skip to main content
10.1145/3593013.3594052acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesfacctConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

AI in the Public Eye: Investigating Public AI Literacy Through AI Art

Published:12 June 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

Recent advances in diffusion models and large language models have underpinned a new generation of powerful and accessible tools, and some of the most publicly visible applications are for artistic endeavour. Such tools, however, provide little scope for deeper understanding of AI systems, while the growing public interest in them can eclipse notice of the vibrant community of artists who have long worked with other forms of AI. We explore the potential for AI Art – particularly work in which AI is both tool and topic – to facilitate public AI literacies and consider how tactics developed before the current generative AI boom have continued relevance today. We look at the strategies of critical AI artists to scaffold public understanding of AI and enhance legibility for non-experts. This paper also investigates how collaborations between artists and AI researchers and designers can illuminate key technical and social issues relevant to the development of AI. The study entailed workshops between three professional artists who work with AI and a cross-disciplinary set of academic participants. This paper reports on these workshops and presents the intentions and strategies expressed by the artists, as well as insights of relevance to the research community on public AI literacies. We find that critical AI art can link underlying technical systems to structural issues of power and facilitate experiential learning that is situated and embodied, valuing interpretation over explanation. The findings also demonstrate the importance of transdisciplinary conversations around art, ethics and the political economy of AI technologies and how these dialogues may feed into AI design processes.

