The readings in Module 1 of the syllabus for the New Media Narratives course explore the concept of new media and its relationship to storytelling, technology, and culture.
In "From Hypertext to Hype and Back Again: Exploring the Roots of Social Media in the Early Web," Stevenson examines the history of social media and its origins in the early web, highlighting the key innovations and technologies that paved the way for today's social media platforms.
In "What is New Media," Manovich discusses the concept of new media and its relationship to traditional media forms, such as print, radio, and television. He argues that new media technologies, such as the internet and digital media, have fundamentally changed the way that we create and consume media, and have expanded the possibilities for storytelling and communication.
In "Story Machines: How Computers Have Become Creative Writers," Sharples and Pérez y Pérez engage with the fascinating topic of computational creativity. This work examines whether and how computers can participate in creative writing, delving into the advancements in AI and machine learning. The authors explore the implications of computer-generated narratives and the evolving relationship between human and machine in the realm of storytelling. It's a thought-provoking read on the frontiers of artificial creativity.
Finally, in "Transliterate Spaces - Sue Thomas - 3Ts 2013: Transliteracy from Cradle to Career," Thomas discusses the concept of transliteracy and its relationship to new media technologies, arguing that the ability to move seamlessly between different media forms and platforms is essential for effective communication and storytelling in the digital age. Thomas emphasizes the importance of transliteracy in a digital age where boundaries between different forms of media are increasingly blurred. This resource is instrumental for understanding how digital literacy extends beyond traditional reading and writing, encompassing a wide range of media and communication formats, and is crucial for navigating the digital landscape.
Overall, the readings in Module 1 of the syllabus for the New Media Narratives course explore the concept of new media and its impact on storytelling, technology, and culture, and highlight the ways in which these developments are shaping the way that we communicate and share stories.
Dang .... forgot to change my name for that post ... rookie mistake.
ReplyDeleteApologies. Also - it seems to be prioritizing my personal Google account over my UofA and won't let me switch.
Thanks for sharing your clever work-around! Great idea.
DeleteBlogger randomly deleted your link; <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AlrJustxf9WqW16ZsO7eyYHP1hlFH4fCDJ8D0224_EY/edit?tab=t.0>https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AlrJustxf9WqW16ZsO7eyYHP1hlFH4fCDJ8D0224_EY/edit?tab=t.</a>
DeleteTransliteracy, as think of it, emphasizes the ability to navigate and synthesize information across multiple platforms, media, and formats. Unlike traditional digital literacy, which often focuses on technical competencies, transliteracy acknowledges the importance of critical thinking, storytelling, and adaptability. This is something that is going to be of utmost importance as we are faced with the *need* to take up AI tools.
DeleteBrandon W. - AI: Still Not Quite a Pro with Prose
ReplyDelete‘Can a Computer Write a Story’ provides a brief but fascinating history about the evolution of
storytelling computers, and in a sense, the progression of AI. In the broadest terms and
considering only the purely technical definition of writing a story, I would probably say that a
computer can write a story… but also not really once I look under the hood. I found it interesting
how each iteration of the storytelling machine (the Automatic Novel Writer, TAILOR, MINSTREL,
and finally GPT-2) became more refined in its ability to construct a tellable story with characters,
a narrative, a meaning, and general flow. This all culminates in the threat that we will all soon be
replaced by GPT-3. Machines will rule all, and writers will be banished to the rock quarries to
gather precious metals to feed our AI overlords.
But let’s think about this before we pick up our hammers and… other… precious metal digging
tools (good thing I’m not doing a master’s in geology). The one line in this paper that calms my
anxiety and leads me to believe that there will still be a place for the humans behind the
computers is “We make the machines that make the stories that make us.” The common thread
among all these wonderful technologies is that at the beginning, it was still a human that had to
tell the computer or AI what to do. A human had to set parameters, install morals, and write the
codes and algorithms for computers to do their thing. There’s no doubt that AI’s mimicry is
incredible (the 1984 example), but it is still building off the imagination of George Orwell and
remains confined to the programming parameters.
