Towards a Socioeconomics of Hype: Hype Dynamics and Symbolic Boundary Work Within the Speculative AI Bubble
Abstract
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.
Get full access to this article
View all access and purchase options for this article.
Data availability statement
Access to de-identified excerpts may be made available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request and subject to institutional ethical approval.*
References
Ali S. J., Christin A., Smart A., Katila R. (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
Appadurai A. (1990). Disjuncture and difference in the global cultural economy. Theory, culture & society, 7(2–3), 295–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276900070020
Baldwin J. (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
Bandelj N. (2012). Relational work and economic sociology. Politics & Society, 40(2), 175–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329212441597
Bandelj N. (2020). Relational work in the economy. Annual Review of Sociology, 46(1), 251–272. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054719
Bandelj N., Morgan P. J., Sowers E. (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
Beckert J. (2016). Imagined futures. Harvard Univ. Press.
Beckert J., Bronk R. (Eds.), (2018). Uncertain futures: Imaginaries, narratives, and calculation in the economy (New product edition). Oxford University Press.
Benjamin R. (2019). Race after technology: Abolitionist tools for the New Jim Code (1st ed.). Polity.
Block F. (2012). Relational work in market economies. Politics & Society, 40(2), 135–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329212441576
Bohner J. (2025). Drawing the line: Boundary-making, hype, and the economic sociology of AI entrepreneurship [senior thesis]. Princeton University.
Borup M., Brown N., Konrad K., Lente H. 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
Brayne S., Christin A. (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
Brown N., Michael M. (2003a). A sociology of expectations: Retrospecting prospects and prospecting retrospects. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 15(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/0953732032000046024
Brown N., Michael M. (2003b). The sociology of expectations in science and technology. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 15(1), 3–18.
Brown N., Rappert B., Webster A. (Eds.), (2000). Contested futures: A sociology of prospective techno-science. Ashgate.
Buolamwini J. (2023). Unmasking AI: My mission to protect what is human in a world of machines. Random House.
Burri R. 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
Callon M. (Ed.), (1998). Laws of the markets. Blackwell.
Callon M. (2007). What does it mean to say that economics is performative? In: MacKenzie D. A., Muniesa F., Siu L. (Eds.), Do economists make markets? On the performativity of economics (pp. 311–357). Princeton University Press.
Cameron L. 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
Castilla E. J., Hwang H., Granovetter E., Granovetter M. S. (2000). Social networks in Silicon Valley. In Lee C.-M. (Ed.), The Silicon Valley edge: A habitat for innovation and entrepreneurship (pp. 218–247). Stanford University Press.
Chan A. S. (2014). Networking peripheries: Technological futures and the myth of digital universalism. The MIT Press.
Chateau Z., Devine-Wright P., Wills J. (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
Christin A. (2022). Metrics at work: Journalism and the contested meaning of algorithms. Princeton University Press.
Cruz T. M., Park J., Moore E., Chen A., Gordillo A. (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
Davis J. L., Williams A., Yang M. W. (2021). Algorithmic reparation. Big Data & Society, 8(2), Article 20539517211044808. https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517211044808
DiMaggio P. (1993). Cultural boundaries and structural change: The extension of the high culture model to theater, opera, and the dance, 1900-1940. In Lamont M., Fournier M. (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
Durkheim É. (2008). The elementary forms of religious life. Cosman C., Cladis M. S. (Trans.), Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1912).
Epstein C. F. (1993). Tinker-bells and pinups: The construction and reconstruction of gender boundaries at work. In Lamont M., Fournier M. (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
Eubanks V. (2018). Automating Inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police and punish the poor. St Martin’s Press.
Fourcade M., Healy K. (2007). Moral Views of Market Society. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33, 285–311. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.33.040406.131642
Gieryn T. 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
Gieryn T. F. (1999). Cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line. University of Chicago Press.
Granovetter M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510. https://doi.org/10.1086/228311
Gray M. L., Suri S. (2019). Ghost work: How to stop Silicon Valley from building a new global underclass. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Grohmann S. (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
Hautala J., Ahlqvist T. (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
Huang L. T.-L., Chen H.-Y., Lin Y.-T., Huang T.-R., Hung T.-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
Irani L. (2019). Hype, profit, labor, and agency in the shadows of the fourth Industrial revolution. Medium: What’s at Stake in a 4th Industrial Revolution?. https://medium.com/whats-at-stake-in-a-fourth-industrial-revolution/hype-profit-labor-and-agency-in-the-shadows-of-the-fourth-industrial-revolution-509afd51a82c
Jasanoff S., Kim S.-H. (Eds.), (2015). Dreamscapes of modernity: Sociotechnical imaginaries and the fabrication of power. The University of Chicago Press.
