Facebook Twitter Linkedin YouTube RSS
Close

Category: conference presentations

AI’s Humility Problem (fPET 2026)

Erhardt GraeffLeave a comment

Citation

2026. Graeff, E. “AI’s Humility Problem: Threats to the Practice of Design.” Presented at the 2026 Forum on Philosophy, Engineering, and Technology (fPET 2026), University of Maryland, College Park, MD, Jun 11.

Presentation Slides

Abstract

This paper will examine the relationship between artificial intelligence and humility, arguing that humility—especially epistemic humility—is a crucial civic virtue that contemporary AI systems place at risk. Generative AI technologies allow us to use knowledge that is beyond us without helping us appreciate the boundaries of our understanding. While AI could help reveal our limitations in ways that augment humility, more common uses threaten to erode humility, the social practices that sustain it, and our civil society that relies on it.

I am approaching this concern through exploratory engagement with multidisciplinary scholarship on humility, ethics, computing, and AI, alongside reflection on my formative experiences in computing and my current work in engineering education. Drawing on my graduate education within the innovation culture of the MIT Media Lab, I will consider, from this situated vantage point, how many computing environments have rewarded anti-humble performances of speed, certainty, and mastery. Generative AI intensifies these tendencies by giving users the illusion that they need not be limited by their own experiences and education—that one can access collective knowledge on demand, even though this is far from the totality of human knowledge. I will use these experiences to ask how everyday encounters with AI may reshape dispositions toward doubt, listening, and deference to others.

A guiding premise is that humility is not merely a private moral trait but a foundation for democratic and collaborative life via openness to plural forms of knowledge and deliberative capacity. Humility ensures that we value the creation of new knowledge, that we are awed when others do things we cannot or did not think to do, and that we embrace curiosity and deep listening. Awareness of our limitations enables us to be more open and tolerant, to collaborate with people from different backgrounds, and to become well-rounded humans. If generative AI obscures our lack of knowledge and ability, I fear we will diminish a key part of our humanity and civic capacity.

I am exploring these questions through a review of literature on intellectual humility, AI and engineering ethics, engineering and computer science education, and critical approaches to human-computer interaction, with strong influence from Shannon Vallor’s account of “technomoral humility” and her arguments in The AI Mirror. Rather than claiming a settled literature, the paper will map concerns about how AI mediates experiences of competence and ignorance. It will also consider the responsibility of developers and educators to account for what happens when humility is undermined and these effects operate at scale.

Ultimately, I contend that AI strengthens the need to cultivate technomoral humility. Particular attention will be given to implications for undergraduate engineering and computer science programs. We need engineers and technologists who see humility as a virtue in their work. The paper will argue for an AI ethics more centrally concerned with humility and for pedagogical directions that normalize admitting uncertainty, foreground the social origins of knowledge, reward engagement with unfamiliar perspectives, and connect humility to civic-mindedness and democracy.

Cultivating Civic Virtue in Engineering Education

Erhardt GraeffLeave a comment

Citation

Graeff, E. 2025. “Cultivating Civic Virtue in Engineering Education.” Presented at the 15th Symposium on Engineering and Liberal Education, Union College, Schenectady, NY, Sep 13.

Presentation Recording

Slides

Abstract

Many undergraduate engineers begin their education with a desire to make a positive impact on the world. Yet their moral ambition and belief in the relationship between public welfare and professional responsibility often diminish over time—a phenomenon sociologist Erin Cech attributes to a “culture of disengagement” in engineering education. While recent attention to technology ethics has spurred new research, curricula, and professional codes, there remains a pressing need to more holistically support the ethical commitments and civic engagement that our complex world demands of engineers.

This presentation argues for emphasizing civic virtue as a framework for reorienting engineering education toward civic-mindedness and public welfare. In her book Technology and the Virtues, philosopher Shannon Vallor proposes a framework of “technomoral” virtues to help individuals navigate the ethical challenges of an increasingly interconnected and uncertain world. For engineers, these virtues offer a richer and more integrated ethical foundation than traditional models of professional conduct or risk mitigation—and they align with the long-standing goals of liberal education. I focus on four technomoral virtues in particular—humility, care, courage, and civility—which I argue are essential to preparing engineers for responsible civic participation and ethical practice.

Crucially, this work should not require a wholesale reinvention of engineering education. Many pedagogical practices already used at the intersection of liberal and engineering education are well-suited to cultivating civic virtue. Critical reflection, democratic pedagogy, community engagement, and experiential learning provide meaningful opportunities for students to wrestle with ethical complexity, practice empathy, and connect their technical work to broader social and political contexts. What’s needed is more intentional and sustained use of such practices in and across courses to support students in developing durable ethical dispositions.