I performed a little experiment in which I typed ‘Write me a short story about a dog’ into
Microsoft’s Copilot AI and it produced a perfectly passable story about a dog who unearths
some lost treasures and brings them to his owner. Could a human have written it? Definitely. In
a perfect world, I could approach Stephen King or Ta-Nehisi Coates and ask them to write me a
short story about a dog for comparison. I will warrant a guess that Mr. King’s tale would lead in
all kinds of macabre directions while Mr. Coates’s story may include intelligent allegories on
race relations in America. My point is that AI does not have the imagination or ability to reflect
on the human experience in a way that truly threatens us (yet!). Can it perform menial task
writing or technical writing that doesn’t require a lot of deep thinking? Absolutely. But writing that
needs to reach people or engage beyond a surface level- I think we’re still safe for now (and I
truly do mean ‘for now’).
Sharples, M., & Pérez y Pérez, R. (2022). “Can a Computer Write a Story,” Story Machines:
How Computers Have Become Creative Writers (1st ed.). P. 1-13. Routledge. https://doi-
org.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/10.4324/9781003161431
I really enjoyed this read (Im also a HUGE Stephen King fan). This article captures the anxiety many of us feel about the role of AI in creative fields. As a singer-songwriter, I can totally relate to the concerns raised about AI potentially replacing humans in creative fields. In my own work, I've found myself wondering if AI-generated music or lyrics could ever really replicate the unique emotion and personal experience that comes from a human creator. While the technology behind these AI tools is undeniably impressive, there’s something deeply human about the creative process—whether it's writing a song or telling a story—that can't be replicated by a machine. Machines might be able to mimic certain patterns or structures, but they can't truly capture the raw, messy, authentic part of human experience. And that’s what resonates with people. Just like how AI might churn out a perfectly “passable” story about a dog, I feel that AI music might be well-constructed, but it will lack that deep, emotional connection that only a human can infuse into a song.
DeleteReally looking forward to all the discussions throughout the course.
Kami
I found this article both engaging and timely, as it plays into widespread concern that certain creative jobs may become obsolete due to the rapid developments of large language models (LLMs). I think we can’t deny that LLMs have made remarkable progress in recent years, particularly in generating coherent and fluent. However, I believe there are some limitations that prevent these models from fully replacing human writing tasks.
DeleteAs Moro et al. (2023) explain, LLMs lack the capacity to produce genuinely creative texts because their output is based on probabilistic patterns rather than original thought or innovation. Creativity often involves generating new ideas, combining ideas, and often involves emotional expression. This requires a deep understanding of human language, which LLMs do not possess. Another key limitation is their difficulty in generating complex syntactic structures essential for coherent and sophisticated creative writing (Moro et al., 2023). Given these constraints, I believe the current generation of LLMs is not capable of replacing human input in the creative writing process. While the way we work may change with these tools, I think it is more likely that LLMs will serve as an aid in the writing process rather than replacing human input. Especially since LLMs are not capable of generating novel and creative texts yet.
Source:
Moro, A., Greco, M., & Cappa, S. F. (2023). Large languages, impossible languages and human brains. Cortex, 167, 82-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2023.07.003
Sharples and Pérez's article is such an interesting take on the intersection of computer, AI and storytelling. I really appreciated the highlight of the progression from early storytelling machines to modern AI. It’s fascinating (and unsettling) to see how far these technologies have come in creating structured, “tellable” stories.
DeleteBut this point about imagination and human experience really resonates—AI can mimic and create within set parameters. Still, it lacks the depth to reflect on complex human emotions and experiences. That “We make the machines that make the stories that make us,” is a great reminder that humans are still someone in this process, at least for now and there're still many places for creative writers. AI might excel at technical or repetitive writing, but for now, also as Van Halst mentioned, the human touch and emotional connection remain irreplaceable in art and storytelling.
The question of whether machines or AI will replace humans is one that industries across the board are grappling with today. This issue has even sparked widespread anxiety, with people fearing that advancements in AI might render their work meaningless or obsolete.
