Scholarlink

<p>I assess Ayşe Aslı Bozdağ’s account of AI as political infrastructure, situating it at the intersection of Bratton’s <i>Stack</i> theory and Dussel’s ethics of exteriority. Bratton supplies a systems-level diagnosis of how AI governs through layered forms of power, while Dussel provides a normative standpoint to judge this governance, as the lived experience of persons excluded or harmed by dominant systems. Bozdağ’s originality lies in translating this dual framework into a political ethics of contestation through “valves” that interrupt system-wide closures by enforcing opacity, hesitation, redistribution, and proximity, thereby designing AI to remain deliberately partial and uncompleted. I argue that this approach under-specifies mechanisms of implementation, agents of change, and existing sites of resistance. In response, I propose a militant pragmatism that leverages adversarial litigation, prescriptive regulation, antitrust intervention, and labor organizing to constrain unaccountable AI through existing institutions. Such institutional counter-power is a necessary precondition for making Bozdağ’s more radical design-based interventions politically feasible at scale.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Constraining Unaccountable AI with the Militant Pragmatism of Everyday Institutions

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年2月19日

查看全文
  • Benjamin Gregg

摘要

I assess Ayşe Aslı Bozdağ’s account of AI as political infrastructure, situating it at the intersection of Bratton’s Stack theory and Dussel’s ethics of exteriority. Bratton supplies a systems-level diagnosis of how AI governs through layered forms of power, while Dussel provides a normative standpoint to judge this governance, as the lived experience of persons excluded or harmed by dominant systems. Bozdağ’s originality lies in translating this dual framework into a political ethics of contestation through “valves” that interrupt system-wide closures by enforcing opacity, hesitation, redistribution, and proximity, thereby designing AI to remain deliberately partial and uncompleted. I argue that this approach under-specifies mechanisms of implementation, agents of change, and existing sites of resistance. In response, I propose a militant pragmatism that leverages adversarial litigation, prescriptive regulation, antitrust intervention, and labor organizing to constrain unaccountable AI through existing institutions. Such institutional counter-power is a necessary precondition for making Bozdağ’s more radical design-based interventions politically feasible at scale.