Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 74 references

A speculative design uses an AI-driven interactive narrative, archetype assignment, and guided group reflection to encourage tech workers to examine the geopolitical assumptions behind their work—without moralising.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 01:20 UTC pith:VYSECBHV

load-bearing objection A thoughtful, well-scoped design proposal with no prototype; the workplace precondition is the real open question. the 1 major comments →

arxiv 2607.28904 v1 pith:VYSECBHV submitted 2026-07-31 cs.HC cs.AIcs.CY

Design Concept: Scaffolding Geopolitical Reflection Among Tech Workers

Sydney Reis This is my paper
classification cs.HC cs.AIcs.CY
keywords geopolitical reflexivitytech workersresponsible AIinteractive narrativespeculative designworkshop reflectionarchetype assignmentresponsible innovation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Tech workers at geopolitically relevant companies increasingly shape international affairs, yet most responsible-AI efforts avoid geopolitics and lecture rather than engage. This paper proposes a different route: an AI-driven interactive narrative in which users make choices in a fictional geopolitical scenario, receive an 'archetype' label based on those choices, and then discuss the result with colleagues in a facilitated workshop. The author argues that this sequence—story, label, social reflection—can make tech workers critically examine their own assumptions, values, and positionality without being prescriptive or moralising. The contribution is a design logic and an explicit research agenda, not a measured effect.

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's claim is that speculative narrative systems are a productive avenue for bringing geopolitical reflexivity into responsible technology work. The proposed system is a chat-style interface hosting a fictional scenario about technology, power, and geopolitics; every user decision branches the story, and after several rounds the system assigns one of about ten archetypes inspired by historical technologists. The archetype is not a judgement but a conversational prompt: workshop participants explain how they think they got their label, whether they agree, and whether they'd have preferred another. By engaging narratives rather than current events or policy positions,

What carries the argument

The central object is an AI-enabled interactive narrative—a story whose direction is set by reader choices—paired with two supporting mechanisms. The first is archetype assignment: after making a series of choices, the user receives one of roughly ten archetypes, each with strengths and weaknesses and a saveable avatar, which serves as a concrete but non-hierarchical prompt for discussion. The second is socially scaffolded workshop reflection: a guided, one-hour session in which coworkers share and question their assigned archetypes. Together these mechanisms are meant to create 'felt responsibility' for the user's choices, make the reflection feel self-directed rather than imposed, and supp

Load-bearing premise

The tool only works if tech workers can be honest in the workplace; the paper itself concedes that organisational pressures may make reflection socially costly or outright discouraged.

What would settle it

Deploy a working prototype in a facilitated workshop with tech workers and compare it with a control condition using a non-interactive essay on the same scenario. If the interactive-narrative group shows no more evidence of articulated geopolitical reflection—for example, richer answers about their own values, positionality, and the global effects of their work—than the essay group, the claim that the narrative format itself does the scaffolding is falsified.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the design logic holds, responsible AI initiatives gain a concrete, non-prescriptive format for addressing geopolitics—a topic the paper says is currently missing from the field.
  • The narrative-archetype-workshop pattern gives time-poor, mission-driven tech workers a way to reflect that does not require deep prior engagement with ethics frameworks.
  • The paper's planned next steps—ethnographic inquiry, semi-structured interviews, and participatory design workshops with the target population—would produce the first empirical evidence for the concept.
  • The open questions the paper lists (narrative ambiguity, playfulness, and evaluation methods) form a ready agenda for researchers building on the proposal.
  • If the tool works as intended, it offers an alternative to toolkits that have been criticised as ineffective and disconnected from root issues.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A direction the paper leaves implicit is that the same story-plus-archetype-plus-group-discussion pattern could plausibly be transferred to other professionals who exercise geopolitical power without electoral accountability—investors, policy advisors, or journalists—though the paper only targets tech workers.
  • A testable extension the paper does not develop is that the workshop's psychological safety is the active ingredient: if the session is run by management or tied to performance review, the same tool could produce self-censorship rather than reflection.
  • The archetype label is a double-edged prompt: framed descriptively it opens reflection, but framed evaluatively it could trigger the rumination the paper names as a risk. A controlled comparison of those two framings would settle which way the design should lean.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents a speculative HCI design concept: an AI-enabled interactive narrative system, intended for tech workers at geopolitically relevant companies and used in workplace workshops, that combines narrative interaction, archetype assignment, and group reflection to encourage geopolitical reflexivity. The paper argues that such speculative narrative systems 'may offer a productive avenue' for introducing geopolitical reflexivity into Responsible Innovation/RAI without relying on prescriptive or moralising approaches. It grounds the proposal in RI/RAI scholarship, reflective HCI, and interactive narrative research, and explicitly inventories assumptions, risks, and open questions. No prototype, user study, or outcome measure is presented; the contribution is a design logic rather than an empirical demonstration.