References

  1. Thomas Abbott, Despina T. Tomboulides, Lexyngton Mcintyre, and James Dooney. 2019. Strategies to Inform the Swiss Public on Artificial Intelligence. Publisher: Worcester Polytechnic Institute.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Lizzie Adams and Simon Burrall. 2019. How to stimulate effective public engagement on the ethics of artificial intelligence.https://www.involve.org.uk/sites/default/files/field/attachemnt/How%20to%20stimulate%20effective%20public%20debate%20on%20the%20ethics%20of%20artificial%20intelligence%20_0.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Brhmie Balaram, Tony Greenham, and Jasmine Leonard. 2018. Artificial intelligence: real public engagement. https://www.thersa.org/reports/artificial-intelligence-real-public-engagementGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Abeba Birhane and Fred Cummins. 2019. Algorithmic Injustices: Towards a Relational Ethics. Technical Report arXiv:1912.07376. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1912.07376 arXiv:1912.07376 [cs] type: article.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Claire Bishop. 2012. Artificial Hells: Participatory Art and the Politics of Spectatorship. Verso Books. Google-Books-ID: iX8nQrLrybUC.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Jean-François Bonnefon. 2021. The Car That Knew Too Much: Can a Machine Be Moral?MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Ben Bradford, Julia A Yesberg, Jonathan Jackson, and Paul Dawson. 2020. Live Facial Recognition: Trust and Legitimacy as Predictors of Public Support For Police Use of New Technology. The British Journal of Criminology 60, 6 (Oct. 2020), 1502–1522. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azaa032Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Andrea Brennen. 2020. What Do People Really Want When They Say They Want "Explainable AI?" We Asked 60 Stakeholders.. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI EA ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1145/3334480.3383047Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Nick Bryan-Kinns, Berker Banar, Corey Ford, C. Reed, Yixiao Zhang, Simon Colton, and Jack Armitage. 2022. Exploring XAI for the Arts: Explaining Latent Space in Generative Music. 1st Workshop on eXplainable AI approaches for debugging and diagnosis (2022).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Joy Buolamwini. 2018. When AI Fails on Oprah, Serena Williams, and Michelle Obama, It’s Time to Face Truth.https://medium.com/@Joy.Buolamwini/when-ai-fails-on-oprah-serena-williams-and-michelle-obama-its-time-to-face-truth-bf7c2c8a4119Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Carrie J. Cai, Jonas Jongejan, and Jess Holbrook. 2019. The effects of example-based explanations in a machine learning interface. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces(IUI ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 258–262. https://doi.org/10.1145/3301275.3302289Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Stephen Cave, Kate Coughlan, and Kanta Dihal. 2019. "Scary Robots": Examining Public Responses to AI. In Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society(AIES ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 331–337. https://doi.org/10.1145/3306618.3314232Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Hao-Fei Cheng, Ruotong Wang, Zheng Zhang, Fiona O’Connell, Terrance Gray, F. Maxwell Harper, and Haiyi Zhu. 2019. Explaining Decision-Making Algorithms through UI: Strategies to Help Non-Expert Stakeholders. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300789Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Harry Collins and Trevor Pinch. 2002. The Golem at Large: What You Should Know about Technology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511541353Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Kate Crawford and Trevor Paglen. 2019. Excavating AI. https://excavating.aiGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Antonio Daniele and Yi-Zhe Song. 2019. AI + Art = Human. In Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society(AIES ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 155–161. https://doi.org/10.1145/3306618.3314233Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Anthony Dunne and Fiona Raby. 2013. Speculative Everything. Cambridge, MA, USA. https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262019842/speculative-everything/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Hasan Elahi. 2006. Tracking Transience | Creative Capital. https://creative-capital.org/projects/tracking-transience/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Motahhare Eslami, Kristen Vaccaro, Min Kyung Lee, Amit Elazari Bar On, Eric Gilbert, and Karrie Karahalios. 2019. User Attitudes towards Algorithmic Opacity and Transparency in Online Reviewing Platforms. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300724Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Virginia Eubanks. 2018. Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor. St. Martin’s Press. Google-Books-ID: pn4pDwAAQBAJ.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Ceryn Evans. 2017. Analysing semi-structured interviews using thematic analysis: Exploring voluntary civic participation among adults.SAGE Research Methods Datasets (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Andrea Ferrario and Michele Loi. 2022. How Explainability Contributes to Trust in AI. In FAccT ’22: 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 1457–1466. https://doi.org/10.1145/3531146.3533202Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Rebecca Fiebrink and Perry R. Cook. 2010. The Wekinator: a system for real-time, interactive machine learning in music. In Proceedings of The Eleventh International Society for Music Information Retrieval Conference (ISMIR 2010)(Utrecht), Vol. 3.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Christopher Fry. 2018. Organic Complexity and AI in Generative Art. (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Jason Gaiger. 2009. Dismantling the Frame: Site-Specific Art and Aesthetic Autonomy. The British Journal of Aesthetics 49, 1 (Jan. 2009), 43–58. https://doi.org/10.1093/aesthj/ayn058Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Roberto Musa Giuliano. 2020. Echoes of myth and magic in the language of Artificial Intelligence. AI & SOCIETY 35, 4 (Dec. 2020), 1009–1024. