{"title":"迷人的技术自由主义","authors":"J. Schnepf","doi":"10.3368/cl.61.4.530","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"n a recent issue of PMLA, Wai Chee Dimock’s Editor’s Column, entitled “AI and the Humanities,” refers to two distinct paths for the artificial intelligence of the future: “How can we create algorithms that would complement rather than replace human beings, help rather than destroy us?” she asks.1 Dimock prefaces these alternatives with PMLA’s readership in mind, citing studies that warn “those ‘with graduate or professional degrees will be almost four times as exposed to AI as workers with just a high school degree’” and that the advent of new AI will “[hit] educated workers the hardest.”2 What “exposure” to AI might mean for literary scholars practically is never specified but the implication is that impending automation poses yet another threat to knowledge workers in literature programs who already find their material livelihoods jeopardized by the crises of defunding and adjunctification. To adapt, Dimock intimates that scholars of literature might enter into interdisciplinary arrangements with the computer scientists and engineers who have a hand in AI design. She observes that Stanford’s Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence, for example, now counts English professors among its faculty. In","PeriodicalId":44998,"journal":{"name":"CONTEMPORARY LITERATURE","volume":"61 1","pages":"530 - 536"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Disenchanting Technoliberalism\",\"authors\":\"J. Schnepf\",\"doi\":\"10.3368/cl.61.4.530\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"n a recent issue of PMLA, Wai Chee Dimock’s Editor’s Column, entitled “AI and the Humanities,” refers to two distinct paths for the artificial intelligence of the future: “How can we create algorithms that would complement rather than replace human beings, help rather than destroy us?” she asks.1 Dimock prefaces these alternatives with PMLA’s readership in mind, citing studies that warn “those ‘with graduate or professional degrees will be almost four times as exposed to AI as workers with just a high school degree’” and that the advent of new AI will “[hit] educated workers the hardest.”2 What “exposure” to AI might mean for literary scholars practically is never specified but the implication is that impending automation poses yet another threat to knowledge workers in literature programs who already find their material livelihoods jeopardized by the crises of defunding and adjunctification. To adapt, Dimock intimates that scholars of literature might enter into interdisciplinary arrangements with the computer scientists and engineers who have a hand in AI design. She observes that Stanford’s Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence, for example, now counts English professors among its faculty. In\",\"PeriodicalId\":44998,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"CONTEMPORARY LITERATURE\",\"volume\":\"61 1\",\"pages\":\"530 - 536\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"CONTEMPORARY LITERATURE\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3368/cl.61.4.530\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LITERATURE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CONTEMPORARY LITERATURE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3368/cl.61.4.530","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LITERATURE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
在最近一期的PMLA中,Wai Chee Dimock的编辑专栏题为“人工智能和人文学科”,提到了未来人工智能的两条截然不同的道路:“我们如何创造算法来补充而不是取代人类,帮助而不是毁灭我们?她问迪莫克在介绍这些替代方案时考虑到了PMLA的读者,他引用了一些研究,警告称“那些拥有研究生或专业学位的人接触人工智能的机会几乎是只有高中学历的工人的四倍”,而新人工智能的出现将“对受过教育的工人造成最严重的打击”。对于文学学者来说,“接触”人工智能意味着什么,实际上从来没有具体说明过,但其含义是,即将到来的自动化对文学项目中的知识工作者构成了另一种威胁,他们已经发现自己的物质生计受到资金短缺和适应危机的威胁。为了适应,迪莫克暗示,文学学者可能会与参与人工智能设计的计算机科学家和工程师达成跨学科的安排。例如,她注意到斯坦福大学以人为本的人工智能研究所(Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence)现在的教职员工中有英语教授。在
n a recent issue of PMLA, Wai Chee Dimock’s Editor’s Column, entitled “AI and the Humanities,” refers to two distinct paths for the artificial intelligence of the future: “How can we create algorithms that would complement rather than replace human beings, help rather than destroy us?” she asks.1 Dimock prefaces these alternatives with PMLA’s readership in mind, citing studies that warn “those ‘with graduate or professional degrees will be almost four times as exposed to AI as workers with just a high school degree’” and that the advent of new AI will “[hit] educated workers the hardest.”2 What “exposure” to AI might mean for literary scholars practically is never specified but the implication is that impending automation poses yet another threat to knowledge workers in literature programs who already find their material livelihoods jeopardized by the crises of defunding and adjunctification. To adapt, Dimock intimates that scholars of literature might enter into interdisciplinary arrangements with the computer scientists and engineers who have a hand in AI design. She observes that Stanford’s Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence, for example, now counts English professors among its faculty. In
期刊介绍:
Contemporary Literature publishes scholarly essays on contemporary writing in English, interviews with established and emerging authors, and reviews of recent critical books in the field. The journal welcomes articles on multiple genres, including poetry, the novel, drama, creative nonfiction, new media and digital literature, and graphic narrative. CL published the first articles on Thomas Pynchon and Susan Howe and the first interviews with Margaret Drabble and Don DeLillo; we also helped to introduce Kazuo Ishiguro, Eavan Boland, and J.M. Coetzee to American readers. As a forum for discussing issues animating the range of contemporary literary studies, CL features the full diversity of critical practices.