I will share insights from my own teaching and advising, including examples from capstone design courses and community-engaged design projects that have prompted students to critically examine the real-world consequences of their work and rethink their roles as engineers. I will also propose specific strategies for embedding technomoral virtues into existing curricula, drawing on best practices in virtue and character education.

At a time when engineering faces urgent questions about its public purpose and societal impact, we must embrace the full ethical and civic potential of undergraduate engineering education. Cultivating civic virtue can help students sustain their hope of doing good through engineering—and equip them to do so more responsibly, thoughtfully, and justly.

A Call for Civic-minded Technologists

Erhardt GraeffLeave a comment

Citation

Graeff, E. 2025. “A Call for Civic-minded Technologists.” Presented at the SNF Agora Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, Mar 25.

Presentation

Abstract

Engineering’s “culture of disengagement” (Cech 2014) casts a long shadow on society. The anemic civic philosophy, preached by lauded tech heroes, pretends politics and power don’t apply to technology, that we can reduce most problems to technical challenges, and that meritocracy is justice. There are bright spots—individual, civic-minded technologists; the Tech Workers Coalition; the Public Interest Technology University Network, and the Tech Stewardship Program. But they are insufficient. To address the challenges of our contemporary society, democracy, and sociotechnical systems, we need to understand technology’s civic landscape, reframe the technical expert’s role in democracy, and cultivate engineers to be civic professionals.

The Digital Good demands Civic-minded Technologists

Erhardt GraeffLeave a comment

Citation

Graeff, E. 2024. “The Digital Good demands Civic-minded Technologists.” Presented at EASST-4S 2024: Making & Doing Transformations, Amsterdam, Netherlands, NY, Jul 17.

Presentation

Abstract

Engineering’s “culture of disengagement” (Cech 2014) casts a long shadow on society. The anemic civic philosophy, preached by lauded tech heroes, pretends politics and power don’t apply to technology, that we can reduce most problems to technical challenges, and that meritocracy is justice. There are bright spots—individual, civic-minded technologists; the Tech Workers Coalition; and the Integrity Institute, a community of practice for “trust and integrity” professionals from technology companies. But it’s insufficient. To solve the challenges of contemporary society and democracy, entwined with sociotechnical systems, we need to understand technology’s civic landscape and reframe the technical expert’s role in democracy. 

Engineering has a rich history of political activism and rumination about its social and civic responsibility (Layton 1986; Wisniowski 2016). And STS has long tried to understand and define ethical technology. However, computing has grown more deprofessionalized over time, loosening its ethical tethers. Simultaneously, there are growing concerns about the role technologists play in society. So how should civic-mindedness intersect with the education and daily practice of technologists?

I’ve conducted 17 interviews with leading engineering educators, looked at the history of civic engagement and civic-mindedness in engineering and computing, and worked on defining civic professionalism in technology. My research supports an argument that technologists need a political education. Unfortunately, civic learning is scarce in most undergraduate programs and even secondary schools, and it’s particularly uncommon in computing. So we must define and invest in civic learning and a civic culture in computing, because the digital good really demands civic-minded technologists.

Educating Engineers for Civic-mindedness

Erhardt GraeffLeave a comment

Citation

Graeff, E. 2023. “Educating Engineers for Civic-mindedness.” Presented at the 14th Symposium on Engineering and Liberal Education, Union College, Schenectady, NY, Sep 23.

Slides

Abstract

In her book Educating for Civic-mindedness, Carolin Kreber (2016) offers a compelling framework for civic-mindedness as an attribute and capability of professionals, which can be nurtured through “transformative higher education” experiences. This paper will apply Kreber’s framework to understanding the task of nurturing civic-minded engineering professionals, summarizing the existing landscape of transformative experiences in engineering education and diagnosing the challenges and possibilities for enhancing these efforts, as expressed in interviews with leading educators and practitioners of civically-engaged engineering. 

Kreber starts with Bringle and Steinberg’s (2010) definition of civic-mindedness as “a person’s inclination or disposition to be knowledgeable of and involved in the community, and to have a commitment to act upon a sense of responsibility as a member of that community”; a civic-minded graduate is “a person who has completed a course of study […], and has the capacity and desire to work with others to achieve the common good.” Kreber emphasizes the “with others” portion of this definition, arguing that civic-minded professionals “support the flourishing, or authenticity, of other members of society, by helping others achieve important human capabilities.” 

Cultivating authentic, civic-minded professionals should be a core purpose of higher education, according to Kreber. She believes this requires carefully designed, community-engaged learning experiences that have a “transformational” effect on students. Engineering education rarely achieves this high bar. Rather, engineering’s culture and its most common approaches to nurturing ethical and social responsibility appear in tension with certain civic virtues. A call to action for “civic professionalism” in engineering is due.