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-00966-4Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Dejan Grba. 2021. Information Particles: Tracing the Ambiguities of the Creative AI. In Proceedings of Art Machines 2: International Symposium on Machine Learning and Art 2021. 2021–05.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Dejan Grba. 2022. Deep Else: A Critical Framework for AI Art. Digital 2, 1 (March 2022), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.3390/digital2010001 Number: 1 Publisher: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Drew Hemment. 2020. Reordering the Assemblages of the Digital through Art and Open Prototyping. Leonardo 53, 5 (Oct. 2020), 529–536. https://doi.org/10.1162/leon_a_01861Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Drew Hemment, Ruth Aylett, Vaishak Belle, Dave Murray-Rust, Ewa Luger, Jane Hillston, Michael Rovatsos, and Frank Broz. 2019. Experiential AI. AI Matters 5, 1 (April 2019), 25–31. https://doi.org/10.1145/3320254.3320264Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Jonathan Herlocker, Joseph A. Konstan, and John Riedl. 2000. Explaining Collaborative Filtering Recommendations. In Proceedings of the 2000 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work.241–250.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Lynn M. Hulse, Hui Xie, and Edwin R. Galea. 2018. Perceptions of autonomous vehicles: Relationships with road users, risk, gender and age. Safety Science 102 (Feb. 2018), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.10.001Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Beth Jensen. 2020. How AI and Art Hold Each Other Accountable. https://hai.stanford.edu/news/how-ai-and-art-hold-each-other-accountableGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Martin Kandlhofer, Gerald Steinbauer, Sabine Hirschmugl-Gaisch, and Petra Huber. 2016. Artificial intelligence and computer science in education: From kindergarten to university. In 2016 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2016.7757570Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. David A. Kolb. 2014. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. FT Press. Google-Books-ID: jpbeBQAAQBAJ.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Nikolas Kompridis. 2014. The Aesthetic Turn in Political Thought. Bloomsbury Publishing USA. Google-Books-ID: piw_AwAAQBAJ.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Benjamin Laufer, Sameer Jain, A. Feder Cooper, Jon Kleinberg, and Hoda Heidari. 2022. Four Years of FAccT: A Reflexive, Mixed-Methods Analysis of Research Contributions, Shortcomings, and Future Prospects. In 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency(FAccT ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 401–426. https://doi.org/10.1145/3531146.3533107Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Steve Lockey, Nicole Gillespie, and Caitlin Curtis. 2020. Trust in Artificial Intelligence: Australian Insights. The University of Queensland and KPMG (Oct. 2020). https://doi.org/10.14264/b32f129 Publisher: The University of Queensland and KPMG.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Duri Long and Brian Magerko. 2020. What is AI Literacy? Competencies and Design Considerations. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376727Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Lev Manovich. 2019. AI Aesthetics. Strelka Press Books, Moscow. https://y.shop.do.strelka.comGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Aaron K. Martin and Kevin P. Donovan. 2015. New surveillance technologies and their publics: A case of biometrics. Public Understanding of Science 24, 7 (Oct. 2015), 842–857. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662513514173 Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Danaë Metaxa, Joon Sung Park, Ronald E. Robertson, Karrie Karahalios, Christo Wilson, Jeff Hancock, and Christian Sandvig. 2021. Auditing Algorithms: Understanding Algorithmic Systems from the Outside In. Foundations and Trends® in Human–Computer Interaction 14, 4 (Nov. 2021), 272–344. https://doi.org/10.1561/1100000083 Publisher: Now Publishers, Inc..Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Jacob Metcalf, Emanuel Moss, Ranjit Singh, Emnet Tafese, and Elizabeth Anne Watkins. 2022. A relationship and not a thing: A relational approach to algorithmic accountability and assessment documentation. Technical Report arXiv:2203.01455. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2203.01455 arXiv:2203.01455 [cs] type: article.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Jessica Morley, Luciano Floridi, Libby Kinsey, and Anat Elhalal. 2020. From What to How: An Initial Review of Publicly Available AI Ethics Tools, Methods and Research to Translate Principles into Practices. Science and Engineering Ethics 26, 4 (Aug. 2020), 2141–2168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00165-5Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. Anna Munster. 2013. An Aesthesia of Networks: Conjunctive Experience in Art and Technology. MIT Press. Google-Books-ID: uLi5EF9LMCcC.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Davy Tsz Kit Ng, Jac Ka Lok Leung, Samuel Kai Wah Chu, and Maggie Shen Qiao. 2021. Conceptualizing AI literacy: An exploratory review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence 2 (Jan. 2021), 100041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100041Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Safiya Umoja Noble. 2018. Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism. NYU Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Mimi Onuoha. [n. d.]. What is Missing Is Still There. https://mimionuoha.com/what-is-missingGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Christiane Paul. 2008. New Media in the White Cube and Beyond: Curatorial Models for Digital Art. University of California Press. Google-Books-ID: kS09MwAACAAJ.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Emilee Rader, Kelley Cotter, and Janghee Cho. 2018. Explanations as Mechanisms for Supporting Algorithmic Transparency. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173677Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Inioluwa Deborah Raji, Andrew Smart, Rebecca N. White, Margaret Mitchell, Timnit Gebru, Ben Hutchinson, Jamila Smith-Loud, Daniel Theron, and Parker Barnes. 2020. Closing the AI accountability gap: defining an end-to-end framework for internal algorithmic auditing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency(FAT* ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372873Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Ingeborg Reichle. 