Joyce K., Cruz T. 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
LaGrandeur K. (2024). The consequences of AI hype. AI and Ethics, 4(3), 653–656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-023-00352-y
Lamont M. (2012). Toward a Comparative Sociology of Valuation and Evaluation. Annual Review of Sociology, 38, 201–221.
Lamont M., Molnár V. (2002). The Study of boundaries in the social Sciences. Annual Review of Sociology, 28(1), 167–195. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.28.110601.141107
Liu S. (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
MacKenzie D. A. (2006). An engine, not a camera: How financial models shape markets. MIT Press.
Marx K. (2010). Capital: A critique of political economy. Madison Park.
Marx K., Dragstedt J. A. (1976). Value: Studies. New Park Publications; distributed by Labor Publications.
Metcalf J., Crawford K. (2016). Where are human subjects in big data research? The emerging ethics divide. Big Data & Society, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951716650211
Metcalf J., Moss E., boyd danah. (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
Miconi A. (2024). On digital fetishism: A critique of the big data paradigm. Critical Sociology, 50(4–5), 629–642. https://doi.org/10.1177/08969205231202873
Muniesa F., Callon M. (2007). Economic experiments and the construction of markets. In MacKenzie D., Siu L. (Eds.), Do economists make markets? On the performativity of economics (pp. 163–189). Princeton University Press.
Nee V., Swedberg R. (Eds.), (2005). The economic sociology of capitalism. Princeton University Press.
Neff G. (2012). Venture labor: Work and the burden of risk in innovative industries. MIT Press.
Noble S. U. (2017). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. New York University Press.
O’Neil C. (2016). Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy (1st ed.). Crown.
Orr W., Davis J. 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
Pinch T. J, Bijker W. (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
Roose K. (2023). This A.I. subculture’s motto: Go, Go, Go. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/technology/ai-acceleration.html
Saxenian A. (1994). Regional advantage: Culture and competition in Silicon Valley and route 128. Harvard University Press.
Shestakofsky B. (2024). Behind the startup: How venture capital shapes work, innovation, and inequality. University of California Press.
Sloane M. (2022). To make AI fair, here’s what we must learn to do. Nature, 605(7908), 9. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-01202-3
Sloane M., Danks D., Moss E. (2024). Tackling AI hyping. AI and Ethics, 4(3), 669–677. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-024-00481-y
Sloane M., Moss E., Awomolo O., Forlano L. (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
Suchman L. (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
Suchman L. (2023). The uncontroversial ‘thingness’ of AI. Big Data & Society, 10(2), Article 20539517231206794. https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517231206794
Suchman L., Trigg R. H. (1993). Artificial intelligence as craftwork. In Chaiklin S., Lave J. (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 144–178). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511625510.007
Theoharakis V., Voliotis S., Pollack J. 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
van Lente H. (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
Vaughan D. (1996). The Challenger launch decision: Risky technology, culture, and deviance at NASA. University Of Chicago Press.
Vertesi J., Goldstein A., Enriquez D., Liu L., Miller K. T. (2020). Pre-Automation: Insourcing and automating the gig economy. Sociologica, 14(3). Article 3. https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1971-8853/11657
Weber M. (1968). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. Roth G., Wittich C., Fischoff E. (Trans.), Bedminster Press.
Wherry F. F. (2012). The culture of markets. Polity.
Wherry F. F. (2014). Analyzing the culture of markets. Theory and Society, 43(3), 421–436. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-014-9218-3
Wimmer A. (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
Zelizer V. A. (2005a). Circuits within capitalism. In Nee V., Swedberg R. (Eds.), The economic sociology of capitalism (pp. 289–321). Princeton University Press.
Zelizer V. A. (2005b). The purchase of intimacy. Princeton University Press.
Zelizer V. A. (2010). Circuits in economic life. In Zelizer V. A. (Ed.), Economic lives: How culture shapes the economy (pp. 127–152). Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.23943/princeton/9780691139364.003.0017
Zelizer V. 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
Cite article
Cite article
Cite article
OR
Download to reference manager
If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice
Information, rights and permissions
Information
Published In
Article first published online: July 18, 2025
Keywords
Data availability statement
Data is available for this article. View more information
Authors
Metrics and citations
Metrics
Journals metrics
This article was published in Social Science Computer Review.
View All Journal MetricsArticle usage*
Total views and downloads: 8
*Article usage tracking started in December 2016
Articles citing this one
Receive email alerts when this article is cited
Web of Science: 0
Crossref:
There are no citing articles to show.
Figures and tables
Figures & Media
Tables
Get access
Get access
Access options
If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:
I am signed in as:
View my profileSign out
I can access personal subscriptions, purchases, paired institutional access and free tools such as favourite journals, email alerts and saved searches.
loading institutional access options
Alternatively, view purchase options below:
Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.
Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.