Significance. If the proposed design logic holds, the paper would open a new direction for RAI interventions: engaging the geopolitical narratives that underpin AI development rather than compliance-oriented toolkits, and targeting a population (tech workers) that is central to geopolitical technology outcomes. The paper is unusually honest: it labels itself as speculative, states its assumptions, enumerates risks, and lists open conceptual, design, and methodological questions. It draws on a rich interdisciplinary literature and avoids overclaiming empirical effect. The main weakness is that the specified deployment context—employer-sponsored workplace workshops—may undermine the very psychological safety required for honest reflection, a precondition that is acknowledged as a risk but not designed for. As a conceptual contribution, the paper's significance is conditional on subsequent development and empirical testing.

major comments (1)
  1. [§3.1, §3.2, §3.6.2] The deployment context in §3.1 is 'at the workplace, ideally during workshops or other appropriately socially scaffolded sessions.' §3.2 concedes that 'workers may face organisational pressures that make reflection or responsible design socially costly to engage in or discuss, or may be outright discouraged in various forms.' §3.6.2 lists 'the potential for social judgement within the workplace during the workshop element' as a risk, but offers no design mechanism—such as anonymity, external facilitation, confidentiality guarantees, or opt-in/out—to make candid participation safe. Because the proposed mechanism (honest narrative responses and peer discussion of archetypes) requires psychosocial safety, the central claim that the system 'may offer a productive avenue' is conditional on an unexamined precondition. The paper should either redesign the social scaffold so the workshop is not
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4 / §3.6.2] The conclusion mentions 'RAG fine-tuned' while §3.6.2 refers to 'RAG-tuning.' Retrieval-augmented generation and fine-tuning are distinct technical choices with different implications for bias, data provenance, and reproducibility. Clarify which architecture is intended, or state that both are under consideration.
  2. [§3.4] 'Every decision that the user makes results in a different outcome' is an overstatement. Even a large branching narrative cannot realistically guarantee a unique outcome for every decision sequence. Suggest softening to 'every decision can influence subsequent events.'
  3. [§3.6.1] The claim that the tool 'engages a user population that is not often engaged' could be tempered by citing existing practitioner-facing AI ethics work (e.g., [34]) to avoid overstating novelty.
  4. [§3.6.2] The mitigation 'no assigned hierarchy to archetypes' addresses one risk but not the social judgment risk during the workshop. Consider adding concrete facilitation norms (e.g., Chatham House Rule, confidentiality agreement, or external facilitator) to the design.
  5. [References] Reference [3] (International AI Safety Report) lacks a year and venue; complete the bibliographic data. Some arXiv preprints ([9], [35], [64]) are used as evidence for empirical claims; for a design concept it would be helpful to distinguish peer-reviewed sources from preprints.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the paper is a design proposal with no fitted parameters, equations, or predictions that reduce to its own inputs.

full rationale

This is a speculatively argued HCI design proposal, not a quantitative derivation. There are no equations, no fitted values, no measured outcomes, and no quantity that is defined in terms of another quantity it is then said to predict. The central claim is that a proposed AI interactive narrative system 'aims to encourage users to critically examine their own assumptions, values, and positionality within broader sociotechnical systems' (§3.5). This is a design intent, not a prediction derived from fitted inputs. The only self-citation is [45], used at §2.1 to support the motivation that tech workers 'ought to be aware of the global impacts of their work.' Even if that citation were removed, the motivation is independently supported by the surrounding literature ([7, 9, 19, 22, 38, 39, 42, 44, 57, 58] and the Starlink/OpenAI examples). Thus the self-citation is not load-bearing. The paper's admitted weaknesses — that workers 'may face organisational pressures that make reflection or responsible design socially costly' (§3.2) and the risk of 'social judgement within the workplace during the workshop element' (§3.6.2) — are internal limitations on the enabling conditions of the proposed intervention, not circular definitions of its outcome. The design's effectiveness is an open empirical question, and the paper itself lists evaluation as an open methodological question. No circular step can be exhibited by quote-and-reduction, so the honest finding is no significant circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 2 invented entities

