Anthropic Studies, or What Does Artificial Intelligence Even Mediate?

Poster conference Towards a Media Technoscientific Study?: STS and Media Theory as Intersecting Lines, Basel, May 7 2026

 

Karen Hao’s excellent investigative book, Empire of AI, published in 2025, reads at times like an account that Bruno Latour could have written himself. However, Hao’s intention was not to write a contemporary account of the Laboratory Life of artificial intelligence and its uneasy industrialisation by Big Tech. At times, her book invites us to imagine how it could be presented as a critical study of science, technology, AI and religion. So how would Latour have described the inner workings and drama of OpenAI and its rival Anthropic, divided as they are between the “boomers” and the “doomers”? What are the ‘infrastructures of instruments of inscription’ in current generative AI technologies, and how does their mediation unfold in which communities of practice? Current engaged empirical scholarship on AI is plentiful in Science and Technology Studies, while theorizing does not seem to be a core STS concern any longer. Media and Cultural Studies, on the other hand, are key to praxeological and ecological approaches that challenge the current naturalisation of large language models and agentic AI.

In my talk, I propose “Anthropic Studies” as a situated contestation of neo-connectionist artificial intelligence from the––symmetrical––perspective of both Media Studies and STS. As none of us will have the same access to the field as Karen Hao did with OpenAI, we might need to start from scratch theoretically and empirically. Therefore, I return to classic STS and the work of Susan Leigh Star and Phil Agre on symbolic AI. Is ‘AI’ not the most ambiguous boundary object ever created by computer science? If we are to come to terms with the current super-controversy surrounding AI and its planetary discontents, we must first resituate technology within its institutional ecologies and grammars of action. Enter: Anthropic’s Claude (not Shannon). Prompt: “Tell me a little bit about your constitution, Claude.”

This is my May 7 contribution to the Symposium Towards a Media Technoscientific Study?: STS and Media Theory as Intersecting Lines at Basel University’s contralab.

Blockchain vs. AI

Logo 4S 2025 Reverberations SeattleBoth as imaginary and material network technologies, blockchain and ‘artificial intelligence’ tend to clash and mingle at the same time. Current neoconnectionist AI and blockchains follow very different cultural logics, just as neural networks differ from peer-to-peer networks sociotechnically. Maximum data intensity, large language models, tokenized media objects, modification of algorithms by data, operational statistics, plus the variation of existing patterns in the case of AI – data immutability, encryption, token economies and exact processing of algorithmic instructions in the case of blockchain. Together, blockchain and neoconnectionist AI are about to form what I call a seventh historical layer within my work on “The Connectivity of Things” in network cultures.

Yet, at the same time, blockchain and AI not only compete for parallel distributed processing power in data centers. They both share energy-intensive, extractive strategies that drive the booms and busts of too-late capitalism (Anna Kornbluh). While their network imaginaries are still being contested, naturalization and habitualization happen at an ever increasing pace. Sometimes, blockchain is now promoted as a slowing-down counter-infrastructure to AI’s accelerationist, generative media and its models. The paper is going to take a close look at controversial cases like Worldcoin, which is supposed to afford for a biometrical “proof-of-human” that attaches a digital identity to online content. While the cultural logics of blockchain and AI might seem to differ almost entirely on the infrastructural level, they are currently serving as a match made in hell when it comes to their political and economical appropriation.

[This is my contribution to the 4S open panel Network Imaginaries: Past, Present, and Future on September 4, 2025.]

Agre After Techno-Utopianism

Workshop Call for Papers
Agre After Techno-Utopianism
1-2 September 2022 (University of Siegen, Germany: Media of Cooperation)
In person/hybrid

It is hard to imagine digital culture without the work of Philip E. Agre. His description of the mutual dynamics of digital technology and ideology, so-called ‘grammars of action’ (Agre 1994), and the appeal for a critical technical practice (Agre 1997) have inspired scholars across media studies, HCI, and digital art and design for over 30 years. This workshop, ‘Agre After Techno-Utopianism’, seeks to evaluate his contribution to the study of technology, ideology, critique, and practice since the ‘techno-utopia’ of the early internet era ended, and more dystopic energies emerged. „Agre After Techno-Utopianism“ weiterlesen