How can users be literate of systems that evade the comprehension of even the experts who created them? For generative A.I., such a literacy seems to depend upon terms of art: misleading homonyms like ‘explainable’, ‘memorization’, ‘natural’, etc. In the field of computer science, terms of art serve as metrics to quantitatively evaluate A.I. performance with the aim of achieving greater efficiency in the tasks those systems were programmed to perform in the first place. Apparently, machine intelligence has blasted off; it approaches infinity and beyond while we stand still. With this post, I attempt to carve off a clean…
Recent Posts
- The Sweetland Digital Rhetoric Collaborative Interviews the editors of Computers and Composition
- [Utopia]-in-the-loop in an Emergent Age of Full Automation
- Ghosts-in-the-Loop: Bormann’s Ghost v. AI
- Relational-in-the-Loop Writing: Reframing Rhetorical Load Sharing as a Rhetorical Assemblage
- Accessibility-in-the-Loop: Rhetorics of Resistance, Freedom, and Care
- Operational-Infrastructure-in-the-Loop
- Surveillance-in-the-Loop Writing
- Refusal-in-the-Loop Writing—or, what happened to the field that stood up to TurnItIn, Course Hero, Chegg, and paper mills?