danah boyd just finished her iSight-mediated presentation and it was excellent! Everything just worked – we simply used iChat with iSights, and she sent me Powerpoint slides that we showed on a different screen. We got a chatroom going too but people didn’t get the hang of that till right at the end – lots of good questions when it was nearly too late.

It worked very well. danah’s so lively and engaging that she seemed more present than many unmediated conference presenters I’ve seen. Of course there are things that could have been even better. We had to mute us so as to avoid echos, which must have made things very strange for danah – she had to speak with no audience feedback except for a small, pixellated video image of the room. Hooking up better microphones would have been cool – and teaching people to use the chat beforehand would have been good. But all in all it went wonderfully and I’d happily do it again. Look, danah’s posted about it too.

We also have a videoblog of the conference up now, beautifully done by Jon. We’re not streaming presentations, but they’re posted afterwards, so you can watch complete videos of the presentations as well as short videos of conference delegates eating, chatting, relaxing and hanging out. The wiki‘s growing, and we got a chat site going for (unlogged) backchannel and frontchannel.


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

2 thoughts on “videos and talks

  1. Anthony

    Nice job with the videoblog – I’ve been enjoying the talks all afternoon today!

  2. Jill

    Excellent! And I agree – Jon’s done a wonderful job 🙂

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 […]