• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Core Principles of Responsible AI
    • Accountability
    • Fairness
    • Privacy
    • Safety and Security
    • Sustainability
    • Transparency
  • Special Topics
    • AI in Industry
    • Ethical Implications
    • Human-Centered Design
    • Regulatory Landscape
    • Technical Methods
  • Living Dictionary
  • State of AI Ethics
  • AI Ethics Brief
  • 🇫🇷
Montreal AI Ethics Institute

Montreal AI Ethics Institute

Democratizing AI ethics literacy

Making Kin with the Machines

May 2, 2021

🔬 Research summary by Muriam Fancy, our Network Engagement Manager.

[Original paper by Jason Edward Lewis, Noelani Arista, Archer Pechawis, Suzanne Kite]


Overview: Indigenous epistemologies are able to develop the ethical frameworks and principles to understand how to build and see our relationship with AI and machines. The essay discusses how we can understand creating kinship with AI through Indigenous epistemologies while valuing respect and reciprocity. The authors draw upon Cree, Lakota, and Hawaiian cultural knowledge to create and acknowledge the responsibility to include computational creation in the circle of relationships.


Introduction

Joi Ito’s “Resisting Reduction” manifesto describes a core principle to Indigenous knowledge, and that is that everything is connected. The author’s purpose in this essay is to build upon the proposal of “extended intelligence” and propose a “circle of relationships’ which includes human and non-human relationships, and in this case with artificial intelligence. Through utilizing Indigenous epistemologies, the understanding of how to create these relationships and understand interconnectedness is much more dynamic and acknowledges how these relationships are not generalizable, but rather are situated in territories, protocols, and genealogies and therefore imparting the relationality as one of the core principles for this relationship. 

Indigenous epistemologies

As the authors note, the epistemologies discussed in the essay are not monolithic, rather the epistemologies referenced in this essay are specific to Cree, Lakota, and Hawaiian Indigenous communities. 

As mentioned previously, a core epistemological principle is relationality. The difficulty of applying relationality to cyberspace and computational software on how it exists on Indigenous peoples territory. As the authors note, “…how do we as Indigenous people reconcile the fully embodied experience of being on the land with the generally disembodied experience of virtual spaces? How do we come to understand this new territory, knit it into our existing understanding of our lives lived in real space, and claim it as our own?”. It is through Cree, Lakota, and Hawaiian knowledge that this can be further explored to creating kinship and understanding computational creations in the circle of relations. 

Hāloa: the long breath

Kānaka maoli (Hawaiian people) ontologies can conceptualize these relationships through seeing AI as ĀIna, which is a play on the word of  āina meaning Hawaiian land. AI thus should be seen as a relation that supports and “nourishes”. 

The story of Hāloa serves as an understanding that what is understood as cognition is not static, but rather continues to evolve and change throughout generations. As the authors describe cognition as understanding and acquiring knowledge through thought, experience and senses, and in Hawai’i that also includes the ‘ike knowledge of previous generations. And through reflecting on the history of colonial practices, instead of extractive behaviour, principles of balance and abundance must be valid. The history of colonization and western values continue to value the benefit of one over the other, rather the authors say that there must be multiplicity and understanding of how connectedness is found through multiple relations. 

wahkohtawin: kinship within and beyond the immediate family, the state of being related to others

Nēhiyawēwin (the Plains Cree language) divides all things into two categories: animate and inanimate, one is not better than the other, but they are “different states of being”. The author for this section explores how AI would thus be viewed, and how it would fit into the circle of relations. To which the author found when consulting friends, depended on factors of “humanness”, “naturalness”, and in what capacity could the AI be included. The author explores what it would mean to include AI into the author’s cultural practices. 

However, a significant concern that should be highlighted, is the way in which AI can harm communities. The way in which AI is built is often exclusionary, harmful, and without thought of accountability, all of which were principles that supported genocide against Indigenous peoples. 

The author proposes that ways to mitigate this threat include creating programming languages that are in nēhiyaw nisitohtamowin (for Cree people), as well as other cultural frameworks for other Indigenous communities that would also like to address this issue. AI that has nēhiyaw nisitohtamowin in its language would be a mechanism that would catalyze its inclusion in the community cultural processes. 

wakȟáŋ: that which cannot be understood

“In order to create relations with any non-human entity, not just entities which are human-like, the first step are to acknowledge, understand, and know that non-humans are beings in the first place.” Lakota cosmologies provide an understanding of how to create ethics for humans and our relations to everything. Lakota ethical ontologies are understood through protocols, which speak to prioritizing non-human interiorities (mind, soul or consciousness which is also intentionality, subjectivity, reactivity, feelings, and expression).