This is a qualitative design proposal with no fitted numerical parameters. The central argument relies on domain assumptions from IR/STS, responsible innovation, and media psychology, all of which are cited but not independently established here. No physical or theoretical entities are introduced; the 'invented entities' are the proposed interactive system and its archetype mechanism, neither of which is built or tested.

axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Tech workers at geopolitically relevant companies are an appropriate intervention site because their decisions shape international dynamics.
    Stated in the Introduction and §2.1 and sourced to IR/STS literature; treated as established motivation rather than tested in this paper.
  • domain assumption Reflection, if socially scaffolded, leads to better, safer, fairer, or more responsible technology development and design outcomes.
    Explicitly stated as an assumption in §3.2, citing [21,27,49,60]. It is load-bearing because the tool's value depends on reflection changing downstream decisions.
  • domain assumption Interactive narratives create felt responsibility and can produce attitudinal and behavioural change.
    Adopted from Green and Jenkins [25] and Steinemann et al. [59] in §3.2; no evidence in this paper that the effect transfers to geopolitical reflection among tech workers.
  • domain assumption Users will respond to prompts as closely as possible to their own beliefs, values, and personality.
    Required by the protocol in §3.4; if users perform for peers or managers rather than answering honestly, archetype assignment and workshop reflection lose validity.
  • domain assumption Reflection in HCI must be socially scaffolded, and a workplace workshop will provide that scaffolding.
    Stated in §3.2 and §3.5, citing Slovák et al. [55]. The design depends on a socially safe context that the paper itself admits may not exist.
invented entities (2)
  • AI-enabled interactive narrative system ('the tool') no independent evidence
    purpose: To encourage geopolitical reflexivity among tech workers through scenario play, archetype assignment, and workshop discussion.
    Proposed only in prose; no prototype, data, or falsifiable prediction is attached. Whether it produces reflection is the open empirical question.
  • Archetype assignment (approximately ten archetypes inspired by historical technologists) no independent evidence
    purpose: To act as a conversational prompt for group reflection and self-examination.
    Archetype descriptions, validation, and assignment logic are not specified; no evidence is provided that archetype assignment supports rather than undermines reflection.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-daily-deepseek · 9828 in / 16349 out tokens · 173459 ms · 2026-08-03T01:20:22.958022+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

This paper presents a speculative Human-Computer Interaction design proposal for encouraging geopolitical reflexivity amongst tech workers at geopolitically relevant technology companies. Recent scholarship in International Relations and Science and Technology Studies increasingly recognizes technology firms and their workers as geopolitical actors whose decisions shape international dynamics. However, existing Responsible Innovation and Responsible AI approaches rarely engage with the geopolitical narratives and imaginaries that underpin contemporary AI development. Building upon RI scholarship on reflexivity, reflective HCI, and creative HCI work on computational narratives, this paper proposes an AI-enabled interactive narrative system in which users engage with a speculative scenario centred on technology, power, and geopolitics. Through narrative interaction, archetype assignment, and socially scaffolded workshop reflection, the system aims to encourage target users to critically examine their assumptions, values, and positionality within broader sociotechnical systems. We argue that speculative narrative systems may offer a productive avenue for introducing geopolitical reflexivity into responsible technology initiatives without relying on prescriptive or moralising approaches.

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

74 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · 6 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Eric P.S. Baumer. 2015. Reflective Informatics: Conceptual Dimensions for Design- ing Technologies of Reflection. InProceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 585–594. doi:10.1145/2702123.2702234

    arXiv 2015

  2. [2]

    Baumer, Vera Khovanskaya, Mark Matthews, Lindsay Reynolds, Victoria Schwanda Sosik, and Geri Gay

    Eric P.S. Baumer, Vera Khovanskaya, Mark Matthews, Lindsay Reynolds, Victoria Schwanda Sosik, and Geri Gay. 2014. Reviewing reflection: on the use of reflection in interactive system design. InProceedings of the 2014 conference on Designing interactive systems (DIS ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 93–102. doi:10.1145/2598510.2598598

    arXiv 2014

  3. [3]

    Y Bengio. [n. d.]. International AI safety report. ([n. d.])

