---
tags: Teaching, DC
title: 'Digital Culture 2020 - discussion'
---

<img src="https://media.giphy.com/media/qVJDUpdAHqItG/giphy.gif" width="400" />

==class10==

text1:

Mackenzie, Adrian . (2017). “Introduction: Into the Data” in Machine Learners: Archaeology of a Data Practice, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, pp. 1-19
https://i.imgur.com/QEwKW9D.png

**Q0. What are the things interest you in this section? and why?**
Group 1:
It's interesting to see this shift in power:
>*With the growth of digital communication networks in the form of the internet, the late 20th century entered a new crisis of control, no longer centered on logistic acceleration but on communication and knowledge. Almost all accounts of the operational power of machine learning emphasize its power to regain control of processes of communication*

Group 2:
> We are thinking about this qoute: *Almost all accounts of the operational power of machine learning emphasize its power to regain control of processes of communication-border flows, credit fraud, spam email, financial market prices, cancer diagnosis, targeted online adverts-processes whose unruly or transient multiplicity otherwise evades or overwhelms.*
This idea of control basically is an expression of basing the future on the past. We find it interesting how one might challenge this by creating alternative training data, perhaps including opposing views, thus making the algorithm more nuanced in this way.

Group 3:
> How communication has gained more power in machine learning. Communication has the most power in the society of today, so there is a race on controlling this.

> That some of the calculations are being "ruled out" - but how come? We often trust the machines, and that they don't make any "wrong" calculations, but this is being questioning in the text.

Group 4:
> What is interesting is the aspect of control - who controls the outcome of the machines? It can be argued whether the machines are dependent on the human and human computation. How can we trust the outcome of machine learning, since humans are the foundation of the machinery?

Group 5:
> When mashins have to calculate data the human side of things can get lost. The machine is in a way not responseble for thise calculations, but only excists as an extention of the human intelect. What is more concerning is the power that the people behind thise programs can gain, when in controle machines that are extensions of there own view of the world.

**Q1. what’s the problem statement in the section?**

Group 1:
> We're no longer interested in the internet capacity, but we're interested in how good our AIs are.

Group 2:

> What does knowledge become when we learn through machines? How does Machine learning control our knowledge development?
>
Group 3:
> How should ethics be incorporated in algorithms?
> Can the machine/computer do "wrong" calculations? And who controles which are "right or wrong"

Group 4:
> Who controls machine learning?

Group 5:
What is the relation between machine lerning and controle and power?

---
Text 2:

> Computer vision algorithms are not mere technical improvements but intervene in the common understanding of what an image is, what it can do and whether it can be trusted. These developments have been achieved by emulating algorithmically the ways humans see, interpret and produce images.

Q0. What is an image?
Group 1:
Group 2:
Group 3:
Group 4:
Group 5:

Q1. Why the understanding of image is changed with computer vision algorithms/technologies? What’s Malevéan’s point of view?
Group 1:
Group 2:
Group 3:
Group 4:
Group 5:

==MX014==
## Building Keywords

(don't just copy and paste the quotes, try to use your words and with your articulation.)

:::info
**Data**

- group 1:

> **Digital data**: numbers and binaries (formed by software to be represented as images, soundfiles and so on, which is stored as binary strings)
> **Informational data**: Data as knowledge, which can be interpretated and analyzed. This means that data can take on different meanings based on its context and use. (Feminist data?)

- group 2:

> **A defined entity that can consist of for instance a single number, but a data point can also consist of for instance an image in which more information is stored in a binary form. Data can therefore take many forms, and serve many purposes, both as input and output.**

- group 3:
> Data can represent a *thing* and exist as representing subcategories of the *thing*. Data can be a summary of an object, an event etc. It's a way of describing something to a computer and can be used for classification of anything to a machine. It's the input for a machine, which then can be used for an output, that can easily be interpreted for humans.

