LLM-based chatbots’ ability to generate contextually appropriate and informative texts can be taken as an indication that they are also able to understand text. We argue instead that the separation of the two competences to generate and to understand text is the key to their performance in dialog with human users. This argument requires a shift in perspective from a concern with machine intelligence to a concern with communicative competence. We illustrate our argument with empirical examples of what conversation analysis calls ‘repair’, showing that the management of trouble by chatbots is not based on an underlying understanding of what is going on but rather on their use of the feedback by human conversational partners. In the conclusion we suggest that strategies for the interaction between chatbots and users should not aim to improve computational skills but to develop a new communicative competence.
Pütz, O., & Esposito, E. (2024). Performance without understanding: How ChatGPT relies on humans to repair conversational trouble. Discourse & Communication, 18(6), 859-868. https://doi.org/10.1177/17504813241271492
© FotoEmotions / Pixabay
The growing digitisation in our society also affects policing, which tends to make use of increasingly refined algorithmic tools based on abstract technologies. But the abstraction of technology, we argue, does not necessarily entail an increase in abstraction of police work. This paper contrasts the ‘abstract police’ debate with an analysis of police practices that use digital technologies to achieve greater precision. While the notion of abstract police assumes that computerisation distances police officers from their community, our empirical investigation of a geo-analysis unit in a German Land Office of Criminal Investigation shows that the adoption of abstract procedures does not by itself imply a detachment from local reference and community contact. What we call contextual reference can be productively combined with the impersonality and anonymity of algorithmic procedures, leading also to more effective and focused forms of collaboration with local entities. On the basis of our empirical results, we suggest a more nuanced understanding of the digitalisation of police work. Rather than leading to a progressive estrangement from the community of reference, the use of digital techniques can enable experimentation with innovative forms of ‘precision policing’, particularly in the field of crime prevention.
Egbert, S., & Esposito, E. (2024). Algorithmic crime prevention. From abstract police to precision policing. Policing and Society, 34(6), 521–534. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2024.2326516
© Jason Leung / Unsplash
The openness of the future is rightly considered one of the qualifying aspects of the temporality of modern society. The open future, which does not yet exist in the present, implies radical unpredictability. This article discusses how, in the last few centuries, the resulting uncertainty has been managed with probabilistic tools that compute present information about the future in a controlled way. The probabilistic approach has always been plagued by three fundamental problems: performativity, the need for individualization, and the opacity of predictions. We contrast this approach with recent forms of algorithmic forecasting, which seem to turn these problems into resources and produce an innovative form of prediction. But can a predicted future still be an open future? We explore this specific contemporary modality of historical futures by examining the recent debate about the notion of actionability in precision medicine, which focuses on a form of individualized prediction that enables direct intervention in the future it predicts.
Esposito, E., Hofmann, D. and Coloni, C. (2024), Can a Predicted Future Still be an Open Future? Algorithmic Forecasts and Actionability in Precision*. History and Theory., 63: 4-24. https://doi.org/10.1111/hith.12327
© Alex Wong / Unsplash
This short introduction presents the symposium ‘Explaining Machines’. It locates the debate about Explainable AI in the history of the reflection about AI and outlines the issues discussed in the contributions.
Esposito, E. (2022). Explaining Machines: Social Management of Incomprehensible Algorithms. Introduction. Sociologica, 16(3), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1971-8853/16265
© Artur Vozneko / Unsplash
Dealing with opaque algorithms, the frequent overlap between transparency and explainability produces seemingly unsolvable dilemmas, as the much-discussed trade-off between model performance and model transparency. Referring to Niklas Luhmann's notion of communication, the paper argues that explainability does not necessarily require transparency and proposes an alternative approach. Explanations as communicative processes do not imply any disclosure of thoughts or neural processes, but only reformulations that provide the partners with additional elements and enable them to understand (from their perspective) what has been done and why. Recent computational approaches aiming at post-hoc explainability reproduce what happens in communication, producing explanations of the working of algorithms that can be different from the processes of the algorithms.
Esposito, E. (2022). Does Explainability Require Transparency?. Sociologica, 16(3), 17–27. https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1971-8853/15804
© Robert Anasch / Unsplash
The use of algorithmic prediction in insurance is regarded as the beginning of a new era, because it promises to personalise insurance policies and premiums on the basis of individual behaviour and level of risk. The core idea is that the price of the policy would no longer refer to the calculated uncertainty of a pool of policyholders, with the consequence that everyone would have to pay only for her real exposure to risk. For insurance, however, uncertainty is not only a problem – shared uncertainty is a resource. The availability of individual risk information could undermine the principle of risk-pooling and risk-spreading on which insurance is based. The article examines this disruptive change first by exploring the possible consequences of the use of predictive algorithms to set insurance premiums. Will it endanger the principle of mutualisation of risks, producing new forms of discrimination and exclusion from coverage? In a second step, we analyse how the relationship between the insurer and the policyholder changes when the customer knows that the company has voluminous, and continuously updated, data about her real behaviour.
Cevolini, A., & Esposito, E. (2020). From pool to profile: Social consequences of algorithmic prediction in insurance. Big Data & Society, 7(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951720939228
© Thomas Park / Unsplash
Discourse about smart algorithms and digital social agents still refers primarily to the construction of artificial intelligence that reproduces the faculties of individuals. Recent developments, however, show that algorithms are more efficient when they abandon this goal and try instead to reproduce the ability to communicate. Algorithms that do not “think” like people can affect the ability to obtain and process information in society. Referring to the concept of communication in Niklas Luhmann’s theory of social systems, this paper critically reconstructs the debate on the computational turn of big data as the artificial reproduction not of intelligence but of communication. Self-learning algorithms parasitically take advantage – be it consciously or unaware – of the contribution of web users to a “virtual double contingency.” This provides society with information that is not part of the thoughts of anyone, but, nevertheless, enters the communication circuit and raises its complexity. The concept of communication should be reconsidered to take account of these developments, including (or not) the possibility of communicating with algorithms.
Esposito, E. (2017) "Artificial Communication? The Production of Contingency by Algorithms" Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 46 (4), 249-265. https://doi.org/10.1515/zfsoz-2017-1014
© Lesly Derksen / Unsplash
Auf dem Hintergrund der Forschung über die Art und Weise, wie Kommunikationstechnologien auf Formen der Kommunikation einwirken, werden die Merkmale der Einführung der informatischen Technologie untersucht, in der eine Maschine benutzt wird, um Kommunikation zu verbreiten und zu verarbeiten. Die grundlegende Frage ist, wie eine Kommunikation behandelt werden kann, die immer abstrakter gegenüber dem außer-kommunikativen Kontext und immer unabhängiger vom Mitteilungsereignis ist: der Sinn der Kommunikation hängt immer weniger von der Absicht des Mitteilenden ab. Die Hypothese wird diskutiert, dass in dem individuellen Gebrauch des Computers die Maschine nicht als Kommunikationspartner betrachtet werden muss, sondern dazu dient, eine virtuelle Kontingenz als Unterstützung in der Verarbeitung der Informationen zu generieren. Diese virtuelle Kontingenz kann auch im kommunikativen Gebrauch gefunden werden: der Gebrauch der Maschine dient dazu, Informationen zu verarbeiten, die von der Tatsache, dass eine Mitteilung stattgefunden hat, aber immer weniger vom Sinn der Mitteilung selbst abhängig sind.
Esposito, E. (1993). Der Computer als Medium und Maschine".Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 22 (5). 338-354. https://doi.org/10.1515/zfsoz-1993-0502
© Ali Yilmaz / Unsplash