Raiding the inarticulate since 2010

accelerated academy acceleration agency AI Algorithmic Authoritarianism and Digital Repression archer Archive Archiving artificial intelligence automation Becoming Who We Are Between Post-Capitalism and Techno-Fascism big data blogging capitalism ChatGPT claude Cognitive Triage: Practice, Culture and Strategies Communicative Escalation and Cultural Abundance: How Do We Cope? Corporate Culture, Elites and Their Self-Understandings craft creativity critical realism data science Defensive Elites Digital Capitalism and Digital Social Science Digital Distraction, Personal Agency and The Reflexive Imperative Digital Elections, Party Politics and Diplomacy digital elites Digital Inequalities Digital Social Science Digital Sociology digital sociology Digital Universities elites Fragile Movements and Their Politics Cultures generative AI higher education Interested labour Lacan Listening LLMs margaret archer Organising personal morphogenesis Philosophy of Technology platform capitalism platforms populism Post-Democracy, Depoliticisation and Technocracy post-truth psychoanalysis public engagement public sociology publishing Reading realism reflexivity scholarship sexuality Shadow Mobilization, Astroturfing and Manipulation Social Media Social Media for Academics social media for academics social ontology social theory sociology technology The Content Ecosystem The Intensification of Work The Political Economy of Digital Capitalism The Technological History of Digital Capitalism Thinking trump twitter Uncategorized work writing zizek

How to use Claude as an editing assistant

I need to cut 2500 words from this chapter. Please offer arguments for and against removing the final section of the chapter:

Here are some potential arguments for and against removing the final section of the chapter:

Arguments for removing it:

  • The chapter is already quite long and removing this section would help streamline it and improve overall flow and pacing. The key ideas seem sufficiently covered in the preceding sections.
  • The final section focuses specifically on understanding scholarship as a process, which may fit better in a separate chapter focused on methodology rather than an introductory chapter. Removing it would keep the chapter more squarely focused on introductions, definitions and framing.
  • There is some overlap in themes between this section and earlier sections (e.g. workflow, habit formation, experimentation). Removing redundancy could make the chapter tighter.

Arguments against removing it:

  • The section provides a helpful lead-in to later discussions of methodology and scholarly norms regarding AI. Removing it loses some of that valuable context and connectivity.
  • Understanding scholarship as process (rather than output) is an important reframe regarding AI’s role. Having this idea introduced upfront contextualizes the entire discussion helpfully.
  • The section offers a important perspective on resisting automation and understanding motivations/intentions that isn’t covered elsewhere. Omitting it could overly streamline some valuable complexity.
  • Word count isn’t everything. This section strengthens the chapter by broadening the lenses through which AI in scholarship can be understood. The ideas are sufficiently distinct from previous sections to warrant inclusion.

In summary, there are reasonable arguments on both sides. Depending on word count needs and priorities, a truncated version could be viable to keep some of the key ideas while still shortening the full section. But the section does seem to add some important new dimensions worthy of consideration.

,