ReplyDeleteHowever, in the field of literary creation, I believe such concerns are, at least for now, premature. In the article "Can a Computer Write a Story?", the author introduces several computer programs capable of generating stories. Yet, these programs rely entirely on mimicking existing story structures created by human, rather than inventing entirely new narrative models. While it’s true, as the Russian folklorist and scholar Vladimir Propp observed, that human-written stories often follow recognizable patterns, the machine-generated stories presented in the article still read as overly rigid and lack the depth to captivate readers. I’m confident that as technology advances, AI-generated stories will become more polished in terms of linguistic fluency and the use of rhetorical devices, even approximating the style of specific literary authors. However, when it comes to originality and creativity, AI cannot surpass human writers. Its learning models are inherently based on human-created works. If we consider the classic works of literature that have stood the test of time, their enduring appeal lies in their distinctive narrative styles, unconventional story structures, unique characterizations, and profound social commentary. All of these hinge on one crucial element: uniqueness. Few would argue that their favorite book is beloved because it mimics the style of another author. If imitation is all AI offers, why not read the original work instead? AI can write stories—entertaining and even engaging ones—but it does so by imitating and recycling pre-existing structures and character archetypes. For this reason, I believe that no matter how advanced AI becomes, it will never replace human authors in the realm of literary creation.
Moreover, machines cannot discern the quality of a story. Even if we feed them specific programming instructions to define what constitutes a "good" or "bad" story, the standards themselves are subjective and lack universal agreement, even among humans. Wouldn’t these programmed definitions then reflect only the preferences of the software's creators?
While they may simply mimic human creativity, they hold significant entertainment and commercial value. For instance, imagine an app capable of crafting personalized stories based on a user’s own experiences. Such an app would likely be well-received, as few could resist the allure of a story tailored just for them. Even if these stories are simple and repetitive, they could offer ordinary people a taste of the joy that comes with storytelling, potentially sparking creativity and inspiring them to create their own narratives.
In this sense, while AI might never replace human authors, it could still serve as an engaging tool to enhance the creative experiences of everyday people.
Going to try my post again - broken into multiple parts.
ReplyDeletePt. 1
When I started my Applied Information Technology diploma in 1999 the mood was all doom and gloom. The hype around web 1.0 has crashed and burned. With the bursting of the dot-com bubble, prospects for new web designers and digital communications professionals looked dismal. Poor timing to start studying for a career working on the web.
But I was still captivated by the ‘information superhighway’ and its transformative potential as we entered the new millennium. At the time, it was a chaotic mix of obscure navigation structures and artistic experiments, with artists like Joshua Davis pushing the boundaries of this new medium through sites like once-upon-a-forest ( https://joshuadavis.com/Once-Upon-a-Forest-v-1 ),and the original PrayStation ( https://www.webdesignmuseum.org/gallery/joshua-davis-praystation-2003 . Meanwhile, the mid-90s Designers Republic-inspired ( https://www.thedesignersrepublic.com/ ) , Wipeout style ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wipeout_(video_game) ) aesthetic was everywhere. In light of Megan Ankerson’s (2010) argument that "the web’s dominant aesthetics through the years can be mapped against changing industry dynamics" (Stevenson 2018, p. 22), it’s fascinating to reconsider how those early designs fit into broader economic and industrial forces. Though I don’t fully understand how these experimental designs were tied not just to technological advances but also to larger economic shifts, I can’t help but think that the massive investment in the early web enabled a level of creative freedom that allowed for such innovation.
Though I was clinging to my printed copies of The Whole Earth Catalog (and still do), I had traded my print obsession for the early iterations of Boing Boing—a shiny new, hyperlinked version that seemed to share the same ethos. I missed out on the Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link (WELL), so I was excited to read about it in this article. Needless to say, I bought into the “utopian undertones” of the “Californian ideology” (Stevenson, 2018, p. 16), which framed virtual online communities as a force set to reshape the media landscape. I saw the web as a liberating force, an opportunity for disparate communities to connect; no one ever needed to be alone again. I was a passionate proponent of “web exceptionalism” and the “emancipatory powers of technology,” with its promises of “connectivity, openness, and transparency,” but without much critical reflection. I was young, excited, and naively blind to the future dangers. Over time, I’ve watched platform capitalism erode many of those early ideals. While Netscape (Mozilla) has lost prominence, I still find its Manifesto for a Healthy Internet ( https://www.mozilla.org/en-CA/about/manifesto/ ) to be a valuable guiding document and reminder of the emancipatory powers of the web.
