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

enlisting AI in my writing

Jill2 Comments

Reading Gro’s comment yesterday about simply dedicating three-four hours a day to one’s main project, I decided to work at home today and focus on writing. But, um, of course I needed to start with a little blog reading to get me in the mood and along the way I found all these academic lifehack tools. I’m rather interested in DEVONthink, which I think I must have heard of before but not really looked at. Steven Johnson’s article for the NY Times about using it while writing sounds so seductive:

What does this mean in practice? Consider how I used the tool in writing my last book, which revolved around the latest developments in brain science. I would write a paragraph that addressed the human brain’s remarkable facility for interpreting facial expressions. I’d then plug that paragraph into the software, and ask it to find other, similar passages in my archive. Instantly, a list of quotes would be returned: some on the neural architecture that triggers facial expressions, others on the evolutionary history of the smile, still others that dealt with the expressiveness of our near relatives, the chimpanzees. Invariably, one or two of these would trigger a new association in my head — I’d forgotten about the chimpanzee connection — and I’d select that quote, and ask the software to find a new batch of documents similar to it. Before long a larger idea had taken shape in my head, built out of the trail of associations the machine had assembled for me. (Steven Johnson, NY Times

Apparently the idea is you feed all your documents and pdfs and possibly relevant emails (folders of archives of mailing lists, perhaps?) and whatnot into it and of course you can then search them all through it but the most interesting thing is it’ll find connections itself.

Sounds cool, eh? I’ve installed the free trial, have imported my “Documents/work/research” folder and am going to give it a go. To help me get started, I’m using Steven Johnson’s explanation of how he uses DEVONthink in practice. If you have experience with DEVONthink (or something similar) I’d love to hear about it!

Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

2 thoughts on “enlisting AI in my writing”

  1. dave

    I have been using Devon for about six months now, and my brief comment is that I love the software. I am not one who is big on paying for applications, but I would pay three times as much for this progam as what they charge (there is an academic discount). I also just started using Agent which is equally as useful. The only problem with the program is acutally figuring it out enough to utilize all of its power, but the on-line tutorials are helping, and the forums are also useful. I am going to be covering a few uses specific to academics (humanities) at my site, so if you have requests let me know. ( http://www.academhack.org)

  2. collin

    Haven’t gotten into DT as much as I’d like yet, but Merlin Mann had a nice discussion of it at 43 Folders a few months ago: http://www.43folders.com/2006/05/22/dt-smart-groups/…

    cgb

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.