Drawing on interviews with 37 entrepreneurs, engineers, technologists and investors in the New York City tech scene involved in AI, we investigate the social formations that characterize “AI-hype” from the perspective of micro-level economic sociology. We observe how actors in New York draw symbolic boundaries between their own work and that of “hype-beasts” in San Francisco, despite drawing upon and profiting from the same sociotechnical imaginaries about AI’s transformative potential. We show how this symbolic boundary work serves to legitimate the local ecosystem, to provide moral valuations for the exchange of capital, to ground different temporalities that inspire urgency in their work, and to enact spatial boundaries amid competing sociotechnical imaginaries. We demonstrate how these contestations contribute to the construction of powerful relevant social groups and their respective technological systems. We thus use the case of AI to take steps toward developing a sociology of hype, drawing on literature in the sociology of technology, boundary work in the professions, and economic sociology.
AliS. J.ChristinA.SmartA.KatilaR. (2023). Walking the walk of AI ethics: Organizational challenges and the individualization of risk among ethics entrepreneurs. Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 217–226). https://doi.org/10.1145/3593013.3593990
2.
AppaduraiA. (1990). Disjuncture and difference in the global cultural economy. Theory, culture & society, 7(2–3), 295–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276900070020
3.
BaldwinJ. (2018). In digital we trust: Bitcoin discourse, digital currencies, and decentralized network fetishism. Palgrave Communications, 4(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-018-0065-0
BandeljN.MorganP. J.SowersE. (2015). Hostile worlds or connected lives? Research on the interplay between intimacy and economy: Intimacy and economy. Sociology Compass, 9(2), 115–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12242
BeckertJ.BronkR. (Eds.), (2018). Uncertain futures: Imaginaries, narratives, and calculation in the economy (New product edition). Oxford University Press.
9.
BenjaminR. (2019). Race after technology: Abolitionist tools for the New Jim Code (1st ed.). Polity.
BohnerJ. (2025). Drawing the line: Boundary-making, hype, and the economic sociology of AI entrepreneurship [senior thesis]. Princeton University.
12.
BorupM.BrownN.KonradK.LenteH. V. (2006). The sociology of expectations in science and technology. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 18(3–4), 285–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320600777002
13.
BrayneS.ChristinA. (2021). Technologies of crime prediction: The reception of algorithms in policing and criminal courts. Social Problems, 68(3), 608–624. https://doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spaa004
14.
BrownN.MichaelM. (2003a). A sociology of expectations: Retrospecting prospects and prospecting retrospects. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 15(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/0953732032000046024
15.
BrownN.MichaelM. (2003b). The sociology of expectations in science and technology. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 15(1), 3–18.
16.
BrownN.RappertB.WebsterA. (Eds.), (2000). Contested futures: A sociology of prospective techno-science. Ashgate.
17.
BuolamwiniJ. (2023). Unmasking AI: My mission to protect what is human in a world of machines. Random House.
18.
BurriR. V. (2008). Doing distinctions: Boundary work and symbolic capital in radiology. Social Studies of Science, 38(1), 35–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312707082021
19.
CallonM. (Ed.), (1998). Laws of the markets. Blackwell.
20.
CallonM. (2007). What does it mean to say that economics is performative? In: MacKenzieD. A.MuniesaF.SiuL. (Eds.), Do economists make markets? On the performativity of economics (pp. 311–357). Princeton University Press.
21.
CameronL. D. (2024). The making of the “good bad” job: How algorithmic management manufactures consent through constant and confined choices. Administrative Science Quarterly, 69(2), 458–514. https://doi.org/10.1177/00018392241236163
22.
CastillaE. J.HwangH.GranovetterE.GranovetterM. S. (2000). Social networks in Silicon Valley. In LeeC.-M. (Ed.), The Silicon Valley edge: A habitat for innovation and entrepreneurship (pp. 218–247). Stanford University Press.
23.
ChanA. S. (2014). Networking peripheries: Technological futures and the myth of digital universalism. The MIT Press.
24.
ChateauZ.Devine-WrightP.WillsJ. (2021). Integrating sociotechnical and spatial imaginaries in researching energy futures. Energy Research & Social Science, 80, Article 102207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102207
25.
ChristinA. (2022). Metrics at work: Journalism and the contested meaning of algorithms. Princeton University Press.
26.
CruzT. M.ParkJ.MooreE.ChenA.GordilloA. (2023). Algorithms in the margins: Organized community resistance to port automation in the Los Angeles harbor area. Engaging Science, Technology, and Society, 9(3), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.17351/ests2023.933
DiMaggioP. (1993). Cultural boundaries and structural change: The extension of the high culture model to theater, opera, and the dance, 1900-1940. In LamontM.FournierM. (Eds.), Cultivating differences: Symbolic boundaries and the making of inequality (pp. 232–256). University of Chicago Press. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/C/bo3628644.html
29.
DurkheimÉ. (2008). The elementary forms of religious life. CosmanC.CladisM. S. (Trans.), Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1912).
30.
EpsteinC. F. (1993). Tinker-bells and pinups: The construction and reconstruction of gender boundaries at work. In LamontM.FournierM. (Eds.), Cultivating differences: Symbolic boundaries and the making of inequality (pp. 232–256). University of Chicago Press. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/C/bo3628644.html
31.
