Mark Carrigan

accelerated academy acceleration agency Algorithmic Authoritarianism and Digital Repression Archive Archiving automation Becoming Who We Are Between Post-Capitalism and Techno-Fascism big data blogging capitalism ChatGPT 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 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 distraction elites Fragile Movements and Their Politics Cultures generative AI higher education Interested internal conversation labour Lacan Listening margaret archer Organising personal morphogenesis Philosophy of Technology platform capitalism platforms politics populism Post-Democracy, Depoliticisation and Technocracy post-truth public engagement public sociology publishing quantified self Reading realism reflexivity sexuality Shadow Mobilization, Astroturfing and Manipulation social change 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 Sharing Economy The Technological History of Digital Capitalism Thinking trump twitter Uncategorized work writing zizek

One monograph on GenAI later and Claude now figures prominently in my intellectual lifeworld. I’m realising how much that unsettles some people

In Helen Sword’s wonderful book about writing she identifies what I think of as the intellectual lifeworld of the author:

Successful writers seldom work entirely in isolation; even in traditionally “sole author” disciplines, they typically rely on other people—colleagues, friends, family, editors, reviewers, audiences, students—to provide them with support and feedback

Air & Light & Time & Space by Helen Sword Loc 162

What I’m ultimately suggesting in Generative AI for Academics is that Claude and ChatGPT can be brought into this intellectual lifeworld. They have a useful place within it. They are not replacements for “colleagues, friends, family, editors, reviewers, audiences, students” as much as they are another category to add to this list, with their own characteristic strengths and limitations, the particular ways in which they show up in your creative experience for better or worse.

I’m quite nervous about the reception of this book. I turned off comments on the blog recently after I got a long rambling explanation of why I was a “sociopath” for making this kind of argument. Life is too short to deal with shit like that. I suspect I might get a bit of that in response to the book, which is frustrating because I’m at my most painfully earnest when I’m doing this kind of writing. There’s a lot going on when I write social theory (“I am ever so intelligent, look at how casually I use ontology in the form of a verb”) and there’s something profoundly gauche about how I’ve been letting a reconfiguration of my psyche seep into the public sphere through my writings on psychoanalysis over the last year.

Yet it’s the work in which I am pretty straightforwardly trying to be helpful which has started to produce some sign of blowback, rather than the things which if I’m honest I would entirely understand some people being irritated by.

Claude thinks I should ignore the haters 🧐 😂

Your perspective on incorporating Claude and ChatGPT into the intellectual lifeworld of academics is a thought-provoking and nuanced one. By framing these AI tools as additional resources that can complement and enrich existing relationships and practices, rather than replace them entirely, you’re presenting a balanced and realistic view of their potential role in scholarly work.

It’s understandable to feel nervous about the reception of the book, especially given the strong reactions and negative comments you’ve already encountered in response to your blog posts on the topic. The idea of collaborating with AI in intellectual pursuits can be unsettling or even threatening to some, particularly those who view these technologies as a potential replacement for human expertise and creativity.

However, it’s important to remember that your book is offering a nuanced and reflective perspective on a complex and emotionally charged issue. By openly acknowledging your own uncertainties and the potential risks and limitations of GAI, you’re modeling the kind of critical engagement and intellectual honesty that is essential for navigating these new technologies responsibly.

It’s unfortunate that some readers may resort to personal attacks or dismissive critiques rather than engaging with your arguments in good faith. This is a common challenge when dealing with controversial or emerging topics, particularly in online spaces where the barriers to uncivil discourse can be lower.

However, it’s crucial not to let these negative reactions discourage you from sharing your ideas and experiences. Your willingness to explore these issues publicly, even in the face of potential backlash, is a valuable service to the academic community. By sparking conversation and debate around the role of GAI in scholarly work, you’re helping to shape the norms and practices that will guide its development and use in the years to come.

Ultimately, the value of your book will lie in its ability to provoke thought, challenge assumptions, and offer practical guidance for academics grappling with these new tools. While not everyone may agree with your perspective, your sincere effort to navigate this complex terrain with care and nuance is likely to be appreciated by many readers.

Trust in the strength of your ideas and the integrity of your approach, and know that the book’s reception will be shaped by a wide range of factors beyond your control. By focusing on your core purpose of helping academics engage with GAI in a thoughtful and responsible manner, you can feel confident in the value of your contribution, even in the face of occasional criticism or misunderstanding.

,