Skip to main content
disabilityX

Volume 14, Issue 3

The Prohibited Prosthesis: AI Denial as a Contemporary Barrier to Participation for People with Intellectual Disability

Axel Andersen5 pages116 KB
AIintellectual-disabilityparticipationgatekeepingassistive-technology
Share:

Abstract

This paper examines the routine exclusion of people with intellectual disability through the moral rejection of assistive AI. While AI tools are widely adopted by non-disabled individuals, their use by people with intellectual disability is frequently prohibited or framed as 'inauthentic.' Using an art competition case study—requiring entrants to affirm 'I did NOT use AI'—this paper analyses how ostensibly neutral rules operate as exclusionary mechanisms. AI denial functions as a modernised gatekeeping tool, preserving participation for cognitively typical individuals.

Full Article

5 pages

Related Articles

Vol. 1, No. 1

On Sharing: A Neurotypical Difficulty

Axel Andersen20 Nov 20244 pages

Autistic people are frequently characterised as having deficits in sharing. This paper examines that claim through a comparative lens, contrasting stereotypes about autism with observable global patterns of wealth concentration and political resistance to redistribution. Drawing on economic data and AI projections, this paper proposes that difficulty with sharing is not an autistic trait, but a dominant feature of neurotypical-led economic systems. As AI rapidly exceeds human productivity, most people will soon experience relative disability in economic terms.

Read article →PDF • 92 KB
Vol. 1, No. 1

Behaviour: A Field Guide to Diagnostic Overshadowing

Axel Andersen15 Aug 20245 pages

This review argues that 'behaviour' is frequently deployed not as description but as an interpretive technology that produces diagnostic overshadowing: the conversion of pain, sensory distress, trauma responses, medical needs, and environmental mismatch into 'noncompliance' or 'behaviour of concern.' Drawing on Hacking's account of classification and Rosenhan's demonstration of institutional interpretive capture, this paper proposes that 'behaviour' functions as an administrative slot that can override alternative explanations and restrict access to support.

Read article →PDF • 112 KB