Pt. 2
DeleteI was surprised to read about the undertones of “cyberlibertarianism” (Stevenson 2018, p. 14) in the early web. Though in retrospect it makes sense that the idea of ‘freedom’ afforded by the internet and that kind of belief system align. It reminds of a similar movement in the decentralized financial system ushered in by cryptocurrency and the blockchain.
Though I like Lev Manovich's five key principles that define new media I still have trouble with the name. As I dove into exploring other options to the term ‘new media’ I came across “Metamedia” ( https://journals.uvic.ca/index.php/ctheory/article/download/14459/5301?inline=1). This term was also used by Manovich, (though coined by by Alan Kay and Adele Goldberg) and this rabbit hole led me to Manovich's article on Understanding Meta-Media. In this he raises the interesting idea that the process that new media does to old media can be described best by the term ‘mapping’. New media is seen as taking old media and remapping it into new structures. This brought to mind a video art piece I did several years back called ‘Stained Glass Video’. In this installation I covered a TV with semi-transparent vellum over a matrix of shapes. The result was different shape areas of colour that were being ‘mapped’ from the underlying video. Though I’d never considered it in this context I now see that this was indeed a type of metamedia. This is similar to the mapping of audio visualizers (ie. iTunes) that map frequencies to visual representations.
This concept brought me back to bitmap image fundamentals of sampling (sample rate/resolution) and quantizing (averaging out of information); the process where analogue images (information) is converted into binary data. Manovich recognizes this and similarly points out that “the most culturally important example of meta-media which everybody is familiar with today is hypertext.” (Manovich, n.d.). The convergence in ‘new media’ and its impact on contemporary culture and communication have been eye-opening and inspiring and I will be diving deeper into Manovich’s work.
For years, I’ve been promoting the Multimedia Communication (MMC) program I teach as a critical support for digital literacy. The skills we teach are now essential in the modern workforce, yet many people lack the training to meet these expectations. Employees are often tasked with creating visual communication materials, company newsletters, updating websites, and handling other multimedia tasks—yet few are properly trained for these roles, and it shows in the results. While templates and tools like Canva are often introduced as quick fixes, they don’t address the underlying issue. I’m increasingly realizing that the MMC program is (or should be) about transliteracy, and I’m excited to explore this field further.
WIred magazine has a section in the credits page that “things that helped get this issue out”. This section acts as a catch all for ideas and acknowledgement of events and info that happened along the way. As I was writing this reading response I had a few extra ideas that didn’t make the cut but “helped get this response out”. They include:
- The website fffffound.com. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FFFFOUND! ) An early example of random photos, art and early memes. This used an infinite scroll that dominated hours and hours of my early scrolling life.
- In thinking about ‘infinite scroll’ (a web 2.0 advancement), I remembered that the inventor of that functionality would like to apologize for ruining your life. ( https://medium.com/pitfall/the-inventor-of-the-infinite-scroll-is-sorry-for-ruining-your-life-be953bf0ccfb )
- The idea that the web is in ‘permanent beta’ … similar to life.
- The old vector open drawing project Alchemy - which had a bunch of chaotic behaviours that ‘mapped’ your input in different ways.
- The question of what the first thing sold online was …. Pizza? Weed? A Sting CD?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSue Thomas’ lecture on transliteracy was brilliant, I opted to watch the 2011 youtube video of her lecture available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r02W5aTmJgI . That context really helped frame how transliteracy relies on a notion of communication that is not grounded in vocabulary, but that describes a form of knowledge sharing that predates media as we understand it, which has evolved to make way for the eventual rise of print, and now digital media.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, in “Can a Computer Write a Story” Sharples and Perez explore the limitations of AI in its ability to write a sensible and authentic feeling piece of writing. Part of what AI lacks here lies within the question that transliteracy also poses - what exists beyond words that we aim to communicate through them, and how does that impact the way we create, share, and interpret media?
While AI can receive data about what living like the human experience is like, it can never understand the sensations and connections that can not be captured by words alone - and that understanding feeds storytelling.