  4. [4]

    Woźniak, Pia SF Herbes, Evropi Stefanidi, and Jasmin Niess

    Marit Bentvelzen, Paweł W. Woźniak, Pia SF Herbes, Evropi Stefanidi, and Jasmin Niess. 2022. Revisiting Reflection in HCI: Four Design Resources for Technologies that Support Reflection.Proceedings of ACM on interactive, mobile, wearable and ubiquitous technologies6, 1 (2022), 1–27. doi:10.1145/3517233 Place: New York, NY, USA

    doi:10.1145/3517233 2022

  5. [5]

    Joseph Bernstein. 2023. Who Would Give This Guy Millions to Build His Own Utopia?The New York Times(Dec. 2023). https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/ 12/style/praxis-city-dryden-brown.html

    2023

  6. [6]

    Mark Blythe. 2014. Research through Design Fiction: Narrative in Real and Imaginary Abstracts. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 703–712. doi:10.1145/2556288.2557098

    arXiv 2014

  7. [7]

    Clotilde Bomont and Tim Ruhlig. 2025. Challenging US dominance: China’s DeepSeek model and the pluralisation of AI development | European Union Institute for Security Studies. https://www.iss.europa.eu/publications/briefs/ challenging-us-dominance-chinas-deepseek-model-and-pluralisation-ai- development

    2025

  8. [8]

    Anna Chaddock, Richard Thwaites, James Bennett-Levy, and Mark Freeston

  9. [9]

    Simon Chesterman. 2025. Silicon Sovereigns: Artificial Intelligence, Interna- tional Law, and the Tech-Industrial Complex. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2505.05506 arXiv:2505.05506 [cs]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.05506 2025

  10. [10]

    Sara Colombo, Qiulin Zhu, and Kacper Pietrzykowski. 2026. Tech Footprint Toolkit: Supporting Designers in Anticipating Technology Impact. InProceed- ings of the Extended Abstracts of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’26). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–10. doi:10.1145/3772363.3798662

    arXiv 2026

  11. [11]

    Nicholas Crafts. 2021. Artificial intelligence as a general-purpose technology: an historical perspective.Oxford Review of Economic Policy37, 3 (Sept. 2021), 521–536. doi:10.1093/oxrep/grab012

    work page doi:10.1093/oxrep/grab012 2021

  12. [12]

    Raluca Csernatoni. 2025. The EU’s AI Power Play: Between Deregulation and In- novation. https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2025/05/the-eus-ai-power- play-between-deregulation-and-innovation?lang=en

    2025

  13. [13]

    Andersen, Marijn Hoijtink, Ingvild Bode, Jon R

    Raluca Csernatoni, Dennis Broeders, Lise H. Andersen, Marijn Hoijtink, Ingvild Bode, Jon R. Lindsay, and Elke Schwarz. 2025. Myth, Power, and Agency: Rethink- ing Artificial Intelligence, Geopolitics and War.Minds and machines (Dordrecht) 35, 3 (2025). doi:10.1007/s11023-025-09741-0 Place: Dordrecht

    work page doi:10.1007/s11023-025-09741-0 2025

  14. [14]

    Ryan DePirri. 2025. A Tale of Two AI Policies: The Shifting Legal Landscape of U.S. AI Regulation. https://aublr.org/2025/04/a-tale-of-two-ai-policies-the- shifting-legal-landscape-of-u-s-ai-regulation/

    2025

  15. [15]

    Di Di and Bryce Nishikawa. 2025. Navigating ethical boundaries: Subtle agency and compliance among tech workers in China and the United States.Big Data & Society12, 2 (June 2025), 20539517251340626. doi:10.1177/20539517251340626

    work page doi:10.1177/20539517251340626 2025

  16. [16]

    2013.Speculative Everything: Design, Fiction, and Social Dreaming

    Anthony Dunne and Fiona Raby. 2013.Speculative Everything: Design, Fiction, and Social Dreaming. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    2013

  17. [17]

