Have you tried playing with the mini version of DALL-E yet? It’s fun! What DALL-E does is generate wonderful images from written prompts, using a neural network trained on images scraped from the internet that have English language captions attached to them.

Two of the points that have interested me the most about this are 1) bias and 2) the idea that DALL-E is independently creating these images.

Bias is pretty well addressed both in the blog post and paper published about DALL-E in January 2021, the risks and limitations documentation of DALL-E 2 on GitHub, and in the “DALL-E Mini Model Card” that is published with the mini model that has become super-popular since being made available to the public (a model card is a short-form documentation of a machine learning model that improves transparency about the training dataset, methods, evaluations and biases of a model, first proposed in a paper by a team of Google researchers including Timnit Gebru who was later fired…)

DALL-E has some clear biases because it’s trained on images on the internet. We also know that image searches on search engines have racial bias and gender bias so it’s no great surprise that DALL-E, trained on the same images and captions as search engines, would be biased too. Here, for instance, is DALL-E mini’s idea of “a professor finishing a book about machine vision,” which is a topic constantly on my mind these days since that professor is me.

Unfortunately DALL-E does not think a professor looks like me. I also love how the professors are all writing their books about machine vision by hand, not using laptops. Some of the versions I tried actually had these bizarre laptop-books the professors were holding. Lovely.

DALL-E’s agency, that is, its perceived ability to act independently, seems to be less critically addressed than the bias. The cover of Cosmopolitan, above, is a fabulous example. “Meet the world’s first artificially intelligent magazine cover,” it says, and in smaller writing at the bottom, “and it only took 20 seconds to make.”

“Only 20 seconds to make” is extremely misleading. Here is a TikTok video posted by the designer of the cover page, Karen X. Cheng, showing just how much work it took to find a prompt that would generate just the right image.

@karenxcheng

Creating the first ever artificially intelligent magazine cover for @Cosmopolitan ! Using #dalle2 to generate the art

? original sound – Karen X

The prompt that eventually got DALL-E to produce the final image?

A wide angle shot from below of a female astronaut with an athletic feminine body walking with swagger towards camera on mars in an infinite university, synthwave digital art

The human is very much in the loop!

I’m sure it’s not coincidental that Cosmopolitan uses an AI-generated cover image, framing it as though DALL-E did it on its own, just a couple of weeks after all the fuss about the Google engineer who was suspended after declaring that an artificial intelligence language model known as LaMDA had become sentient. I mean, honestly, it’s kind of awesome that Cosmopolitan has a special issue on AI. I wouldn’t have expected that ten years ago.

In the Database of Machine Vision in Art, Games and Narratives we used “machine vision situations” as a unit of analysis where we identified agents in each situation and applied the same analytic model to all so we could analyse the big picture across many different situations. For instance, the drones checking Janelle Monáe and her friend’s identity in Dirty Computer is a situation. Here is our mini-analysis of it, and you can watch the video on YouTube – the scene starts about 4:30 minutes in. Our goal was to avoid the binary idea that humans simply use technology as a tool, or that technology controls us somehow, and design a model that while being reductive (any data analysis is going to be reductive) allows us to see assemblages where agency is shared between humans and nonhumans.

In the book I’m trying to finish, I use the idea of a machine vision situation to analyse real life events as well. It’s possible to describe the situation of Cosmopolitan‘s cover in many ways, but here’s one: Cosmopolitan’s designer spends hours trying out different prompts with DALL-E, until she finds one she likes, which she uses for the cover. DALL-E generates images based on the words in the designer’s prompts and the connections it has made between different words and different elements in images. The editors of Cosmo present the cover image as though DALL-E is almost sentient, almost magical, and as though this is somehow liberating the women who read the magazine. Are we supposed to imagine ourselves as astronauts with athletic bodies on Mars, or to imagine DALL-E as like that astronaut?


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

2 thoughts on “DALL-E and human-AI assemblages

  1. Sunday | Morgan's Log

    […] DALL-E and human-AI assemblages – jill/txt […]

  2. […] Jill/txt: DALL-E and human-AI assemblages […]

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

Screenshot of a paragraph from a New York Times article published May 12, 2026. Text reads: "The price of tomatoes -tart bursts of flavor in salads and sandwiches — surged nearly 40 percent in April from a year ago on a combination of bad weather, high tariffs and climbing transportation costs."
AI STORIES

Genre glitches and unexpected promotional phrases as a sign of AI writing

A genre glitch is a characteristic of LLM-assisted writing where the text suddenly switches genre, typically inserting a short promotional phrase full of sensory details into an informational text. Genre glitches occur when a word in the generated text is heavily associated with a genre or context that is markedly […]

Top of a ransom note from Shinyhunters hacking group. Text reads: "SHINYHUNTERS rooting your systems since '19 ;) ShinyHunters has breached Instructure (again). Instead of contacting us to resolve it they ignored us and did some "security patches"."
Networked Politics University politics

UiB self-hosts the open source version of Canvas, so wasn’t affected by the breach

On May 1st Canvas announced a security breach, and then yesterday the system was hacked. The login page was replaced by a ransom note: if universities don’t pay up by 12 May, student data will be released. Here’s what the login page looked like yesterday: Way back in 2015, when […]

AI and algorithmic culture Networked Politics

AI-generated images, fascist aesthetics: Dieselbrølet and Heimatstrom

My German is pretty dodgy, so when I first saw Heimatstrom on Bluesky, shared by Roland Meyer, a professor of visual culture at Universität Zürich’s Digital Society Initiative, I misinterpreted it and thought it was a far-right campaign. But no, Heimatstrom is a group of left-wing environmentalists using fascist AI […]

Photo of a billboard ad at Oslo S train station showing a smiliing conductor and the text "Du må ikke sove. Joda, bare sov du."
AI STORIES

“Du må ikke sove”: a floating motif detached from its meaning (or: LLMs can write Norwegian but miss cultural references)

There’s a new ad for the train between Stavanger and Oslo in Norway that uses a line from Arnulf Øverland’s famous anti-fascist poem Du må ikke sove (“You must not sleep”). Du må ikke sove, you must not sleep, the ad says. And then it flips it, jovially, joda, bare […]

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.