Competing narratives in AI ethics: a defense of sociotechnical pragmatism

Abstract Several competing narratives drive the contemporary AI ethics discourse. At the two extremes are sociotechnical dogmatism , which holds that society is full of inefficiencies and imperfections that can only be solved by better technology; and sociotechnical skepticism , which highlights the unacceptable risks AI systems pose. While both narratives have their merits, they are ultimately reductive and limiting. As a constructive synthesis, we introduce and defend sociotechnical pragmatism —a narrative that emphasizes the central role of context and human agency in designing and evaluating emerging technologies. In doing so, we offer two novel contributions. First, we demonstrate how ethical and epistemological considerations are intertwined in the AI ethics discourse by tracing the dialectical interplay between dogmatic and skeptical narratives across disciplines. Second, we show through examples how sociotechnical pragmatism does more to promote fair and transparent AI than dogmatic or skeptical alternatives. By spelling out the assumptions that underpin sociotechnical pragmatism, we articulate a robust stance for policymakers and scholars who seek to enable societies to reap the benefits of AI while managing the associated risks through feasible, effective, and proportionate governance.