Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 36, No. 306.
        Department of Digital Humanities, University of Cologne
                      Hosted by DH-Cologne
                       www.dhhumanist.org
                Submit to: humanist@dhhumanist.org




        Date: 2022-12-15 08:05:56+00:00
        From: maurizio lana <maurizio.lana@uniupo.it>
        Subject: Re: [Humanist] 36.301: death of the author 2.0 continued, or the opaque & the different

i fully subscribe to these words:
> We have to be digital and humanist, I think, which means reading enough
> philosophy to use words more carefully. Most of the time I think a lot of
> this language -- not you at all though -- is salesmanship.
consequently every expression which hypostatize the IA software has to
be avoided
e.g. not "chatGPT answers" but "chatGPT outputs text after the input"
etc.
Maurizio

Il 15/12/22 08:37,  James Rovira <jamesrovira@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> --[2]------------------------------------------------------------------------
>          Date: 2022-12-14 17:11:13+00:00
>          From: James Rovira<jamesrovira@gmail.com>
>          Subject: Re: [Humanist] 36.297: death of the author 2.0 continued, or
swinging on a star
>
> Thanks very much for the response, Ken. I took issue with Bridgette's use
> of the OED as being beneath the level of discussion needed to speak of
> computers and "being" or as "beings" intelligently. The fact that we can
> use a word a number of different ways does not mean that English speaking
> people in general would ever refer to inanimate objects of any kind as
> "beings," unless they are being deliberately anthropomorphic, or are
> annoyed with their computer, etc. What I think is needed is a specific
> definition of being and beings that is explained and then carried through.
> The discussion of Shintoism is more to the point, but I have no buy in to
> that paradigm. I'm not a Shintoist. I'd view that ceremony with curiosity,
> act with respect toward the people in the room, but would still think on a
> fundamental level the whole thing is ridiculous. I might do that for a dog,
> but not a robot. I'd need to be convinced as a non-Shintoist how that
> paradigm could help me think through anything other than -other people's-
> responses to things. In other words, for the moment, it's important to the
> history of ideas, but not to my own thinking.
>
> We have to be digital and humanist, I think, which means reading enough
> philosophy to use words more carefully. Most of the time I think a lot of
> this language -- not you at all though -- is salesmanship.
>
> Jim R
>
> --
> Dr. James Rovira<http://www.jamesrovira.com/>

------------------------------------------------------------------------

apriti cielo
sulla frontiera
sulla rotta nera
una vita intera
mannarino, apriti cielo

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maurizio Lana
Università del Piemonte Orientale
Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici
Piazza Roma 36 - 13100 Vercelli


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe at: http://dhhumanist.org/Restricted
List posts to: humanist@dhhumanist.org
List info and archives at at: http://dhhumanist.org
Listmember interface at: http://dhhumanist.org/Restricted/
Subscribe at: http://dhhumanist.org/membership_form.php