    Borelli, Melissa Mazmanian, and Kai Zheng

    Elizabeth Victoria Eikey, Clara Marques Caldeira, Mayara Costa Figueiredo, Yunan Chen, Jessica L. Borelli, Melissa Mazmanian, and Kai Zheng. 2021. Beyond self-reflection: introducing the concept of rumination in personal informatics. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing25, 3 (June 2021), 601–616. doi:10.1007/ s00779-021-01573-w

    2021

  18. [18]

    Salma Elsayed-Ali, Sara E Berger, Vagner Figueredo De Santana, and Juana Catalina Becerra Sandoval. 2023. Responsible & Inclusive Cards: An Online Card Tool to Promote Critical Reflection in Technology Industry Work Practices. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Hamburg Germany, 1–14. doi:10.1145/3544548.3580771

    arXiv 2023

  19. [19]

    Henry Farrell and Abraham L. Newman. 2019. Weaponized Interdependence: How Global Economic Networks Shape State Coercion.International Security 44, 1 (July 2019), 42–79. doi:10.1162/isec_a_00351

    doi:10.1162/isec_a_00351 2019

  20. [20]

    Sophie-Charlotte Fischer, Andrea Gilli, and Mauro Gilli. 2021. Technological Change and Grand Strategy. InThe Oxford Handbook of Grand Strategy, Thierry Balzacq and Ronald R. Krebs (Eds.). Oxford University Press, 0. doi:10.1093/ oxfordhb/9780198840299.013.14

    arXiv 2021

  21. [21]

    Mahajan, and Carl Mitcham

    Erik Fisher, Roop L. Mahajan, and Carl Mitcham. 2006. Midstream Modulation of Technology: Governance From Within.Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 26, 6 (Dec. 2006), 485–496. doi:10.1177/0270467606295402

    work page doi:10.1177/0270467606295402 2006

  22. [22]

    Indermit Gill. 2020. Whoever leads in artificial intelligence in 2030 will rule the world until 2100. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/whoever-leads-in- artificial-intelligence-in-2030-will-rule-the-world-until-2100/

    2020

  23. [23]

    Nicolas E. Gold. 2021. Virginia Dignum: Responsible Artificial Intelligence: How to Develop and Use AI in a Responsible Way.Genetic programming and evolvable machines22, 1 (2021), 137–139. doi:10.1007/s10710-020-09394-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s10710-020-09394-1 2021

  24. [24]

    Julian “Iñaki” Goñi, Eugenia Rodrigues, Maria Jesus Parga, Martín Illanes, and María José Millán. 2024. Tooling with ethics in technology: a scoping review of responsible research and innovation tools.Journal of Responsible Innova- tion11, 1 (Dec. 2024), 2360228. doi:10.1080/23299460.2024.2360228 _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2024.2360228

    arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    Green and Keenan M

    Melanie C. Green and Keenan M. Jenkins. 2014. Interactive Narratives: Processes and Outcomes in User-Directed Stories.Journal of Communication64, 3 (2014), 479–500. doi:10.1111/jcom.12093

    work page doi:10.1111/jcom.12093 2014

  26. [26]

    Judith Gregory. [n. d.]. Scandinavian Approaches to Participatory Design. ([n. d.])

  27. [27]

    Barbara Grimpe, Mark Hartswood, and Marina Jirotka. 2014. Towards a closer dialogue between policy and practice: responsible design in HCI. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Toronto Ontario Canada, 2965–2974. doi:10.1145/2556288.2557364

    arXiv 2014

  28. [28]

    2025.Empire of AI: inside the reckless race for total domination

    Karen Hao. 2025.Empire of AI: inside the reckless race for total domination. Allen Lane an imprint of Penguin Books, London

    2025

  29. [29]

    Fox Harrell, Pablo Ortiz, Peter Downs, Maya Wagoner, Elizabeth Carré, and Annie Wang

    D. Fox Harrell, Pablo Ortiz, Peter Downs, Maya Wagoner, Elizabeth Carré, and Annie Wang. 2018. Chimeria:Grayscale: an interactive narrative for provoking critical reflection on gender discrimination.Coimbra University Press(2018). https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/135084.2 Accepted: 2021-11-24T18:59:49Z

    2018

  30. [30]

    The White House. 2025. Initial Rescissions Of Harmful Executive Orders And Actions. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/initial- rescissions-of-harmful-executive-orders-and-actions/

    2025

  31. [31]