EubanksV. (2018). Automating Inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police and punish the poor. St Martin’s Press.
GierynT. F. (1983). Boundary-Work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48(6), 781–795. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095325
34.
GierynT. F. (1999). Cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line. University of Chicago Press.
35.
GranovetterM. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510. https://doi.org/10.1086/228311
36.
GrayM. L.SuriS. (2019). Ghost work: How to stop Silicon Valley from building a new global underclass. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
37.
GrohmannS. (2023). Objects of virtue: ‘Moral grandstanding’ and the capitalization of ethics under neoliberal commodity fetishism. Journal of Critical Realism, 22(1), 27–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767430.2022.2095120
38.
HautalaJ.AhlqvistT. (2024). Integrating futures imaginaries, expectations and anticipatory practices: Practitioners of artificial intelligence between now and future. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 36(9), 2100–2112. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2022.2130041
39.
HuangL. T.-L.ChenH.-Y.LinY.-T.HuangT.-R.HungT.-W. (2022). Ameliorating algorithmic bias, or why explainable AI needs feminist philosophy. Feminist Philosophy Quarterly, 8(3). https://doi.org/10.5206/fpq/2022.3/4.14347
JasanoffS.KimS.-H. (Eds.), (2015). Dreamscapes of modernity: Sociotechnical imaginaries and the fabrication of power. The University of Chicago Press.
42.
JoyceK.CruzT. M. (2024). A Sociology of artificial intelligence: Inequalities, power, and data justice. Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World, 10, Article 23780231241275393. https://doi.org/10.1177/23780231241275393
LiuS. (2015). Boundary work and exchange: The formation of a professional service market. Symbolic Interaction, 38(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/symb.137
47.
MacKenzieD. A. (2006). An engine, not a camera: How financial models shape markets. MIT Press.
48.
MarxK. (2010). Capital: A critique of political economy. Madison Park.
49.
MarxK.DragstedtJ. A. (1976). Value: Studies. New Park Publications; distributed by Labor Publications.
50.
MetcalfJ.CrawfordK. (2016). Where are human subjects in big data research? The emerging ethics divide. Big Data & Society, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951716650211
51.
MetcalfJ.MossE.boyddanah. (2019). Owning ethics: Corporate logics, Silicon Valley, and the institutionalization of ethics. Social Research: An International Quarterly, 86(2), 449–476. https://doi.org/10.1353/sor.2019.0022
MuniesaF.CallonM. (2007). Economic experiments and the construction of markets. In MacKenzieD.SiuL. (Eds.), Do economists make markets? On the performativity of economics (pp. 163–189). Princeton University Press.
54.
NeeV.SwedbergR. (Eds.), (2005). The economic sociology of capitalism. Princeton University Press.
55.
NeffG. (2012). Venture labor: Work and the burden of risk in innovative industries. MIT Press.
56.
NobleS. U. (2017). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. New York University Press.
57.
O’NeilC. (2016). Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy (1st ed.). Crown.
58.
OrrW.DavisJ. L. (2020). Attributions of ethical responsibility by Artificial Intelligence practitioners. Information, Communication & Society, 23(5), 719–735. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2020.1713842
59.
PinchT.JBijkerW. (1984). The social construction of facts and artifacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other.Social Studies of Science, 14(3), 399–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312840140030
SloaneM.MossE.AwomoloO.ForlanoL. (2022). Participation is not a design fix for machine learning. Proceedings of the 2nd ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization (pp. 1–6). https://doi.org/10.1145/3551624.3555285
66.
SuchmanL. (2022). Imaginaries of omniscience: Automating intelligence in the US Department of Defense. Social Studies of Science, 53(5), 761–786. https://doi.org/10.1177/03063127221104938
SuchmanL.TriggR. H. (1993). Artificial intelligence as craftwork. In ChaiklinS.LaveJ. (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 144–178). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511625510.007
69.
TheoharakisV.VoliotisS.PollackJ. M. (2021). Going down the slippery slope of legitimacy lies in early-stage ventures: The role of moral disengagement. Journal of Business Ethics, 172, 673–690. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2012.715478
70.
van LenteH. (2012). Navigating foresight in a sea of expectations: Lessons from the sociology of expectations. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 24(8), 769–782. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2012.715478
71.
VaughanD. (1996). The Challenger launch decision: Risky technology, culture, and deviance at NASA. University Of Chicago Press.
72.
VertesiJ.GoldsteinA.EnriquezD.LiuL.MillerK. T. (2020). Pre-Automation: Insourcing and automating the gig economy. Sociologica, 14(3). Article 3. https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1971-8853/11657
73.
WeberM. (1968). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. RothG.WittichC.FischoffE. (Trans.), Bedminster Press.
74.
WherryF. F. (2012). The culture of markets. Polity.
WimmerA. (2008). The making and unmaking of ethnic boundaries: A multilevel process theory. American Journal of Sociology, 113(4), 970–1022. https://doi.org/10.1086/522803
77.
ZelizerV. A. (2005a). Circuits within capitalism. In NeeV.SwedbergR. (Eds.), The economic sociology of capitalism (pp. 289–321). Princeton University Press.
78.
ZelizerV. A. (2005b). The purchase of intimacy. Princeton University Press.
ZelizerV. A. (2012). How I became a relational economic sociologist and what does that mean?Politics & Society, 40(2), 145–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329212441591
