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

introduction to MiT5

Jill4 Comments

The first plenary session at MiT5 was fabulous, like being in a mirrorworld where everyone gets it. Henry Jenkins‘ introduction used Stephen Colbert as an example of a mainstream media character who gets mashup and remix culture. To the audience’s enjoyment, he showed us the sequence Colbert did inviting people to edit him, pointing out that what makes us laugh is imagining how what Colbert says can be remixed and reedited. Colbert’s greenscreen challenge is another example of how Colbert gets participatory culture, but of course, ViaCom’s removal of their content (including clips of Colbert) from YouTube due to copyright issues shows how even within a single institution we have an enormous split between those who get and play with participatory culture and those who try to keep us within the paradigm of copyright.

Jenkins also mentioned the less positive sides of participatory culture, such as the racist ads portraying Barack Obama as Hillary’s chauffer, or as Borat. He recommended a book coming out later this year by Andrew Keen, called The Cult of the Amateur: How today’s Internet is killing our culture, which deals with the dangers of participatory culture. Jenkins said he doesn’t agree with everything Keen argues, but that it’s an important and thought-provoking book.

David Thorburn continued with some introductory remarks to the first panel, a plenary on Folk Culture and Digital Cultures. He noted that the current breakdown between high and low/folk culture in many ways brings us back to the lack of distance between high and low that existed in earlier times. Shakespeare was popular culture in Elizabethan times. “Text”, he said, “is a site of negotiation, as is becoming clear again with digital media and television.” The constant negotiation of what constituted a text was also characteristic to the founding texts of Western culture, such as the Homerian epics.

More later. For now, I’ll twitter a bit. Luca is conveniently twittering from the Second Life session, where I am not, and Jean Burgess is on twitter too.

[Nick Montfort wrote about the rest of this plenary over at GrandTextAuto, as has Axel Bruns.]

Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

4 thoughts on “introduction to MiT5”

  1. Fabio Giglietto

    @Mit5(2-105) Segnala il resoconto della prima sessione plenaria: http://jilltxt.net/?p=1978

  2. FG

    The correct link to Jean Burgess twitter is http://twitter.com/jeangenie 🙂

  3. Jill

    Oops, thanks!

  4. Grand Text Auto » Friday at MiT5

    […] Here are a few brief snippets from Media in Transition 5 today. My fellow panelist Jill Walker blogged about the introduction, so, on to the first session… […]

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.