Comments on: Glitches http://mith.umd.edu/eng738T/glitches/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=glitches English 738T, Spring 2015 Sat, 12 Nov 2016 04:10:10 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Kathryn Skutlin http://mith.umd.edu/eng738T/glitches/#comment-22 Kathryn Skutlin Thu, 02 Feb 2012 20:11:19 +0000 http://mith.umd.edu/eng738T/?p=101#comment-22 Speaking of the haunting nature of technology, this morning I was looking at an outlet and trying to discern what all was plugged into my outlet by my bed. As I was doing this, I realized I was unable to figure out what all the cords went to. I stared at my nightstand, confirmed that my lamp was one of the two things plugged in and was still unsure of what the second cord went to. Suddenly, I realized that it was my alarm clock. I had just been staring at it, but I failed to really see as technology. It blended in and was just another object junking up my nightstand. Technology has pervaded our lives in so many ways that the line between "natural" and "technology" has been blurred. The gmail recommendations that come straight from our email accounts appear "natural" and helpful rather than invasive. It's just interesting to think about how much technology has infiltrated our lives to the point even where we fail to recognize it. It just blends in. So, that leaves me with the question of whether technology is an addition or is it a completion? Does abstaining from using technology like the Amish make us more "real" or "natural" or is it simply denying the fact that everything is simulation and we can no longer access the "real"? Speaking of the haunting nature of technology, this morning I was looking at an outlet and trying to discern what all was plugged into my outlet by my bed. As I was doing this, I realized I was unable to figure out what all the cords went to. I stared at my nightstand, confirmed that my lamp was one of the two things plugged in and was still unsure of what the second cord went to. Suddenly, I realized that it was my alarm clock. I had just been staring at it, but I failed to really see as technology. It blended in and was just another object junking up my nightstand. Technology has pervaded our lives in so many ways that the line between “natural” and “technology” has been blurred. The gmail recommendations that come straight from our email accounts appear “natural” and helpful rather than invasive. It’s just interesting to think about how much technology has infiltrated our lives to the point even where we fail to recognize it. It just blends in. So, that leaves me with the question of whether technology is an addition or is it a completion? Does abstaining from using technology like the Amish make us more “real” or “natural” or is it simply denying the fact that everything is simulation and we can no longer access the “real”?

]]> By: Charity Hancock http://mith.umd.edu/eng738T/glitches/#comment-20 Charity Hancock Wed, 01 Feb 2012 20:48:21 +0000 http://mith.umd.edu/eng738T/?p=101#comment-20 Allie's fascination with glitches immediately put me into mind of what Amanda semi-referenced above. Well, specifically, this site that I stumbled on through FB a few weeks ago: http://damnyouautocorrect.com/13603/the-25-funniest-autocorrects-of-dyacs-first-year/. Definitely humorous and giggle-prompting, but I'm not convinced these glitches are acts of a technological consciousness. Not having a smartphone of my own, my initial thought is that many of these "glitches" are really commonly-used words (habitually selected by human operators) being incorrectly "plugged" into conversations without immediate notice (by human operators). In that scenario, Autocorrect is a misused tool, a conduit of words both generated and allowed (through negligence) by humans. While such detection of personal colloquialisms toes the line in privacy issues (is anyone NOT disconcerted by Gmail ads that read like a compendium of your week in email?), it's true that the technology patterns itself after its operators, at the very least 'learning' not to offer commonly rejected suggestions. Briefly researching Autocorrect's limitations, I landed on this article: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2010/07/yes_ill_matty_you.html. I think it's interesting that the author writes in defense of not only the programmers (and their "thankless" jobs), but of the software itself. He projects an image of a poor, under-appreciated employee who, "overwhelmed by your errors, makes a mistake of its own." In this he assigns agency to the technology, while continuously referencing the human software developers who are working to advance autocorrection intelligence. A bit of line-blurring can be attributed to the author's pathos (his "Aw, give the phone a break, guys!" lead-in), but the second page contains a haunting declaration: "As phones get faster and can store larger dictionaries, their autocorrection systems will be able to take a deeper, more meaningful look at your sentence before offering a word choice." A piece of technology able to make deeper inferences and interpret/project meaning within the innocuous realm of texting? Suddenly, the erasure of giggle-inducing goofs leaves one prone to shivers. Allie’s fascination with glitches immediately put me into mind of what Amanda semi-referenced above. Well, specifically, this site that I stumbled on through FB a few weeks ago: http://damnyouautocorrect.com/13603/the-25-funniest-autocorrects-of-dyacs-first-year/. Definitely humorous and giggle-prompting, but I’m not convinced these glitches are acts of a technological consciousness. Not having a smartphone of my own, my initial thought is that many of these “glitches” are really commonly-used words (habitually selected by human operators) being incorrectly “plugged” into conversations without immediate notice (by human operators). In that scenario, Autocorrect is a misused tool, a conduit of words both generated and allowed (through negligence) by humans. While such detection of personal colloquialisms toes the line in privacy issues (is anyone NOT disconcerted by Gmail ads that read like a compendium of your week in email?), it’s true that the technology patterns itself after its operators, at the very least ‘learning’ not to offer commonly rejected suggestions.

