Wow, look at the Auditur festival: not only sound poetry, they’ve even got digital poetry! It actually collides with Aesthetics of Play, but I’m thinking I might skip most of the opening of the game exhibition (despite the free drinks) and scoot off to a poetry reading.

I’m kind of down though that we’re doing ELINOR and didn’t even know about this. Sure, there’s not much digital poetry, but still, even some! Maybe I’m so damn international I don’t have time for local networks. Oh dear. Maybe I’ll apply for that 3 1/2 year position at the literature department, so I can return to my literary roots. Hm. I’ve not exactly specialised in gender theory, though, and that’s what they want. And I don’t know that I could get a 3 1/2 year leave of absence from my current position. But… Hm.


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

4 thoughts on “auditur

  1. Lars

    Bummer. I’m doing a reading here that weekend. But why isn’t the Elinor web page more up to date?

  2. Jill

    Because Elinor’s leader has had absolutely no time and neither has anyone else in the network. Which totally sucks. I’m working on ways of rectifying the situation (i.e. paying someone to pick up the slack since there’s no way I can do it all), but it’s going to take a little time.

  3. jim

    I am a guilty ELINOR member…I have ideas but then time and language (my written swedish is terrrible) constraints hinder me doing something. DAC 05 would be a great chance to gather and meet and I am hoping to be able to make it, despite a new born in the family 🙂

  4. Jill

    Yeah, I’m hoping DAC will be a good catalyser for this. And I think I figured out how to get work done, too!

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

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.