“Games can make things more complicated, rather than less complicated,” Ian Bogost told Stephen Colbert last night on the Colbert report. You can watch the segment on the Comedy Central website – at least until the next episode of the Colbert Report is up this evening US time. Pity it’s not embeddable, or on YouTube… I’ve got to say, I’m impressed that a colleague’s on the Colbert Report. And Ian looked and sounded great. I’m looking forward to reading his new book, Persuasive Games.

Update: look at that, Linn figured out how to embed a video from Comedy Central! So I copied it 🙂


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

4 thoughts on “Ian Bogost on the Colbert Report

  1. […] Just found out that one of my former colleagues at Georgia Tech, Ian Bogost, was on The Colbert Report the other night.¬† Bogost was promoting his book, Persuasive Games, as well as the Persuasive Games website.¬† The interview is lots of fun, and of course, as Jill points out, it’s very cool to see a colleague interacting with one of the funniest people on television.¬† As with most Comedy Central content, the video isn’t embeddable on YouTube, but you can watch it on Comedy Central’s website for at least the next few days. […]

  2. […] (Code for embedding from Linn via Jill.) […]

  3. Linn

    Yeah – the embedding button was very hard to find at it was only available for a minute. I wouldn’t have found it either if I hadn’t stubbornly sworn that I’d read somewhere Comedy Central was now including embedding. A sad design.

  4. Jill Walker Rettberg

    Well, thanks for finding it! That’s great that they allow embedding, since they took their videos off YouTube.

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

AI STORIES

AI-generated stories have longer endings than human stories

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 […]

How to peer review a paper in 2026

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 […]

“So what if it was ChatGPT? It *could* have been true!”

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 […]

AI STORIES

AI shimmer and sparkle

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 […]

Don’t do a systematic review if you’re in the humanities

This paper is a great example of why you probably shouldn’t use a systematic literature review for a theoretical and conceptual research question like “How does artificial intelligence affect the perception of authenticity and aura in art?” However, if you’re looking for an annotated list of 48 recent articles about […]