Professor and Co-Director of the Center for Digital Narrative at the University of Bergen
Professor and Co-Director of the Center for Digital Narrative at the University of Bergen
I’ve not done a bit of googling and fact-checking here, it’s too late, but Kathleen’s got links you can follow. In brief, from her post:
Yee-ha!
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I’ve been reading through my blog posts on September 11, 2001 and the days that followed. The things that stand out to me – in addition to the horror of the attack itself – are how massively we (or at least I) used the web to understand what was happening, […]
My colleague Jessica Witte has just shared a preprint where she compared the emotional arcs of the stories we generated using gpt-4o-mini to those of human-authored (pre-2022) stories from the subreddit r/WritingPrompts, conveniently gathered in this dataset. She found a distinct difference in the endings of the LLM-generated stories: both […]
Dorothy Bishop, a psychologist, wrote a useful list of what reviewers need to look out now that so many papers are bad science that looks good thanks to LLMs. Read her whole blog post, she explains it well, but here’s a brief version because I’m pretty sure we’ll be needing […]
I recently read a good article on the different kinds of truth a language model operates with by Luke Mann, Liam Magee and Vanicka Arora, Truth Machines: Synthesizing Veracity in AI Language Models, but despite its lovely typology of truths (consensus, correspondence, coherence and pragmatic) it doesn’t help me with […]
I have this hunch that sparkles and glow and shimmer are somehow a point in the latent spaces of LLMs that have more connections than you would expect. Perhaps their connotation to magic and to the unknown matches some of the mystique of genAI? Or perhaps these words are used […]
This LLM-generated paper demonstrates how LLMs fail to cite core scholarship on a topic but generate misaligned citations systematically.
Eirik
Scary stuff, this – Salon had a story on this a while ago, as well. I don’t know if you’ve heard this before, but actually there’s a brilliant Australian alternative to the American system. Wired covered it in depth in november last year – http://www.wired.com/news/ebiz/0,1272,61045,00.html . What makes eVACS (Electronic Voting and Counting System) a vast improvement on the commercial US systems, is the fact that it’s based on Open Source software. Anyone can download the voting machine source code (from http://www.elections.act.gov.au/Elecvote.html ) and check it for bugs and possible back doors. According to Wired, one Aussie academic did actually spot a serious bug, which goes to show that the system works.
Sooner or later we will have to run large-scale electronic voting trials here in Norway as well. Perhaps we should make a case for using a translated/localized version of eVACS? 🙂
Jill
Oh yes! No, I didnn’t know that, Eirik, thanks! Now that’s a really important point: democracy should be transparent, and open source voting software’s a very sensible idea.
Insane, the money made on elections some places.