Global governance and the normalization of artificial intelligence as ‘good’ for human health

10Citations
Citations of this article
56Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

The term ‘artificial intelligence’ has arguably come to function in political discourse as, what Laclau called, an ‘empty signifier’. This article traces the shifting political discourse on AI within three key institutions of global governance–OHCHR, WHO, and UNESCO–and, in so doing, highlights the role of ‘crisis’ moments in justifying a series of pivotal re-articulations. Most important has been the attachment of AI to the narrative around digital automation in human healthcare. Greatly enabled by the societal context of the pandemic, all three institutions have moved from being critical of the unequal power relations in the economy of AI to, today, reframing themselves primarily as facilitators tasked with helping to ensure the application of AI technologies. The analysis identifies a shift in which human health and healthcare is framed as in a ‘crisis’ to which AI technology is presented as the remedy. The article argues the need to trace these discursive shifts as a means by which to understand, monitor, and where necessary also hold to account these changes in the governance of AI in society.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Strange, M., & Tucker, J. (2024). Global governance and the normalization of artificial intelligence as ‘good’ for human health. AI and Society, 39(6), 2667–2676. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-023-01774-2

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free