We left the audio on as we worked. I read and searched to the sound of his typing, then later I typed to the sound of occasional outbursts of indignation as he graded papers. Sometimes we shared something we’d found, or thought, or a chuckle would make the other ask what was so funny. I did more work on my trial lecture in our shared quiet than I’d done all day.

I loved sharing an office with Frank, back when we were working on the MOO project. We had a screen between us, a good view, ample space for books and things – and our wonderful shared quiet. I’d lean back with a question, we’d share silly or useful things we found on the web or get up to see if there was any coffee left.

Before that I liked the shared study halls. Not the anonymous ones for undergrads, with dozens of strangers and rubbish left behind by people who didn’t care about this shared space, but the one we had when we were Masters students, where we had our own desks and books and a little kitchen to chat in.

A good workspace needs a fridge and a kettle, it needs calm but also the knowledge that people are working nearby. I like my office at the university, but the doors to other offices are all shut, there’s no fridge or kitchen or shared space to hang out, and we’re still working on getting all us humanistic informatics people together, in the same floor, the same hall. I can’t just lean back and chat with someone, or even reliably meet a close colleague if I go to buy a coffee. Instead, I have to deliberately knock on their doors. That means I have to have a reason to see them – a chuckle I want to share isn’t really enough.

So when I’m doing writing and research I work at home. I like my fridge, the sofa, the view. iChat has surprised me by bringing me some of the company of the shared office space. This non-geographical cluster of friends and colleagues are closer to my field of research than my local colleagues. Oh, Elouise is home, grading, I see from her status message. I don’t ping her today, but I know she can see I’m here too, and I imagine a smile. Mark video chats me for a minute or two wanting to be reminded of the name of a game. Anders videos me for a chat about our upcoming defences. James texts me to wish me good working, I moan to Elin about something, ask Vika about American etiquette. I talk with Scott for an hour and then the best bit of all comes, totally unexpected: we stop talking and just work. With shared quiet and shared chuckles.

You’d never leave the phone on like that. Where I work, we don’t even leave our doors open like that.


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

2 thoughts on “shared quiet

  1. scott

    I like working with you. You make a good officemate 🙂

  2. Weez Blog

    too early
    Woke up to strange dreams of my electronic devices yammering at me. My clamshell cell phone was chattering like one of those wind up teeth. Text on the screen crawled like ants on parade making patterns. Yeah. So I’m up…

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

Screenshot of a paragraph from a New York Times article published May 12, 2026. Text reads: "The price of tomatoes -tart bursts of flavor in salads and sandwiches — surged nearly 40 percent in April from a year ago on a combination of bad weather, high tariffs and climbing transportation costs."
AI STORIES

Genre glitches and unexpected promotional phrases as a sign of AI writing

A genre glitch is a characteristic of LLM-assisted writing where the text suddenly switches genre, typically inserting a short promotional phrase full of sensory details into an informational text. Genre glitches occur when a word in the generated text is heavily associated with a genre or context that is markedly […]

Top of a ransom note from Shinyhunters hacking group. Text reads: "SHINYHUNTERS rooting your systems since '19 ;) ShinyHunters has breached Instructure (again). Instead of contacting us to resolve it they ignored us and did some "security patches"."
Networked Politics University politics

UiB self-hosts the open source version of Canvas, so wasn’t affected by the breach

On May 1st Canvas announced a security breach, and then yesterday the system was hacked. The login page was replaced by a ransom note: if universities don’t pay up by 12 May, student data will be released. Here’s what the login page looked like yesterday: Way back in 2015, when […]

AI and algorithmic culture Networked Politics

AI-generated images, fascist aesthetics: Dieselbrølet and Heimatstrom

My German is pretty dodgy, so when I first saw Heimatstrom on Bluesky, shared by Roland Meyer, a professor of visual culture at Universität Zürich’s Digital Society Initiative, I misinterpreted it and thought it was a far-right campaign. But no, Heimatstrom is a group of left-wing environmentalists using fascist AI […]

Photo of a billboard ad at Oslo S train station showing a smiliing conductor and the text "Du må ikke sove. Joda, bare sov du."
AI STORIES

“Du må ikke sove”: a floating motif detached from its meaning (or: LLMs can write Norwegian but miss cultural references)

There’s a new ad for the train between Stavanger and Oslo in Norway that uses a line from Arnulf Øverland’s famous anti-fascist poem Du må ikke sove (“You must not sleep”). Du må ikke sove, you must not sleep, the ad says. And then it flips it, jovially, joda, bare […]

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.