(Anti)-Intentional Harms: The Conceptual Pitfalls of Emotion AI in Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
‘Emotion AI’ is a subset of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies that claim to be able to detect the inner emotional states of individuals by collecting biometric information such as face scans, voice recordings, and traces of physical movement. Despite their growing popularity in education, these systems have the potential to produce serious harm. In this paper, we argue that a major concern with emotion AI technologies has to do with the theories of emotion that undergird them. Most emotion AI technologies are built on the foundations of anti-intentionalist theories of human emotion, which claim that emotions can be understood as discrete, universal states that arise as automatic physiological responses. Anti-intentionalists suggest that emotions are not directed at any object, or subject to cognitive reasons. In our work, we focus on the increasing use of these technologies in education to illustrate the ways in which these anti-intentionalist systems are problematic, as they dissolve the space for pushback against the judgements they make. We argue that their use thereby contributes to harms towards children broadly centered around student disempowerment, surveillance, and classification. We then consider three alternative policy approaches to emotion AI use in schools in light of their role with this political agenda of emotion commodification, assessing each of these options—interpretability, technical reform, and non-use—for their desirability and feasibility. In doing so, we underscore the conceptual harms produced by emotion AI systems in the context of education, and the criteria by which these technologies should be judged by educators and policymakers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".