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

post-DAC

Jill2 Comments

I’m at the internet cafe down the road from the hotel. It has unbelievably trashy computers and miserable connection speed – but then it is really cheap. The conference is over, and a wonderful conference it was. There were a lot of really interesting papers – I was especially pleased to find a lot of new approaches from people I didn’t know. I enjoyed Tiffany Holmes‘s discussion of art games, which relates to stuff I’ve been doing on political web games, and Jane McGonigal’s paper on immersive games and Andrew Hutchison’s work is really relevant to my thesis – plus he’s a Perth boy (Adrian reported briefly on Tiffany, Jane and Andrew’s session in the conference blog, and Deena posted her raw notes, plus you can read their abstracts and I think next week the papers’ll be available), and Jim Bezzochi’s analysis of the rhetoric of cursors in Ceremony of Innocence. Mary Flanagan did a wonderful survey of paper dolls houses of the nineteenth century and how they relate to The Sims, Noah talked about playing texts as we play instruments (and Stuart Moulthrop had a new piece, Pax, in the exhibition that does this) The MelbourneDAC blog was pretty active, and Torill also blogged the conference at her personal site, Lisbeth has a quick post, so does Nick over at Grandtextauto.org and Danny reviewed it for Fibreculture.

The conference was really well organised, too. Adrian did a great job as conference chair. The program was excellent, the technology was great, the food was yummy, the day out to the bush and a winery was a stroke of genius and there was lots of time to chat with people and network. Melbourne is of course as beautiful as ever.

I’ll be reading the papers when I get home and nosing around the web to find out more about peoples’ projects, so more on MelbourneDAC when I’ve digested it a bit more.

Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

2 thoughts on “post-DAC”

  1. Timothy

    Oh you should check out the trashy computers near me where I play Counter-Strike. I set rate speed to 3kb/sec and i still play really bad. Cant’t play!

  2. martin

    It was exactly what I was looking for!!
    Very informed and interesting comments!

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.