    2015.Dreamscapes of Modernity: Sociotech- nical Imaginaries and the Fabrication of Power

    Sheila Jasanoff and Sang-Hyun Kim. 2015.Dreamscapes of Modernity: Sociotech- nical Imaginaries and the Fabrication of Power. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. doi:10.7208/9780226276663

    work page doi:10.7208/9780226276663 2015

  32. [32]

    C. G. (Carl Gustav) Jung. 1980.The archetypes and the collective unconscious. Number 9 in The collected works of C.G. Jung. Routledge, London

    1980

  33. [33]

    Makena Kelly. 2026. Palantir Employees Are Starting to Wonder if They’re the Bad Guys.Wired(April 2026). https://www.wired.com/story/palantir- employees-are-starting-to-wonder-if-theyre-the-bad-guys/ Section: tags

    2026

  34. [34]

    Arif Ali Khan, Muhammad Azeem Akbar, Mahdi Fahmideh, Peng Liang, Muham- mad Waseem, Aakash Ahmad, Mahmood Niazi, and Pekka Abrahamsson. 2022. AI Ethics: An Empirical Study on the Views of Practitioners and Lawmakers. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2207.01493 arXiv:2207.01493 [cs]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2207.01493 2022

  35. [35]

    Philipp Koralus. 2025. The Philosophic Turn for AI Agents: Replacing centralized digital rhetoric with decentralized truth-seeking. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2504.18601 arXiv:2504.18601 [cs.CY]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.18601 2025

  36. [36]

    Max Kreminski, Melanie Dickinson, Michael Mateas, and Noah Wardrip-Fruin

  37. [37]

    Max Kreminski, Ben Samuel, Edward Melcer, and Noah Wardrip-Fruin. 2019. Evaluating AI-Based Games through Retellings.Proceedings of the AAAI Con- ference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment15, 1 (Oct. 2019), 45–51. doi:10.1609/aiide.v15i1.5223

    work page doi:10.1609/aiide.v15i1.5223 2019

  38. [38]

    Vili Lehdonvirta, Bóx¯ı Wú, and Zoe Hawkins. 2024. Compute North vs. Compute South: The Uneven Possibilities of Compute-based AI Governance Around the Globe.Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society7, 1 (Oct. 2024), 828–838. doi:10.1609/aies.v7i1.31683

    doi:10.1609/aies.v7i1.31683 2024

  39. [39]

    Anna Nadibaidze. 2025. Startups Envisioning Algorithmic Warfare: The Dis- courses of US Tech Companies in Defense AI.Global policy16, 3 (2025), 487–493. doi:10.1111/1758-5899.70047 Place: London

    arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    OpenAI. [n. d.]. Introducing OpenAI for Countries. https://openai.com/global- affairs/openai-for-countries/ Design Concept: Scaffolding Geopolitical Reflection Among Tech Workers

  41. [41]

    Gustavo Palencia. 2022. Honduran special economic zone adopts bitcoin as legal tender.Reuters(April 2022). https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/ honduran-special-economic-zone-adopts-bitcoin-legal-tender-2022-04-07/

    2022

  42. [42]

    2023.AI and Geopolitics: How Might AI Affect the Rise and Fall of Nations?Technical Report

    Barry Pavel, Ivana Ke, Michael Spirtas, James Ryseff, Lea Sabbag, Gregory Smith, Keller Scholl, and Domenique Lumpkin. 2023.AI and Geopolitics: How Might AI Affect the Rise and Fall of Nations?Technical Report. https://www.rand.org/ pubs/perspectives/PEA3034-1.html

    2023

  43. [43]

    Luca Possati. 2024. Exploring the Geopolitical Limits of Responsible Innovation and Technology Assessment.Science and technology studies(March 2024). doi:10. 23987/sts.137812

    2024

  44. [44]

    Sylvester Quansah. 2025. DeepSeek R1: Implications of a New AI Era for Africa. https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2025/03/deepseek-ai-implications- africa?lang=en

    2025

  45. [45]

    Sydney Reis. 2025. AI Workers, Geopolitics, and Algorithmic Collective Action. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2511.17331 arXiv:2511.17331 [cs.CY]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.17331 2025

  46. [46]

