11 thoughts on “omitted

  1. vika

    Nicely done!

  2. weez

    I don’t know why, but this makes me happy.

  3. Jill

    It was so EASY! I’m amazed! Just shoot video with the still camera by mistake when you thought you were taking a still photo, import it using ImageCapture (built into Mac OS), edit slightly in iMovie, export with really bad quality so that the file is almost as small as a tiny image, and embed it. Then do it again without sound because the sound is so annoying 🙂

    Fun!

    I like the pixellation.

  4. ghani

    That’s funny, Jill, because my favorite part of the movie was the sound – it made me feel like the quicktime movie was a little gateway to another place — the image itself doesn’t have the same effect. Then again, that’s just me!

  5. torill

    For some reason I didn’t get the sound. I’ll try again from different computers and let you know what works…

    Happy to see you are having fun though, out there beyond the frame!

  6. Jill

    Oh, the sound was only there for the first hour after I posted it. Then I posted it again without sound, because I find sound in websites annoying, most of the time. Well, not always. Perhaps I’ll try using sound that you can turn on or off.

    I like your idea of sound as an opening to another world, Ghani. Mm.

    And I’m having a wonderful time outside the frame 🙂

  7. raymon

    . . . first experience was with sound . . . totally stimulating . . . yes the sound became annoying so hit the mute key . . . next time expected the sound (wanted the sound) . . . gone & thought something was wrong until read the comments . . . sound informs the image . . . imagine the sound without the image which happens if you scroll off the image . . . too delightful . . .

  8. Jill

    Sound’s in again 🙂

  9. Stefan

    Reminds of a line from “Lost in Translation”. Something about taking pictures of your feet …

  10. Anonymous

    No way to turn off the sound? Quickly becomes annoying.

  11. datacloud

    This was sort of spellbinding.
    This was sort of spellbinding. When the page opened, I sort of lapsed into a dreamstate, staring at the animation for about five minutes before I realized I’d lost most of my powers of volition. Kind of like The Ring,…

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.