Do I think AI is already being used in different steps of the writing and editing process for some reads that are taking over BookTok? Absolutely - but there is still manual human labour throughout to fill in those gaps that AI doesn’t even recognize is missing.
Despite the threats it poses, AI is clearly here to stay and as we prepare for its continued integration into different fields of work and aspects of our lives, we may consider how to preserve the humanity in literature. I think we can begin with intentionally seeking out content that feels authentic, original and resonates with that vibration and awareness within us that can’t be articulated. In a world that relies on our role as consumers, we exercise our power to control the direction of society, including the use of AI, through what we pay for and pay attention to.
Sources:
Sharples, M., & Pérez y Pérez, R. (2022). “Can a Computer Write a Story,” Story Machines: How Computers Have Become Creative Writers (1st ed.). P. 1-13. Routledge. https://doi-org.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/10.4324/9781003161431.
"Transliterate Spaces--Sue Thomas--3Ts 2013: Transliteracy from Cradle to Career,” Sue Thomas, 2013. Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/suethomas/transliterate-spaces-sue-thomas-3ts-2013-transliteracy-from-cradle-to-career?qid=8250bddc-9e00-45fd-917e-526d05482ce2&v=default&b=&from_search=1
As lectured in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r02W5aTmJgI
Thanks for the link to Sue Thomas's Transliteracy lecture - really enjoying her talk and was reminded of Martin Buber's dialogical philosophy and some of his similar ideas around "communication that is not grounded in vocabulary". His theory is also interesting in light of AI writing a story and "what exists beyond words that we aim to communicate through them". This reminds me of his 'I-Thou' mode of communication where individuals engage with each other as whole beings, recognizing and valuing the other's unique humanity to foster authentic connection and meaningful communication.
DeleteI feel hopeful for human creativity in light of AI especially considering that idea that AI has exhausted all of the existing datasets. https://www.sciencealert.com/the-world-is-running-out-of-data-to-feed-ai-experts-warn
These readings in Module 1 are super interesting! I especially enjoyed learning about the history of social media in Stevenson's piece, and Manovich really made me think about how new media is changing the way we tell stories. I'm excited to learn more about AI and creativity in Sharples and Pérez y Pérez, and I think Thomas' idea of transliteracy is going to be really important in this digital world. Thanks for sharing these!
ReplyDeleteAdding to this
DeleteThe readings in Module 1 of the New Media Narratives course have been particularly insightful and engaging for me, resonating on multiple levels. Two key aspects stand out:
The exploration of AI’s role in storytelling, as discussed in “Story Machines: How Computers Have Become Creative Writers,” is both fascinating and thought-provoking. The advancements in AI and machine learning have enabled computers to generate narratives, challenging traditional notions of authorship and creativity. This evolution prompts us to consider the implications of AI-generated content on literature and art. While AI can produce coherent and contextually relevant stories, the depth of human experience and emotional nuance it conveys may differ from human-authored narratives. This intersection of technology and creativity underscores the need for adaptability in our understanding of storytelling. As AI continues to evolve, it is essential to reflect on how these tools can complement human creativity rather than replace it.
Sue Thomas’s discussion on transliteracy in “Transliterate Spaces” highlights the importance of seamlessly navigating various media forms and platforms. In today’s digital age, the ability to adapt and communicate across different media is crucial. This skill enables individuals to effectively share stories and information, regardless of the platform. The convergence of media has led to a landscape where text, images, audio, and video intersect, requiring a multifaceted approach to literacy. Developing transliteracy skills empowers us to engage with content more meaningfully and to participate actively in the digital narrative.
Personal Reflections
These readings have reinforced the notion that adaptability is essential in the face of technological advancements. The integration of AI into creative processes and the proliferation of diverse media platforms necessitate a willingness to embrace change and to develop new skills. By understanding and leveraging these technologies, we can enhance our storytelling capabilities and ensure that our narratives remain relevant and impactful in an ever-evolving digital landscape.
I found this post really interesting
Deletehttps://www.vox.com/the-gray-area/376192/tga-meghan-ogieblyn-creativity-art-ai?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Are humans the only ones that can be creative?