Author
Listed:
- Slobodan Tomić
- Vid Štimac
Abstract
The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) has often been accompanied by its characterization as a “wicked issue.” This paper subjects that claim to critical analysis, arguing that it is a misdiagnosis. The analysis shows that the problems associated with AI do not exhibit the defining attributes of wicked issues, such as irresolvable value conflicts, non‐linear interdependencies, or the absence of workable solutions. They are better understood as complicated yet tractable policy challenges. The misdiagnosis is sustained by conceptual overstretching, technological mystification, and possibly framing by actors with interests in permissive regulatory outcomes. By challenging the conventional wisdom on the wickedness of AI, the paper sharpens the analytical use of the wicked‐issue concept and contributes to a more grounded debate on the governance of emerging technologies. It further distinguishes the governance of AI systems from economy‐wide adaptation to technological change, showing that while such adaptation is difficult, it is tractable and does not, in itself, warrant a “wicked” label. The findings contribute to three main strands of scholarship: first, the wicked‐issue literature, by identifying technological mystification as a specific mechanism of over‐diagnosis; second, the regulatory governance literature, by pointing to the implications of (non) wicked labelling for emerging regulatory models; and third, the policy‐framing literature, by showing how the wickedness frame constrains the perceived scope for governance action. 人工智能(AI)的兴起常常伴随着“棘手问题”的标签。本文对这种说法进行批判性分析,认为这是一种误诊。分析表明,与人工智能相关的问题并不具备棘手问题的典型特征,例如无法解决的价值冲突、非线性相互依存关系或缺乏可行的解决方案,而更恰当的理解是复杂但可控的政策挑战。这种误诊源于概念上的过度延伸、技术的神秘化,以及那些希望获得宽松监管结果的利益相关者的战略性框架构建。本文通过挑战关于人工智能“棘手”的传统观点,深化了对“棘手问题”概念的分析运用,并有助于就新兴技术的治理展开更务实的讨论。此外,本文还将人工智能系统的治理与经济层面的技术变革适应区分开来,指出尽管后者的适应过程充满挑战,但它是可控的,其本身并不应被贴上“棘手”的标签。研究结果对三个主要学术领域作贡献:第一,通过识别技术神秘化这一过度诊断机制,为棘手问题研究领域作贡献;第二,通过指出(非)棘手标签对新兴监管模式的影响,为监管治理研究领域作贡献;第三,通过展示棘手性框架如何限制人们对治理行动范围的认知,为政策框架研究领域作贡献。 El auge de la inteligencia artificial (IA) se ha caracterizado frecuentemente como un problema complejo. Este artículo somete dicha afirmación a un análisis crítico, argumentando que se trata de un diagnóstico erróneo. El análisis demuestra que los problemas asociados a la IA no presentan las características propias de los problemas complejos, como conflictos de valores irresolubles, interdependencias no lineales o la ausencia de soluciones viables, sino que se comprenden mejor como desafíos políticos complejos pero abordables. Este diagnóstico erróneo se sustenta en una interpretación excesiva, la mistificación tecnológica y la manipulación estratégica por parte de actores con intereses en resultados regulatorios permisivos. Al cuestionar la idea convencional sobre la complejidad de la IA, este artículo perfecciona el uso analítico del concepto de problema complejo y contribuye a debates más fundamentados sobre la gobernanza de las tecnologías emergentes. Además, distingue la gobernanza de los sistemas de IA de la adaptación de la economía al cambio tecnológico, demostrando que, si bien dicha adaptación es difícil, es abordable y no justifica, por sí misma, la etiqueta de “problemático complejo”. Los hallazgos contribuyen a tres líneas principales de investigación: primero, la literatura sobre problemas complejos, al identificar la mistificación tecnológica como un mecanismo específico de sobrediagnóstico; segundo, la literatura sobre gobernanza regulatoria, al señalar las implicaciones de la clasificación (no) compleja para los modelos regulatorios emergentes; y tercero, la literatura sobre formulación de políticas, al mostrar cómo el marco de complejidad limita el alcance percibido de la acción de gobernanza.
Suggested Citation
Slobodan Tomić & Vid Štimac, 2026.
"Are AI Issues Wicked?,"
Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 43(4), July.
Handle:
RePEc:bla:revpol:v:43:y:2026:i:4:n:e70116
DOI: 10.1111/ropr.70116
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:43:y:2026:i:4:n:e70116. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipsonea.html .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.