Artificial Intelligence Technologies and Practical Normativity/Normality: Investigating Practices beyond the Public Space
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay examines how artificial intelligence (AI) technologies may shape international norms. Following a brief discussion of the ways in which AI technologies pose new governance questions, we reflect on the extent to which norm research in the discipline of International Relations (IR) is equipped to understand how AI technologies shape normative substance. Norm research has typically focused on the impact and failure of norms, offering increasingly diversified models of norm contestation, for instance. But present research has two shortcomings: a near-exclusive focus on modes and contexts of norm emergence and constitution that happen in the public space; and a focus on the workings of a pre-set normativity (ideas of oughtness and justice) that stands in an unclear relationship with normality (ideas of the standard, the average) emerging from practices. Responding to this, we put forward a research programme on AI and practical normativity/normality based on two pillars: first, we argue that operational practices of designing and using AI technologies typically performed outside of the public eye make norms; and second, we emphasise the interplay of normality and normativity as analytically influential in this process. With this, we also reflect on how increasingly relying on AI technologies across diverse policy domains has an under-examined effect on the exercise of human agency. This is important because the normality shaped by AI technologies can lead to forms of non-human generated normativity that risks replacing conventional models about how norms matter in AI-affected policy domains. We close with sketching three future research streams. We conclude that AI technologies are a major, yet still under-researched, challenge for understanding and studying norms. We should therefore reflect on new theoretical perspectives leading to insights that are also relevant for the struggle about top-down forms of AI regulation.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.025 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.083 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".