2009. Art in the Age of Technoscience: Transgressing the Boundaries. In Art in the Age of Technoscience: Genetic Engineering, Robotics, and Artificial Life in Contemporary Art. Springer, Vienna, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-211-78161-6_1Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Dillon Reisman, Jason Schultz, Kate Crawford, and Meredith Whittaker. 2018. Algorithmic Impact Assessments: A practical framework for public agency accountability.Technical Report. AI Now Institute.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Michael Ridley and Danica Pawlick-Potts. 2021. Algorithmic Literacy and the Role for Libraries. Information Technology and Libraries 40, 2 (June 2021). https://doi.org/10.6017/ital.v40i2.12963 Number: 2.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  55. Gabriel Rockhill. 2014. Radical History and the Politics of Art. Columbia University Press. https://doi.org/10.7312/rock15200 Publication Title: Radical History and the Politics of Art.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. RSA. 2018. Artificial Intelligence: Real Public Engagement. Technical Report. Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufacturers and Commerce. https://www.thersa.org/globalassets/pdfs/reports/rsa_artificial-intelligence—real-public-engagement.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Marcus Du Sautoy. 2020. The Creativity Code: Art and Innovation in the Age of AI. Harvard University Press. Google-Books-ID: uoPWDwAAQBAJ.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. Neil Selwyn and Beatriz Gallo Cordoba. 2021. Australian public understandings of artificial intelligence. AI & SOCIETY (Sept. 2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01268-zGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  59. Donghee Shin. 2022. How do people judge the credibility of algorithmic sources?AI & SOCIETY 37, 1 (March 2022), 81–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01158-4Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  60. VID SIMONITI. 2018. Assessing Socially Engaged Art. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 76, 1 (Feb. 2018), 71–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/jaac.12414Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. Ramya Srinivasan and Kanji Uchino. 2021. The Role of Arts in Shaping AI Ethics. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2812/RDAI-2021_paper_3.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. Luke Stark and Kate Crawford. 2019. The work of art in the age of artificial intelligence: What artists can teach us about the ethics of data practice. Surveillance & Society 17, 3/4 (2019), 442–455.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  63. Grant D. Taylor. 2014. When the Machine Made Art: The Troubled History of Computer Art. Bloomsbury Publishing USA. Google-Books-ID: hAMQAwAAQBAJ.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  64. Chris Tennant, Sally Stares, and Susan Howard. 2019. Public discomfort at the prospect of autonomous vehicles: Building on previous surveys to measure attitudes in 11 countries. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 64 (July 2019), 98–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2019.04.017Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  65. Meredith Tromble. 2020. Ask not what AI can do for art... but what art can do for AI. Artnodes26 (Sept. 2020), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.7238/a.v0i26.3368 Number: 26 Publisher: Universitat Oberta de Catalunya.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  66. V&A. [n. d.]. Digital art · V&A. https://www.vam.ac.uk/articles/digital-artGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  67. Henriikka Vartiainen, Tapani Toivonen, Ilkka Jormanainen, Juho Kahila, Matti Tedre, and Teemu Valtonen. 2021. Machine learning for middle schoolers: Learning through data-driven design. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 29 (Sept. 2021), 100281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2021.100281Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  68. Stephen Wilson. 2002. Information Arts: Intersections of Art, Science, and Technology. MIT Press. Google-Books-ID: yRW0QgAACAAJ.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  69. Feiyu Xu, Hans Uszkoreit, Yangzhou Du, Wei Fan, Dongyan Zhao, and Jun Zhu. 2019. Explainable AI: A Brief Survey on History, Research Areas, Approaches and Challenges. In Natural Language Processing and Chinese Computing(Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Jie Tang, Min-Yen Kan, Dongyan Zhao, Sujian Li, and Hongying Zan (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 563–574. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32236-6_51Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  70. Martin Zeilinger. 2021. Tactical Entanglements: AI Art, Creative Agency, and the Limits of Intellectual Property. Meson Press. Google-Books-ID: MKSCzgEACAAJ.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  71. Zer-Aviv. 2018. The Normalizing Machine | An experiment in machine learning & algorithmic prejudice. https://mushon.com/tnm/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  72. Baobao Zhang and Allan Dafoe. 2019. Artificial Intelligence: American Attitudes and Trends. SSRN Electronic Journal (Jan. 2019). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3312874Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  73. Joanna Zylinska. 2020. AI Art: Machine Visions and Warped Dreams. Open Humanities Press. https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/40042Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. AI in the Public Eye: Investigating Public AI Literacy Through AI Art

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Other conferences
          FAccT '23: Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency
          June 2023
          1929 pages
          ISBN:9798400701924
          DOI:10.1145/3593013

          Copyright © 2023 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 12 June 2023

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
          • Research
          • Refereed limited

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader

        HTML Format

        View this article in HTML Format .

        View HTML Format