Saomai Vu Khan

Gordon Fletcher, Saomai Vu Khan

Our focus are five related questions that stem from a critical software studies perspective. Underpinning this view is the acknowledged need to avoid assumptions regarding the inevitability of the current situation relating to AI. What we need to see is the closeness of the linkage between current commercial AI development and our prevailing social, political and economic circumstances. This does mean that the perspectives presented here are done so critically and conditionally. Most importantly, Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) is seen as being problematic both conceptually and definitionally. This conditioning of any view regarding AGI does lead the discussion in specific directions and to certain conclusions regarding the future. However, adopting this perspective enables the work to offer some final recommendations. We set out to ask the following questions, 1. What are the critical pathways that produced the current dominant generative AI tools (capabilities, product forms, adoption patterns)? 2. Which decision points acted as leverage nodes (small changes that had large downstream effects), and which dead ends reveal alternative possibilities that did not become dominant? 3. How do pathways differ across three foundational-model trajectories such as the frontier proprietary models, open-weight models or specific domain and sovereign models? 4. Which alternative projects branched from key leverage nodes, what is their current state, and why did some succeed, stall, fail or become absorbed? 5. Based on this analysis, what socio-technical development programmes could plausibly move toward AGI-adjacent capability while meeting requirements for transparency, moderation, wellbeing and sustainable business models?

Gordon Fletcher, Saomai Vu Khan, Aldus Greenhill Fletcher

This paper examines the potential for generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) to assist with internal review processes for research quality evaluations in UK higher education and particularly in preparation for the Research Excellence Framework (REF). Using the lens of function substitution in the Viable Systems Model, we present an experimental methodology using ChatGPT to score and rank business and management papers from REF 2021 submissions, "reverse engineering" the assessment by comparing AI-generated scores with known institutional results. Through rigourous testing of 822 papers across 11 institutions, we established scoring boundaries that aligned with reported REF outcomes: 49% between 1* and 2*, 59% between 2* and 3*, and 69% between 3* and 4*. The results demonstrate that AI can provide consistent evaluations that help identify borderline evaluation cases requiring additional human scrutiny while reducing the substantial resource burden of traditional internal review processes. We argue for application through a nuanced hybrid approach that maintains academic integrity while addressing the multi-million pound costs associated with research evaluation bureaucracy. While acknowledging these limitations including potential AI biases, the research presents a promising framework for more efficient, consistent evaluations that could transform current approaches to research assessment.