Search Here ….

Tags

affect AI AI slop AI STORIES alumni art autocorrect Blogging book ChatGPT conferences data analysis digital art electronic literature ELMCIP environmental art exhibition flies Gephi history journalister LLMs London machine vision market literature motherhood network analysis norsk open access Pierre Huyghe publication publications research science fiction self-representation selfies social media Surveillance talks teaching tracking trip report twitter UiB visualisation
Uncategorised

80% of web 2.0 is the implicitly contributed

Jill1 Comment

cover of Programming Collective IntelligenceEspen Andersen noted the new O’Reilly book Programming Collective Intelligence, by Toby Segaran, which looks really interesting. In an excellent blog post discussing the book, Tim O’Reilly writes about the importance of what users implicitly contribute to the web, rather than just looking at the photos and videos blog posts and Facebook profiles that are explicitly contributed.

No one would characterize Google as a “user generated content” company, yet they are clearly at the very heart of Web 2.0. That’s why I prefer the phrase “harnessing collective intelligence” as the touchstone of the revolution. A link is user-generated content, but PageRank is a technique for extracting intelligence from that content. So is Flickr’s “interestingness” algorithm, or Amazon’s “people who bought this product also bought…”, Last.Fm’s algorithms for “similar artist radio”, ebay’s reputation system, and Google’s AdSense.

This is a book explaining the practical sides of actually using this information – it “teaches algorithms and techniques for extracting meaning from data, including user data”, O’Reilly writes. For instance, it explains that you might be able “to determine if there are groups of blogs that frequently write about similar subjects or write in similar styles” by “by clustering blogs based on word frequencies”, and that this “could be very useful in searching, cataloging, and discovering the huge number of blogs that are currently online.” It then proceeds to tell you exactly how to do this by “downloading the [RSS] feeds from a set of blogs, extracting the text from the entries, and creating a table of word frequencies.”

And the way they’ve set up the online table of contents, with extracts from each subchapter, is a thing of beauty. The bit about finding word clusters in blogs is from Chapter 3, in the sub-section “Word Vectors”.

Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

1 Comment

  1. William Patrick Wend

    Thank you for posting about this book, Jill. I think this might be useful for my MA thesis.

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

AI and algorithmic culture University politics

Academics in Norway: Sign this petition asking for research-based discussions of how to use AI in universities

I just signed a petition calling for Norwegian universities to use research expertise on AI when deciding how to implement it, rather than having decisions be made mostly administratively. ,  If you are a researcher in Norway, please read it and sign it if you agree – and share with anyone else who might be interested. The petition was written by three researchers at UiT: Maria Danielsen (a philosopher who completed her PhD in 2025 on AI and ethics, including discussions of art and working life), Knut Ørke (Norwegian as a second language), and Holger Pötzsch (a professor of media studies with many years of research on digital media, video games, disruption, and working life, among other topics).  This is not about preventing researchers from exploring AI methods in their research. It is about not uncritically accepting the hype that everyone must use AI everywhere without critical reflection. It is about not introducing Copilot as the default option in word processors, or training PhD candidates to believe they will fall behind if they do not use AI when writing articles, without proper academic discussion. Changes like these should be knowledge-based and discussed academically, not merely decided administratively, because they alter the epistemological foundations of research. Maria wrote to me a couple of months ago because she had read my opinion piece in Aftenposten in which I called for a strong brake on the use of language models in knowledge work. She was part of a committee tasked with developing UiT’s AI strategy and was concerned because there was so much hype and so few members of the committee with actual expertise in AI. I fully support the petition. There are probably some good uses for AI in research, but the uncritical, hype-driven insistence that we must simply adopt it everywhere is highly risky. There are many researchers in Norway with strong expertise in AI, language, ethics, working life, and culture. We must make use of this expertise. This is also partly about respect for research in the humanities, social sciences, psychology, and law. Introducing AI at universities and university colleges is not merely a technical issue, and perhaps not even primarily a technical one. It concerns much more: philosophy of science, methodological reflection, epistemology, writing, publishing, the working environment, and more. […]

screenshot of Grammarly - main text in the middle, names of experts on the left with reccomendations and on the right more info about the expert review feature
AI and algorithmic culture Teaching

Grammarly generated fake expert reviews “by” real scholars

Grammarly is a full on AI plagiarism machine now, generating text, citations (often irrelevant), “humanizing” the text to avoid AI checkers and so on. If you’re an author or scholar, they also have been impersonating and offering “feedback” in your name. Until yesterday, when they discontinued the Expert Review feature due to a class action lawsuit. Here are screenshots of how it worked.