danah’s talk this morning was great, someone told me last night, after the e-lit readings and the open space workshops and the lectures and so many things that I was astonished to realise that danah’s talk happened that very morning and not last week though it felt as though days and days must have passed I had done so much. I was exhausted and I’m just as exhausted now and completely happy that we’re almost done. The last speaker’s speaking and in half an hour I’ll be going out the door to pick my daughter up from school.

I haven’t blogged a lot from the conference. I’ve spent my time running round and organising and remembering and introducing and trying to make sure people are looked after and happy and meeting people. I think it’s gone well, but you know, it’s hard to tell when you’re organising it.

If you want more, look at the video blog for the talks. There are full videos of presentations by Cory Doctorow, Lisbeth Klastrup, Scott Rettberg, danah boyd, Howard Rheingold, Torill Mortensen, Eirik Newth and others, as well as from the e-lit readings last night. I also have some notes in the wiki, as do some of the other participants.


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

5 thoughts on “exhaustion

  1. H?•kon Styri

    I’ve still got to make up my mind about the video blog. In general I’m kind of a sceptic regarding the usefulness of long, unindexed video clips on the net. Still, it’s a great service to all of us who couldn’t attend.

    However, in order to make up my mind it would have been nice to be able to get sound with the videos. Somehow, my computer is silent when playing the clips. It may of course be a problem at my end, but I guess it’s a good idea asking if others have the same problem.

  2. Jill

    Hm, someone else asked about that, but I get sound fine.

    I think video archives of conferences are great. No, I don’t think most people will watch the videos, but a few will, and since it’s almost free to just leave them there, a few people over a good space of time makes the videos a useful resource.

    Also you can rewatch the particularly interesting bits. I’ve already done that, for snippets.

  3. H?•kon Styri

    I identified the problem. It seems that my computer gets confused by the main page with several video links and doesn’t find the correct sound channel. By viewing each post of the blog it works fine, but I have no kind words for the person who left the “next” and “previous” links out of the template. 😉

    “you can rewatch the particularly interesting bits”

    That’s why I mentioned my opinion about the video clips not being indexed. Having a few links to key points of each video clip would be really useful.

  4. Jill

    Absolutely – videos like these would be far more useful if it was possible to search them, deeplink into them and so on. And it would be far more costly in time and equiptment to produce them. It’s even more difficult to search or index a talk that’s not been videoed and put online, though…

    Oh, and since the talks are out there under a Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike Creative Commons licence, anyone can take them and add features to them if they like. With attribution, sharing and for non-commercial purposes.

    🙂

  5. H?•kon Styri

    “it would be far more costly in time and equiptment to produce them”

    Not at all. It’s a standard QuickTime feature. (Look up “Add Chapters” in your favourite QuickTime manual.)

    Making the chapter-feature more easily available to the readers requires more work, but not much since QuickTime also includes some handy SMIL features. 🙂

    The CC licence makes it possible for others to add the features, but the cost of hosting video may be an obstacle to sharing.

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.