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
AI and algorithmic culture Algorithmic bias Digital Humanities Machine Vision

Using machine learning to find the unpredictable

JillPost a Comment
Video abstract for “Algorithmic failure as a humanities methodology: Machine learning’s mispredictions identify rich cases for qualitative analysis”

This spring when I was learning R, I came across a paper by Anders Kristian Munk, Asger Gehrt Olesen and Mathieu Jacomy about using machine learning in anthropology – not to classify big data, as machine learning is often used, but to see what the algorithmic can’t predict. Those unpredictable bits of data turned out to be the most interesting for qualitative analysis.

I was fascinated by the idea, and since I’d just been learning to use R for simple machine learning, I tried it on our dataset. We’ve been finding lots of interesting things in the data, but looking at the most common uses of machine vision in sci-fi and games and art is, to be honest, a bit boring. Of course people use machine vision to scan stuff or analyse it. The idea of looking for that unpredictable bits of the dataset really appealed to me. And it worked!

I wrote up my results in a commentary to the original paper, and it was just published in Big Data and Society. The paper is called Algorithmic failure as a humanities methodology: Machine learning’s mispredictions identify rich cases for qualitative analysis.

I made a video abstract for the paper too, because I think the basic idea of using algorithmic failure as a qualitative methodology has a lot of potential. Here’s my short version of the idea – read the paper for the analysis and to see just what I did.

AI is being used more and more on qualitative data. I think we could solve some of the ethical problems in AI by focusing more on its underlying epistemology. We need to find more ways of using AI and machine learning to support the fundamental epistemology of qualitative research.

The code I used for this was really quite simple, and I have published it on GitHub. I really hope people try using and adapting these ideas, whether by using and adapting the code or just by trying out other ways of using algorithmic failure as a generative, qualitative methodology.

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.