Resisting reduction: an Indigenous path forward 

Singularitarian, as Ito notes in their “Resisting Reduction” essay is a significant concern. The driver behind singularitarianism shares a similarity to the biases of those who support colonization and slavery. Building and deploying AI for power, exclusion, and extraction is what perpetuates harm. 

A path forward includes understanding what kinship and the inclusion of AI in the circle of relations can look like through a multiplicity of Indigenous epistemologies. 

Between the lines

I strongly urge everyone to read the essay by the authors in its entirety. This research summary discusses the high-level points brought and discussed in the essay but does not do it justice for how it is explained and grounded in the essay by the authors. If I have made many mistakes in this summary, I do sincerely apologize, and please note that I am more than happy to change it so that it better reflects the authors and the essay. 

As the authors discussed, AI and other machines are built using western ideologies of extractivism, singularity, and without accountability. One of the many reasons why I thoroughly enjoyed this essay is because it further proves how the inclusion of Indigenous epistemology (which is not static but evolves through generations) can better speak to how to build a better future with AI.

Want quick summaries of the latest research & reporting in AI ethics delivered to your inbox? Subscribe to the AI Ethics Brief. We publish bi-weekly.

Primary Sidebar

🔍 SEARCH

Spotlight

AI Policy Corner: Singapore’s National AI Strategy 2.0

AI Governance in a Competitive World: Balancing Innovation, Regulation and Ethics | Point Zero Forum 2025

AI Policy Corner: Frontier AI Safety Commitments, AI Seoul Summit 2024

AI Policy Corner: The Colorado State Deepfakes Act

Special Edition: Honouring the Legacy of Abhishek Gupta (1992–2024)

related posts

  • Research summary: Decolonial AI: Decolonial Theory as Sociotechnical Foresight in Artificial Intelli...

    Research summary: Decolonial AI: Decolonial Theory as Sociotechnical Foresight in Artificial Intelli...

  • ChatGPT and the media in the Global South: How non-representative corpus in sub-Sahara Africa are en...

    ChatGPT and the media in the Global South: How non-representative corpus in sub-Sahara Africa are en...

  • One Map to Rule Them All? Google Maps as Digital Technical Object

    One Map to Rule Them All? Google Maps as Digital Technical Object

  • Never trust, always verify: a roadmap for Trustworthy AI?

    Never trust, always verify: a roadmap for Trustworthy AI?

  • Whose AI Dream? In search of the aspiration in data annotation.

    Whose AI Dream? In search of the aspiration in data annotation.

  • Common but Different Futures: AI Inequity and Climate Change

    Common but Different Futures: AI Inequity and Climate Change

  • UNESCO’s Recommendation on the Ethics of AI

    UNESCO’s Recommendation on the Ethics of AI

  • The Limits of Global Inclusion in AI Development (Research Summary)

    The Limits of Global Inclusion in AI Development (Research Summary)

  • Research summary: SoK: Security and Privacy in Machine Learning

    Research summary: SoK: Security and Privacy in Machine Learning

  • Automated Interviewer or Augmented Survey? Collecting Social Data with Large Language Models

    Automated Interviewer or Augmented Survey? Collecting Social Data with Large Language Models

Partners

  •  
    U.S. Artificial Intelligence Safety Institute Consortium (AISIC) at NIST

  • Partnership on AI

  • The LF AI & Data Foundation

  • The AI Alliance

Footer

Categories


• Blog
• Research Summaries
• Columns
• Core Principles of Responsible AI
• Special Topics

Signature Content


• The State Of AI Ethics

• The Living Dictionary

• The AI Ethics Brief

Learn More


• About

• Open Access Policy

• Contributions Policy

• Editorial Stance on AI Tools

• Press

• Donate

• Contact

The AI Ethics Brief (bi-weekly newsletter)

About Us


Founded in 2018, the Montreal AI Ethics Institute (MAIEI) is an international non-profit organization equipping citizens concerned about artificial intelligence and its impact on society to take action.


Archive

  • Š MONTREAL AI ETHICS INSTITUTE. All rights reserved 2024.
  • This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
  • Learn more about our open access policy here.
  • Creative Commons License

    Save hours of work and stay on top of Responsible AI research and reporting with our bi-weekly email newsletter.