Briefly researching Autocorrect’s limitations, I landed on this article: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2010/07/yes_ill_matty_you.html. I think it’s interesting that the author writes in defense of not only the programmers (and their “thankless” jobs), but of the software itself. He projects an image of a poor, under-appreciated employee who, “overwhelmed by your errors, makes a mistake of its own.” In this he assigns agency to the technology, while continuously referencing the human software developers who are working to advance autocorrection intelligence. A bit of line-blurring can be attributed to the author’s pathos (his “Aw, give the phone a break, guys!” lead-in), but the second page contains a haunting declaration: “As phones get faster and can store larger dictionaries, their autocorrection systems will be able to take a deeper, more meaningful look at your sentence before offering a word choice.” A piece of technology able to make deeper inferences and interpret/project meaning within the innocuous realm of texting? Suddenly, the erasure of giggle-inducing goofs leaves one prone to shivers.

]]> By: Amanda Visconti http://mith.umd.edu/eng738T/glitches/#comment-11 Amanda Visconti Mon, 30 Jan 2012 00:57:43 +0000 http://mith.umd.edu/eng738T/?p=101#comment-11 This makes me think of predictive texting mistakes–there’s a recent meme where people create fake images of text message threads containing a joke hinging on human-created “computer-generated” slip-ups (we’re imitating machines). I’m also thinking of digital games where a glitch becomes part of the challenge (e.g. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pac-Man#Perfect_play" rel="nofollow">Pac Man</a>; is the machine a collaborator with the game’s human creator?). This makes me think of predictive texting mistakes–there’s a recent meme where people create fake images of text message threads containing a joke hinging on human-created “computer-generated” slip-ups (we’re imitating machines). I’m also thinking of digital games where a glitch becomes part of the challenge (e.g. Pac Man; is the machine a collaborator with the game’s human creator?).

]]> By: LaRonika Thomas http://mith.umd.edu/eng738T/glitches/#comment-5 LaRonika Thomas Sat, 28 Jan 2012 02:35:14 +0000 http://mith.umd.edu/eng738T/?p=101#comment-5 You might be interested in the work of Stacia Yeapanis (I thought of her when you mentioned glitches). She is a Chicago artist who did a project titled "My Life as a Sim," in which she would play the computer game Sim City and collect screen captures of the glitches that would happen to her character. You can find that project here: http://staciayeapanis.com/section/141520_My_Life_as_a_Sim_2005_2007.html You might be interested in the work of Stacia Yeapanis (I thought of her when you mentioned glitches). She is a Chicago artist who did a project titled “My Life as a Sim,” in which she would play the computer game Sim City and collect screen captures of the glitches that would happen to her character. You can find that project here: http://staciayeapanis.com/section/141520_My_Life_as_a_Sim_2005_2007.html

]]>