I showed my students Dakota and Genius and Ashcroft Online, asked them to brainstorm ideas for their term papers, and fifteen minutes later almost all of them told me “I want to make something!” I’m amazed. I think I’m so stuck in the idea of a university education as a series of 15 page double spaced term papers that I hadn’t quite believed that students given the choice of making or writing might actually choose making.

If I’d asked them to brainstorm ideas for term papers after showing them a pile of 15 page double spaced essays, would they all have told me they want to write essays, I wonder? See, I never thought of that. The mechanisms of control are subtle, even to me, the teacher, who’s supposedly in control.

They won’t just be making, of course. They’ll write and contextualise and theorise too. I hope some will just write, too. Writing’s good. Imagine having to argue for writing.


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

1 Comment

  1. chuck

    One of the coolest projects I ever had in graduate school was a “montage” where we could take images (photographs, drawings, film stills, magazine cutouts, whatever) and arrange them in a dialectical montage (with or without text). The project was modelled on Benjamin’s Arcades Project and produced some interesting (and in some cases disappointing) results. We did this project in 1995 or 1996 in a fairly traditional English class. My sense is that if we had done the project now, with a little help from a web design program, we could have done something very cool. Sounds like a lot of fun.

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 […]