48. [48]

    Neil Fligstein and Ryan Calder. 2015. Architecture of Markets. InEmerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences, Robert A. Scott and Stephan M. Kosslyn (Eds.). Wiley, 1–14

    work page 2015

  49. [49]

    Emily Forgash and Agnee Ghosh. 2025. OpenAI, Nvidia Fuel $1 Trillion AI Market With Web of Circular Deals.Bloomberg(October 2025). https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2025-10-07/openai-s-nvidia-amd-deals-boost-1-trillion-ai-boom-with-circular-deals

    work page 2025

  50. [50]

    2004.Security, territory, population

    Michel Foucault. 2004.Security, territory, population. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY

    work page 2004

  51. [51]

    Friedland

    William H. Friedland. 1964. For a Sociological Concept of Charisma.Social Forces43, 1 (1964), 18–26. doi:10.2307/2575961 FAccT ’26, June 25–28, 2026, Montreal, QC, Canada Janet Vertesi, danah boyd, Alex Taylor, and Benjamin Shestakofsky

    work page doi:10.2307/2575961 1964

  52. [52]

    Vish Gain. 2022. The tech billionaires who doubled their wealth during the pandemic.Silicon Republic(January 2022). https: //www.siliconrepublic.com/business/tech-billionaires-pandemic-net-worth

    work page 2022

  53. [53]

    Timnit Gebru and Émile P. Torres. 2024. The TESCREAL bundle: Eugenics and the promise of utopia through artificial general intelligence.First Monday29, 4 (April 2024). doi:10.5210/fm.v29i4.13636

    work page doi:10.5210/fm.v29i4.13636 2024

  54. [54]

    Anthony Giddens. 1999. Risk and Responsibility.The Modern Law Review62, 1 (Jan. 1999), 1–10. doi:10.1111/1468-2230.00188

    work page doi:10.1111/1468-2230.00188 1999

  55. [55]

    Brent Goldfarb and David A. Kirsch. 2019.Bubbles and crashes: the boom and bust of technological innovation. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA

    work page 2019

  56. [56]

    Philipp Golka, Natascha Van Der Zwan, and Arjen Van Der Heide. 2024. Financialization and assetization: Assets as sites of financial power struggles.Economy and Society53, 1 (January 2024), 112–134. doi:10.1080/03085147.2024.2307783

    work page doi:10.1080/03085147.2024.2307783 2024

  57. [57]

    Mark Granovetter. 1985. Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness.Amer. J. Sociology91, 3 (1985), 481–510

    work page 1985

  58. [58]

    Gray and Siddharth Suri

    Mary L. Gray and Siddharth Suri. 2019.Ghost work: how to stop Silicon Valley from building a new global underclass. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Boston

    work page 2019

  59. [59]

    Klaus Grobys. 2025. Magnificent 7: unsustainable growth and systemic risk.Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting(October 2025). doi:10.1007/s11156-025-01458-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s11156-025-01458-6 2025

  60. [60]

    Philipp Hacker, Johann Cordes, and Janina Rochon. 2024. Regulating Gatekeeper Artificial Intelligence and Data: Transparency, Access and Fairness under the Digital Markets Act, the General Data Protection Regulation and Beyond.European Journal of Risk Regulation 15, 1 (2024), 49–86. doi:10.1017/err.2023.81

    work page doi:10.1017/err.2023.81 2024

  61. [61]

    2021.The wretched atom: America’s global gamble with peaceful nuclear technology

    Jacob Darwin Hamblin. 2021.The wretched atom: America’s global gamble with peaceful nuclear technology. Oxford University Press, New York, N.Y

    work page 2021

  62. [62]

    2016.Staying with the trouble: making kin in the Chthulucene

    Donna J Haraway. 2016.Staying with the trouble: making kin in the Chthulucene. Duke University Press, Durham, NC

    work page 2016

  63. [63]

    2014.Being nuclear: Africans and the global uranium trade

    Gabrielle Hecht. 2014.Being nuclear: Africans and the global uranium trade. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    work page 2014

  64. [64]

