If psychometrics has long concerned itself with validity, reliability, and fairness, then what could psychometrics learn from the cybernetic theories of AI? Through engagement with Burstein’s (2023) Responsible AI Standards, this paper unpacks some paradigmatic differences between psychometrics and cybernetics, points to how recursivity and contingency are both a challenge and opportunity for psychometrics, and how this matters epistemologically, ethically and politically. Following these epistemological differences, the paper raises ethico-political concerns with the promise of the “human-in-the-loop”.
KeelingK. (2019). Queer times, black futures. New York University Press.
7.
MaturanaH.VarelaF. (1972). Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living. D. Reidel Publishing Company.
8.
MislevyR. J. (1997). Postmodern test theory. In LesgoldA.FeuerM. J.BlackA. M. (Eds.), Transition in work and learning: Implications for assessment (pp. 180–199). McCutchan.
9.
MislevyR. J. (2018). Sociocognitive foundations of educational measurement. Routledge.
10.
PasquinelliM. (2023). The eye of the master: A social history of artificial intelligence. Verso.
11.
ShannonC. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal, 27, 379–423.