    Joey Roulette, Cassell Bryan-Low, Tom Balmforth, Joey Roulette, and Cassell Bryan-Low. 2025. Musk ordered shutdown of Starlink satel- lite service as Ukraine retook territory from Russia.Reuters(July 2025). https://www.reuters.com/investigations/musk-ordered-shutdown- starlink-satellite-service-ukraine-retook-territory-russia-2025-07-25/

    2025

  47. [47]

    Mark Ryan, Eugen Octav Popa, Vincent Blok, Andrea Declich, Maresa Berliri, Alfonso Alfonsi, and Simeon Veloudis. 2023. A model of social responsibility for start-ups: developing a cross-fertilisation of responsible innovation, the lean start-up approach, and the quadruple helix approach.Journal of Responsible Innovation10, 1 (Jan. 2023), 2264615. doi:10.1...

    arXiv 2023

  48. [48]

    Stefka Schmid, Daniel Lambach, Carlo Diehl, and Christian Reuter. 2025. Arms Race or Innovation Race? Geopolitical AI Development.Geopolitics 30, 4 (Aug. 2025), 1907–1936. doi:10.1080/14650045.2025.2456019 _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2025.2456019

    arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    Daan Schuurbiers. 2011. What happens in the Lab: Applying Midstream Modu- lation to Enhance Critical Reflection in the Laboratory.Science and Engineering Ethics17, 4 (2011), 769–788. doi:10.1007/s11948-011-9317-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s11948-011-9317-8 2011

  50. [50]

    Amrith Ramkumar and Brian Schwartz. 2025. Exclusive | Silicon Valley Launches Pro-AI PACs to Defend Industry in Midterm Elec- tions. https://www.wsj.com/politics/silicon-valley-launches-pro-ai-pacs-to- defend-industry-in-midterm-elections-287905b3 Section: Tech

    2025

  51. [51]

    Donald A. Schön. 2016.The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. Routledge, Abingdon, England ;. doi:10.4324/9781315237473

    doi:10.4324/9781315237473 2016

  52. [52]

    Phoebe Sengers, Kirsten Boehner, Shay David, and Joseph ’Jofish’ Kaye. 2005. Reflective design. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 49–58. doi:10.1145/1094562.1094569 Book Title: Critical computing-between sense and sensibility : proceedings of the fourth Decennial Aarhus Conference : August 20-24, 2005, Aarhus, Denmark

    arXiv 2005

  53. [53]

    Chinmayi Sharma. 2024. AI’s Hippocratic Oath. https://papers.ssrn.com/ abstract=4759742

    2024

  54. [54]

    Petr Slovak. 2025. Tools for (Changing) Thought: Scaffolding Cognitive Skills Development within Mental Health Contexts. InTools for Thought Workshop. Yokohama, Japan

    2025

  55. [55]

    Petr Slovák, Christopher Frauenberger, and Geraldine Fitzpatrick. 2017. Reflective Practicum: A Framework of Sensitising Concepts to Design for Transformative Reflection. InProceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Com- puting Systems (CHI ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2696–2707. doi:10.1145/3025453.3025516

    arXiv 2017

  56. [56]

    Marie Louise Juul Søndergaard, Nadia Campo Woytuk, Noura Howell, Vasiliki Tsaknaki, Karey Helms, Tom Jenkins, and Pedro Sanches. 2023. Fabulation as an Approach for Design Futuring. InProceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1693–1709. doi:10.1145/3563657.3596097

    arXiv 2023

  57. [57]

    Swati Srivastava. 2023. Algorithmic Governance and the International Politics of Big Tech.Perspectives on Politics21, 3 (Sept. 2023), 989–1000. doi:10.1017/ S1537592721003145

    2023

  58. [58]

    Swati Srivastava and Justin Bullock. 2024. AI, Global Governance, and Digital Sovereignty. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2410.17481 arXiv:2410.17481 [cs]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.17481 2024

  59. [59]

    Steinemann, Glena H

    Sharon T. Steinemann, Glena H. Iten, Klaus Opwis, Seamus F. Forde, Lars Fraßeck, and Elisa D. Mekler. 2017. Interactive Narratives Affecting Social Change: A Closer Look at the Relationship Between Interactivity and Prosocial Behavior. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications29, 1 (2017), 54–66. doi:10.1027/1864-1105/a000211

    work page doi:10.1027/1864-1105/a000211 2017

  60. [60]

