Katherine Evans

The use of terms like “collaboration” and “co-workers” to describe interactions between human beings and certain artificial intelligence (AI) systems has gained significant traction in recent years. Yet, it remains an open question whether such anthropomorphic metaphors provide either a fertile or even a purely innocuous lens through which to conceptualize designed commercial products. Rather, a respect for human dignity and the principle of transparency may require us to draw a sharp distinction between real and faux peers. At the heart of the concept of collaboration lies the assumption that the collaborating parties are (or behave as if they are) of similar status: two agents capable of comparable forms of intentional action, moral agency, or moral responsibility. In application to current AI systems, this not only seems to fail ontologically but also from a socio-political perspective. AI in the workplace is primarily an extension of capital, not of labor, and the AI “co-workers” of most individuals will likely be owned and operated by their employer. In this paper, we critically assess both the accuracy and desirability of using the term “collaboration” to describe interactions between humans and AI systems. We begin by proposing an alternative ontology of human–machine interaction, one which features not two equivalently autonomous agents, but rather one machine that exists in a relationship of heteronomy to one or more human agents. In this sense, while the machine may have a significant degree of independence concerning the means by which it achieves its ends, the ends themselves are always chosen by at least one human agent, whose interests may differ from those of the individuals interacting with the machine. We finally consider the motivations and risks inherent to the continued use of the term “collaboration,” exploring its strained relation to the concept of transparency, and consequences for the future of work.

The paper seeks to identify how teacher expertise is implicitly and explicitly conceptualised in current English education policy in respect of the professional development of teachers. We focus specifically on conceptualisations of expertise in the Early Career Framework (ECF), both in terms of the policy documentation produced by the Department for Education and in terms of a selection of publicly available materials produced by the lead providers of the ECF. We aim to locate these conceptualisations in terms of broader sociological and philosophical debates about the nature of expertise and its relationship to professional work, in addition to recent research on the policy context of teacher education and professional development in England. Our analysis reveals the inappropriacy of ‘expert systems’ approaches to expertise in educational contexts, the underlying assumptions embedded in policy in terms of what constitutes high-quality teaching practice and the insufficiency of relying on an appointed advisory group and organisations preferred by government for identifying and iterating criteria for expertise.