Ethnography (social scientific methods that illuminate how people understand, navigate and shape the real world contexts in which they live their lives) and machine learning (computational techniques that use big data and statistical learning models to perform quantifiable tasks) are each core to contemporary social science. Yet these tools have remained largely separate in practice. This chapter draws on a growing body of scholarship that argues that ethnography and machine learning can be usefully combined, particularly for large comparative studies. Specifically, this paper (a) explains the value (and challenges) of using machine learning alongside qualitative field research for certain types of projects, (b) discusses recent methodological trends to this effect, (c) provides examples that illustrate workflow drawn from several large projects, and (d) concludes with a roadmap for enabling productive coevolution of field methods and machine learning.

This paper introduces "Synthetic Interlocutors" for ethnographic research. Synthetic Interlocutors are chatbots ingested with ethnographic textual material (interviews and observations) by using Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG). We integrated an open-source large language model with ethnographic data from three projects to explore two questions: Can RAG digest ethnographic material and act as ethnographic interlocutor? And, if so, can Synthetic Interlocutors prolong encounters with the field and extend our analysis? Through reflections on the process of building our Synthetic Interlocutors and an experimental collaborative workshop, we suggest that RAG can digest ethnographic materials, and it might lead to prolonged, yet uneasy ethnographic encounters that allowed us to partially recreate and re-visit fieldwork interactions while facilitating opportunities for novel analytic insights. Synthetic Interlocutors can produce collaborative, ambiguous and serendipitous moments.

Imagine activating new robots meant to aid staff in an elder care facility, only to discover the robots are counterproductive. They undermine the most meaningful moments of the jobs and increase staff workloads, because robots demand care too. Eventually, they're returned. This vignette captures key elements of James Adrian Wright's ethnography, "Robots Won't Save Japan", an essential resource for understanding the state of elder care robotics. Wright's rich ethnographic interviews and observations challenge the prevailing funding, research, and development paradigms for robotics. Elder care residents tend to be Disabled, so this review article augments Wrights' insights with overlooked perspectives from Disability and Robotics research. This article highlights how care recipients' portrayal suggests that Paro, a plush robot seal, might perform better than the care team and author indicated -- leading to insights that support urgent paradigm shifts in elder care, ethnographic studies, and robotics. It presents some of the stronger technical status quo counter-arguments to the book's core narratives, then confronts their own assumptions. Furthermore, it explores exceptional cases where Japanese and international roboticists attend to care workers and recipients, justifying key arguments in Wright's compelling book. Finally, it addresses how "Robots won't save Japan" will save Robotics.

Christine J. Walley, professor of anthropology at MIT and member of the MIT Task Force on the Work of the Future, explores how robots have often been a symbol for anxiety about artificial intelligence and automation. Walley provides a unique perspective in the recent research brief "Robots as Symbols and Anxiety Over Work Loss." She highlights the historical context of technology and job displacement and illustrates examples of how other countries approach policies regarding robots, skills, and learning. Here, Walley provides an overview of the brief. Q: How are robots seen as a symbol when we think about the changing nature of work in the United States?

Although I am usually tongue tied and fluttery of stomach when I do public talks, I do definitely enjoy the opportunity to engage an audience with questions around AI and robotics. As an anthropologist, I am trained in watching reactions in assemblies of communities; being a research instrument that interrogates a field site of informants, But often it is when I am the one being interrogated by the audience during the Q&A when I have the best moments of understanding and inspiration. Finding out what people want to ask about is about more than just finding out what is weighing heavily on their mind. It is also about learning how their own unique mind has approached a particular topic. For instance, a couple of weeks ago I was speaking at the Hay Festival, my first time there, and a 10 year old boy in the audience asked a question that showed me how his mind was thinking things through.

Note from the Editor, Tricia Wang: Next up in our Co-designing with machines edition is Steven Gustafson (@stevengustafson), founder of the Knowledge Discovery Lab at the General Electric Global Research Center in Niskayuna, New York. In this post, he asked what is the role of humans in the future of intelligent machines. He makes the case that in the foreseeable future, artificially intelligent machines are the result of creative and passionate humans, and as such, we embed our biases, empathy, and desires into the machines making them more "human" that we often think. I first came across Steven's work while he was giving a talk hosted by Madeleine Clare Elish (edition contributor) at Data & Society, where he spoke passionately about the need for humans to move up the design process and to bring in ethical thinking in AI innovation. Steven is a former member of the Machine Learning Lab and Computational Intelligence Lab, where he developed and applied advanced AI and machine learning algorithms for complex problem solving.

Note from the Editor, Tricia Wang: Next up in our Co-designing with machines edition is Steven Gustafson (@stevengustafson), founder of the Knowledge Discovery Lab at the General Electric Global Research Center in Niskayuna, New York. In this post, he asked what is the role of humans in the future of intelligent machines. He makes the case that in the foreseeable future, artificially intelligent machines are the result of creative and passionate humans, and as such, we embed our biases, empathy, and desires into the machines making them more "human" that we often think. Steven is a former member of the Machine Learning Lab and Computational Intelligence Lab, where he developed and applied advanced AI and machine learning algorithms for complex problem solving. In 2006, he received the IEEE Intelligent System's "AI's 10 to Watch" award.