    Jack Stilgoe, Richard Owen, and Phil Macnaghten. 2013. Developing a framework for responsible innovation.Research policy42, 9 (2013), 1568–1580. doi:10.1016/ j.respol.2013.05.008 Place: Amsterdam

    2013

  61. [61]

    Julia Stoyanovich, Rodrigo Kreis de Paula, Armanda Lewis, and Chloe Zheng

  62. [62]

    1996.The Retreat of the State: The Diffusion of Power in the World Economy

    Susan Strange. 1996.The Retreat of the State: The Diffusion of Power in the World Economy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. doi:10.1017/ CBO9780511559143

    1996

  63. [63]

    Tsjalling Swierstra, Dirk Stemerding, and Marianne Boenink. 2009. Exploring Techno-Moral Change: The Case of the ObesityPill. InEvaluating New Technolo- gies: Methodological Problems for the Ethical Assessment of Technology Develop- ments., Paul Sollie and Marcus Düwell (Eds.). Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 119–138. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-2229-5_9

    work page doi:10.1007/978-90-481-2229-5_9 2009

  64. [64]

    J. S. Tan, Natalia Luka, and Emily Mazo. 2024. Unlikely Organizers: The Rise of Labor Activism Among Professionals in the U.S. Technology Industry. doi:10. 48550/arXiv.2307.15790 arXiv:2307.15790 [cs]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.15790 2024

  65. [65]

    Executie Office The White House. 2025. Winning the Race America’s AI Action Plan. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Americas-AI- Action-Plan.pdf

    2025

  66. [66]

    Vance. 2025. Remarks by the Vice President at the Artificial In- telligence Action Summit in Paris, France | The American Presidency Project. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-the-vice- president-the-artificial-intelligence-action-summit-paris-france

    2025

  67. [67]

    Daisuke Wakabayashi and Scott Shane. 2018. Google Will Not Renew Pentagon Contract That Upset Employees.The New York Times(June 2018). https://www. nytimes.com/2018/06/01/technology/google-pentagon-project-maven.html

    2018

  68. [68]

    Yoshija Walter. 2024. Managing the race to the moon: Global policy and gover- nance in Artificial Intelligence regulation—A contemporary overview and an analysis of socioeconomic consequences.Discover Artificial Intelligence4, 1 (Feb. 2024), 14. doi:10.1007/s44163-024-00109-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s44163-024-00109-4 2024

  69. [69]

    How Do AI Companies "Fine-Tune" Policy? Examining Regulatory Capture in AI Governance

    Kevin Wei, Carson Ezell, Nick Gabrieli, and Chinmay Deshpande. 2024. How Do AI Companies "Fine-Tune" Policy? Examining Regulatory Capture in AI Governance. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2410.13042 arXiv:2410.13042 [cs]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.13042 2024

  70. [70]

    Wong, Michael A

    Richmond Y. Wong, Michael A. Madaio, and Nick Merrill. 2023. Seeing Like a Toolkit: How Toolkits Envision the Work of AI Ethics.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction7, CSCW1 (April 2023), 1–27. doi:10.1145/3579621 arXiv:2202.08792 [cs]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  71. [71]

    Anonymous Google and Amazon workers. 2021. We are Google and Amazon workers. We condemn Project Nimbus | Anonymous Google and Amazon work- ers.The Guardian(Oct. 2021). https://web.archive.org/web/20240720085700/ https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/oct/12/google-amazon- workers-condemn-project-nimbus-israeli-military-contract

    arXiv 2021

  72. [2014]

    doi:10.1017/S1754470X14000142

    Understanding individual differences in response to Self-Practice and Self-Reflection (SP/SR) during CBT training.The Cognitive Behaviour Therapist 7 (July 2014). doi:10.1017/S1754470X14000142

    work page doi:10.1017/s1754470x14000142 2014

  73. [2020]

    InProceedings of the 15th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games (FDG ’20)

    Why Are We Like This?: The AI Architecture of a Co-Creative Storytelling Game. InProceedings of the 15th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games (FDG ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–4. doi:10.1145/3402942.3402953

    arXiv

  74. [2024]

    Using Case Studies to Teach Responsible AI to Industry Practitioners

    Using Case Studies to Teach Responsible AI to Industry Practitioners. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2407.14686 arXiv:2407.14686 [cs]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.14686