AI Now Institute

AI Now Institute
Name	AI Now Institute
Established	2017
Headquarters	New York City
Founders	Meredith Whittaker; Kate Crawford
Type	Research institute
Parent institution	New York University
Focus	Artificial intelligence; public policy; social implications

AI Now Institute

The AI Now Institute is a research institute at New York University dedicated to studying the social implications of artificial intelligence and related technologies. Founded by scholars and activists with ties to technology industry labor movements and academic communities, the institute sits at the intersection of computer science, law, sociology, and public policy scholarship. It produces interdisciplinary reports, advises legislative bodies, and convenes stakeholders from civil rights organizations, labor unions, and the technology sector.

History

The institute was announced in 2017 amid public debates triggered by controversies at Google LLC, Facebook, Inc., and other technology firms over data practices, content moderation, and algorithmic bias. Its founders included researchers and policy advocates who had participated in campaigns against contracts between major tech firms and U.S. government agencies, and who helped organize collective actions within Silicon Valley workplaces. Early activities built on precedents set by scholars at institutions such as Harvard University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Stanford University that examined the societal impacts of automation and surveillance. Over subsequent years the institute expanded collaborations with municipal governments like New York City, and engaged with international forums including venues linked to the European Commission and United Nations.

Mission and Research Focus

The institute’s stated mission centers on understanding the social consequences of automated systems and advocating for accountability, transparency, and rights-based approaches. Research spans algorithmic accountability, surveillance and policing technologies, labor implications of automation, and regulatory frameworks for high-risk systems. The institute’s teams draw on methods and literatures from legal studies anchored in case law examples such as rulings from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, empirical social science approaches used at Columbia University and University of California, Berkeley, and critical theory traditions associated with scholars connected to Oxford University and University of Cambridge. Its outputs aim to inform policymakers in bodies such as the U.S. Congress, state legislatures, and municipal councils.

Key Projects and Reports

High-profile outputs include annual reviews and thematic reports addressing algorithmic bias in criminal justice, automated hiring systems, and facial recognition. Notable projects have examined the use of predictive policing systems deployed in jurisdictions like Chicago, Los Angeles, and London, and the adoption of facial recognition by agencies including the Metropolitan Police Service (London) and federal law enforcement bodies. Reports have documented harms linked to automated decision-making in healthcare contexts involving institutions such as Mount Sinai Health System and employment screening by firms connected to LinkedIn Corporation and major staffing agencies. The institute’s recommendations often propose regulatory interventions similar in scope to proposals discussed by the European Parliament and statutes modeled after provisions of the California Consumer Privacy Act. Collaborative initiatives have produced toolkits for civil society groups like ACLU affiliates, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and worker centers tied to Service Employees International Union organizing.

Organizational Structure and Leadership

Administratively housed within New York University, the institute has been led by academic founders who also hold appointments in schools such as NYU Tandon School of Engineering and NYU School of Law. Its staff mix includes researchers with doctoral degrees from programs at Princeton University, University of Michigan, and Yale University, policy analysts with experience in legislative offices on Capitol Hill, and fellows drawn from think tanks like Brookings Institution and Center for American Progress. Advisory boards have featured prominent figures from civil liberties organizations, labor advocacy groups, and academic centers such as Berkman Klein Center at Harvard University.

Partnerships and Funding

The institute’s funding model has combined institutional support from New York University with grants from philanthropic entities and foundations active in technology policy. Major donors and funders of technology policy research that have been associated with similar initiatives include foundations like the Ford Foundation, Knight Foundation, and others historically underwriting public-interest technology work. Partnerships have been formed with municipal agencies in cities such as San Francisco, private-sector research groups at companies including Microsoft Corporation and nonprofit centers like Data & Society Research Institute to convene stakeholders and pilot accountability frameworks. The institute has also engaged with regulatory bodies including the Federal Trade Commission and legislative committees in the New York State Legislature.

Criticisms and Controversies

The institute has faced scrutiny and debate over its funding sources, relationships with industry partners, and stances on technology sector labor actions. Critics from some industry-aligned think tanks and commentators have challenged recommendations seen as restrictive toward technology deployment, while civil society actors have sometimes argued the institute’s partnerships moderated its advocacy. Debates over the institute’s role in municipal procurement decisions have involved city agencies and police oversight bodies in jurisdictions such as New York City and Oakland, prompting public hearings and media coverage in outlets that track technology policy. Legal scholars and practitioners have contested aspects of proposed regulatory frameworks in relation to precedents from courts including the United States Supreme Court.

Category:Research institutes Category:Technology policy