    2002.Spiderweb Capitalism: How Global Elites Exploit Frontier Markets

    Kimberly Kay Hoang. 2002.Spiderweb Capitalism: How Global Elites Exploit Frontier Markets. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

    work page 2002

  65. [65]

    2015.Dreamscapes of modernity: sociotechnical imaginaries and the fabrication of power

    Sheila Jasanoff and Sang-Hyun Kim. 2015.Dreamscapes of modernity: sociotechnical imaginaries and the fabrication of power. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL

    work page 2015

  66. [66]

    Lily Ballot Jones, Julia Thornton, and Daswin De Silva. 2025. Limitations of risk -based artificial intelligence regulation:a structuration theory approach.Discover Artificial Intelligence5, 14 (2025). doi:10.1007/s44163-025-00233-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s44163-025-00233-9 2025

  67. [67]

    David Kampmann. 2025. The Political Economy of Venture Capital: Winners-Take-All and Founder Control.Socio-Economic Review (2025). doi:10.1093/ser/mwaf065

    work page doi:10.1093/ser/mwaf065 2025

  68. [68]

    Cecilia Kang. 2023. OpenAI’s Sam Altman Urges A.I. Regulation in Senate Hearing.The New York Times(May 2023). https: //www.nytimes.com/2023/05/16/technology/openai-altman-artificial-intelligence-regulation.html

    work page 2023

  69. [69]

    Katherine Kellogg, Melissa Valentine, and Angèle Christin. 2020. Algorithms at Work: The New Contested Terrain of Control.Academy of Management Annals14, 1 (2020), 366–410

    work page 2020

  70. [70]

    Lauren Klein and Catherine D’Ignazio. 2024. Data Feminism for AI. InThe 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness Accountability and Transparency. ACM, Rio de Janeiro Brazil, 100–112. doi:10.1145/3630106.3658543

    work page doi:10.1145/3630106.3658543 2024

  71. [71]

    Rob Kling. 1991. Computerization and Social Transformations.Science, Technology, & Human Values16, 3 (1991), 342–367

    work page 1991

  72. [72]

    Bruno Latour. 1990. Technology is Society Made Durable.The Sociological Review38 (May 1990), 103–131. doi:10.1111/j.1467- 954X.1990.tb03350.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1467- 1990

  73. [73]

    John Law. 1987. On the Social Explanation of Technical Change: The Case of the Portuguese Maritime Expansion.Technology and Culture28, 2 (1987), 227–252. doi:10.2307/3105566

    work page doi:10.2307/3105566 1987

  74. [74]

    Leonardi and Michele H

    Paul M. Leonardi and Michele H. Jackson. 2004. Technological determinism and discursive closure in organizational mergers.Journal of Organizational Change Management17, 6 (2004), 615–631. doi:10.1108/09534810410564587

    work page doi:10.1108/09534810410564587 2004

  75. [75]

    Cristiano Lima-Strong. 2025. Transcript: Sam Altman Testifies At US Senate Hearing On AI Competitiveness.Tech Policy Press(May 2025). https://www.techpolicy.press/transcript-sam-altman-testifies-at-us-senate-hearing-on-ai-competitiveness/

    work page 2025

  76. [76]

    Donald MacKenzie. 2017. A material political economy: Automated Trading Desk and price prediction in high-frequency trading. Social Studies of Science47, 2 (2017), 172–194

    work page 2017

  77. [77]

    2021.Trading at the speed of light: how ultrafast algorithms are transforming financial markets

    Donald MacKenzie. 2021.Trading at the speed of light: how ultrafast algorithms are transforming financial markets. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

    work page 2021

  78. [78]

    1999.The social shaping of technology

    Donald MacKenzie and Judy Wajcman (Eds.). 1999.The social shaping of technology. Open University Press, Buckingham, UK

    work page 1999

  79. [79]

    MacKenzie

    Donald A. MacKenzie. 2006.An engine, not a camera: how financial models shape markets. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    work page 2006

  80. [80]

    2024.The Ordinal Society

    Fourcade Marion and Healy Kieran. 2024.The Ordinal Society. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    work page 2024

Showing first 80 references.