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

jonas linderoth on avatars

JillPost a Comment

This presentation is interesting: he’s discussing Walkerdine’s discussion of how children say “I” about their avatar and the “complex indentification”. abstract.

Against the idea of immersion:

  • Holodek myth (ryan 2001)
  • Myth of the ergodic (Newman 200?)
  • The idea of the Interactive Illusion (Linderoth 2004)
  • The immersive fallacy (Salen & Zimmerman 2004)

    • Oh dear, I can’t concentrate enough to type and listen. Giving up, but this looks like an interesting, might get a copy.)

    [Analyses a sequence between two children playineg a game.]

    Therefore Jonas Linderoth claims (in contrast to Walkerdine) that the use of “I” is simple everyday linguistics, and not specific to gameplay. For instance, when riding a horse, we’ll say “I galloped” not “the horse galloped”. It’s to do with extending agency outside of our body.

    –> the avatar can be a role, a tool and/or a prop (part of the players representation of self).

    Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

    Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

    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.