Responding to the call for papers on Topic 2 'Human Agency, Futures and AI', this proposed article critically examines the potential of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Future Studies, making comparison between a selection of historical and contemporary tools used in the field to help represent or generate images of the future.
In Chapter 1, we look at the evolution from divinatory practices to contemporary methods of Future Studies, alongside which we examine tarot cards and scenarios as tools for interfacing with the future. Wendell Bell's critique of divination as superstitious is scrutinised against the backdrop of his admission that divination was often grounded on discernible observations and causal relationships (“Foundations of Futures Studies, Volume 1”).
Tarot cards, rich with symbolic imagery, enable those with low literacy to engage with complex projections, while scenarios require literacy proficiency and favour a systematic approach that resonate with a different audience. Here, we examine how the reduced reliance on intuition within scenarios affords their use within a different context, and we lean into McLuhan's idea that "the medium is the message," suggesting that traditional divination methods afford different, more interpretive interactions with the future than their modern scenario counterparts, and explore how this manifests in societal belief systems (McLuhan, "Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man", 1964).
Chapter 2 brings into focus the use of 'provotypes' (Boer, Donovan, 2012) within futures studies and generative design research practice, a tool that uses artefacts to embody tensions within possible futures and generate productive reflection and dialogue around preferable futures. We use a case study from one of the authors’ practice, Studio -anonymised-, which exemplifies the practical application of provotypes to orchestrate collaborative visioning around the future of digital education for the University of -anonymised-. This lends credence to Stuart Candy and Kelly Kornet's Experiential Futures Framework's endorsement of design-driven approaches in making complex future issues tangible (Candy & Kornet, 2019).
In the final chapter, we turn to AI's role in Future Studies. Modelling our analysis around Donald Rumsfeld's "known unknowns" matrix, we will critically assess AI's capabilities and shortcomings, envisaging and reflecting on different applications for AI within Futures Studies. For example, while AI thrives in processing “known knowns” by analysing colossal amounts of data, it often perpetuates systemic biases, as presented in O'Neil's "Weapons of Math Destruction," and might struggle with “unknown knowns,” which entail implicit human knowledge or intuition. The inability of AI to adequately cater to edge cases will be shown when reviewing the “User Persona” tool (AI Consulting tools, 2023) clearly underscoring how AI wrestles with the "known unknowns."
The potential allure of AI could lie in its potential to experience and probe and, to some extent, shape the future - but for whom? The future is not just a set of data points. It's shaped by human desires, fears, aspirations, and actions. Should AI produce futures ready-made for consumption? Or, as we argue, in the hands of ethically mindful human wielders, could it become a powerful instrument to probe and co-create collective futures?