dc.contributor.author
Bonaldo, Rodrigo
dc.contributor.author
Barbosa Pereira, Ana Carolina
dc.date.accessioned
2023-04-12T07:41:19Z
dc.date.available
2023-04-12T07:41:19Z
dc.identifier.uri
https://refubium.fu-berlin.de/handle/fub188/38153
dc.identifier.uri
http://dx.doi.org/10.17169/refubium-37866
dc.description.abstract
Until the beginning of the twentieth century, history, as a core concept of the political project of modernity, was highly concerned with the future. The many crimes, genocides, and wars perpetuated in the name of historical progress eventually caused unavoidable fractures in the way Western philosophies of history have understood change over time, leading to a depoliticization of the future and a greater emphasis on matters of the present. However, the main claim of the “Historical Futures” project is that the future has not completely disappeared from the focus of historical thinking, and some modalities of the future that have been brought to the attention of historical thought relate to a more-than-human reality. This article aims to confront the prospects of a technological singularity through the eyes of peoples who already live in a world of more-than-human agency. The aim of this confrontation is to create not just an alternative way to think about the future but a stance from which we can explore ways to inhabit and therefore repoliticize historical futures. This article contains a comparative study that has been designed to challenge our technologized imaginations of the future and, at the same time, to infuse the theoretical experiment with contingent historical experiences. Could we consider artificial intelligence as a new historical subject? What about as an agent in a “more-than-human” history? To what extent can we read this new condition through ancient Amerindian notions of time? Traditionally, the relationship between Western anthropocentrism and Amerindian anthropomorphism has been framed in terms of an opposition. We intend to prefigure a less hierarchical and more horizontal relation between systems of thought, one devoid of a fixed center or parameter of reference. Granting the same degree of intellectual dignity to the works of Google engineers and the views of Amazonian shamans, we nevertheless foster an intercultural dialogue (between these two “traditions of reasoning”) about a future in which history can become more-than-human. We introduce potential history as the framework not only to conceptualize Amerindian experiences of time but also to start building an intercultural dialogue that is designed to discuss AI as a historical subject.
en
dc.format.extent
27 Seiten
dc.rights.uri
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.subject
anthropocentrism
en
dc.subject
anthropomorphism
en
dc.subject
artificial intelligence
en
dc.subject
historical subject
en
dc.subject
multinaturalism
en
dc.subject
perspectivism
en
dc.subject
traditions of reasoning
en
dc.subject.ddc
900 Geschichte und Geografie::900 Geschichte::902 Verschiedenes
dc.title
POTENTIAL HISTORY: READING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE FROM INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGES
dc.type
Wissenschaftlicher Artikel
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.doi
10.1111/hith.12290
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.journaltitle
History and Theory
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.number
1
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.pagestart
3
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.pageend
29
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.volume
62
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.url
https://doi.org/10.1111/hith.12290
refubium.affiliation
Geschichts- und Kulturwissenschaften
refubium.affiliation.other
Friedrich-Meinecke-Institut
refubium.funding
DEAL Wiley
refubium.note.author
Die Publikation wurde aus Open Access Publikationsgeldern der Freien Universität Berlin gefördert.
refubium.resourceType.isindependentpub
no
dcterms.accessRights.openaire
open access