Group items tagged

DLA is explic­itly res­i­den­tial and dia­log­i­cal

Not so much a replace­ment as a sup­ple­ment to dig­i­tal human­i­ties, DLA broad­ens the scope and relo­cates the cen­ter of grav­ity of what I have referred to as the dig­i­tal human­i­ties sit­u­a­tion, the recur­ring, play­ful encounter of human­ists with tech­nol­ogy.  Instead of focus­ing on what may bet­ter be described as the com­pu­ta­tional human­i­ties (a use­ful term recently pro­posed by Lev Manovich), the dig­i­tal lib­eral arts seeks to locate dig­i­tal media squarely within the frame of the lib­eral arts, broadly con­ceived as a cur­ricu­lum, not a dis­ci­pline or even set of dis­ci­plines, and as a dis­tinc­tive mode of edu­ca­tional expe­ri­ence, not a set of received the­o­ret­i­cal con­cerns. It is a fram­ing par­tic­u­larly suited to lib­eral arts col­leges — America’s great con­tri­bu­tion to higher learn­ing — but also to uni­ver­si­ties, such as UVa, whose souls are in the lib­eral arts as well.

the idea of Coursera-style MOOCs being part of the DLA is a non-starter, although dis­trib­uted and medi­ated forms of edu­ca­tion can, and I think must, become part of the lib­eral arts experience

DLA is as con­cerned with ped­a­gogy as it is with research

focus­ing on the real use of dig­i­tal col­lec­tions (for exam­ple) as much as on their cre­ation and publication

It's not so much a rise of evil as a rise of nonsense. It's a mass incompetence, as opposed to Skynet from the Terminator movies. That's what this type of AI turns into.

What's happened here is that translators haven't been made obsolete. What's happened instead is that the structure through which we receive the efforts of real people in order to make translations happen has been optimized, but those people are still needed.

In order to create this illusion of a freestanding autonomous artificial intelligent creature, we have to ignore the contributions from all the people whose data we're grabbing in order to make it work. That has a negative economic consequence.

If you talk to translators, they're facing a predicament, which is very similar to some of the other early victim populations, due to the particular way we digitize things. It's similar to what's happened with recording musicians, or investigative journalists—which is the one that bothers me the most—or photographers. What they're seeing is a severe decline in how much they're paid, what opportunities they have, their long-term prospects.

because of the mythology about AI, the services are presented as though they are these mystical, magical personas. IBM makes a dramatic case that they've created this entity that they call different things at different times—Deep Blue and so forth. The consumer tech companies, we tend to put a face in front of them, like a Cortana or a Siri

If you talk about AI as a set of techniques, as a field of study in mathematics or engineering, it brings benefits. If we talk about AI as a mythology of creating a post-human species, it creates a series of problems that I've just gone over, which include acceptance of bad user interfaces, where you can't tell if you're being manipulated or not, and everything is ambiguous. It creates incompetence, because you don't know whether recommendations are coming from anything real or just self-fulfilling prophecies from a manipulative system that spun off on its own, and economic negativity, because you're gradually pulling formal economic benefits away from the people who supply the data that makes the scheme work.

This idea that some lab somewhere is making these autonomous algorithms that can take over the world is a way of avoiding the profoundly uncomfortable political problem, which is that if there's some actuator that can do harm, we have to figure out some way that people don't do harm with it. There are about to be a whole bunch of those. And that'll involve some kind of new societal structure that isn't perfect anarchy. Nobody in the tech world wants to face that, so we lose ourselves in these fantasies of AI. But if you could somehow prevent AI from ever happening, it would have nothing to do with the actual problem that we fear, and that's the sad thing, the difficult thing we have to face.

To reject your own ignorance just casts you into a silly state where you're a lesser scientist. I don't see that so much in the neuroscience field, but it comes from the computer world so much, and the computer world is so influential because it has so much money and influence that it does start to bleed over into all kinds of other things.