- group 4:
> **Images, texts, image description, classification of data, values, quantification**
- group 5: information, objectification, classification, mathematical, calculable
> Data refers to one or more electronic signals in an intricate network system of logic gates that can be interpreted and classified semiotically in relation to parts of reality.
:::

:::info
**Machine Learning**

- group 1:
> **Algorithms trained by curated datasets or self-taught (neuralnetwork) experiences, which can fx. categorize and interpret things or accomplish goals (like running or winning a game). The algorithm gets better and better based on its training and experience encountering 'real' tasks.**

- group 2:
> **Machine learning is the practice of helping software perform a task without explicit programming or rules.**
>
- group 3:
> **Algorithms**, Machine learning can predict possible futures based on datasets, algorithms that can create other algorithms, machine learning is dependend on the data that it is trained with
> **Machine learning** is said to be "learn from experience" and can also be called *pattern recognition, knowledge discovery and data mining*
- group 4:
>**computer vision**, **scientific models**, **operational algorithms, AI, Data analysis**

- group 5: algorithms, intelligence, sci-fi, unemployment
> Machine learning is a way for a computerssystem to analyse and probabilistically classify data based on a dataset of categorial information.
:::

:::info
**Dataset**

- group 1:

> **A set of data 'curated' to frame a training of a computer. This could e.g. be a certain amount of images of cats. Datasets vary depending on the goal of the machine learning. The curation also varies in degrees of human agency?**
> (Discussion: Are neuralnetwork experiences and rules datasets?)
> (Reflection: There is a risk of reifying dualisms in the curating of the data when it is manually categorized by people working at a (too) fast pace.)

- group 2:

> **Gathering a dataset is a curating practice either setting the entry rules for what can be included, or manually curating which data to include. Malevé argues that "With more data come more variations", taken into account that the data is chosen in accordance with specific "rules".**

> **Denpending on the reason for creating the dataset, it can consist of different entities, such as numbers, text, etc. And are similarly used to test, train and evaluate algortihms.**

> **A dataset in computer vision is a curated set of digital photographs that developers use to test, train and evaluate the performance of their algorithms. (Malevé, 1)**

- group 3:
> **Algorithms**
> **Dataset**: "(...)in computer vision therefore assembles a collection of images that are labeled and used as references for objects in the world, to ‘point things out’ and name them."
> **Dataset discriminatory**: The photograph never adheres fully to the label and exceeds its meaning--> uncertain and wobbly.
> **Dataset** are the skeletons of search engiens (binn. S. 29)
> Datasets are used for classification, categorization and visualization of data. It's an input for machine learning. A collection of data to be analyzed by a machine.

- group 4:
> Data visualization

> Data classification and categorising

> Collection of data listing different values

- group 5: data feed, classification, machine learning, algorithms
> A dataset is collection of data oftenly termed under a category. “Categories are often simply an existing set of classifications assumed or derived from institutionalized or accepted knowledges” - Adrian Mackenzie
:::

-----

<mark>MX001</mark>

Individual: Based on the first week [assigned readings](https://hackmd.io/@siusoon/dc2020#01-week-36--1-Sep-2020) and make a written response. Bring a digital object that interests you, and possibly opens up the discussion of what digital culture might be. [What's the digital object?(post an image/bring to the class) and why that interests you and how it might opens up the discussion of digital culture]

> 0. Winnie Soon: Write your response here

> 1. Rikke: 3D modeling in Blender, a free open source program for many different purposes (movies, games, 3D printing). I learned to use Blender for 3D printing purposes through free tutorials on Youtube (3D Printing Professor, who I backed financially for a short period of time by being a patreon). After splitting the model into printable objects, I printed my model on a 3D printer using the Cura software. Perhaps I will get to glue the parts together and paint the model.
This can be seen as a part of the so-called maker culture, where people create pieces digitally or physically, or both. This can give rise to thoughts or discussions about how digital devices and software impacts creativity; what role the suppliers of digital and physical materials play (like free open source software or expensive closed software); and what the digital and/or physical materiality of the pieces means for people meeting the pieces with their senses (maybe not only watching with their eyes), fx the contrast between a high resolution model rendered digitally and view on a screen, and the printed model with lower resolution determined by the quality of the print but with the ability to be touched with the body.

>2. Margrete: [Staggering Beauty](https://www.staggeringbeauty.com/) is a useless website where this digital, snake-like creature with a jell-o body lives (see gif). Its head follows your mouse around, and by shaking vigorously it goes totally bananas. As I mentioned, this website it utterly **useless**, but that's what I love about it! It reminds me that the internet is not a cold place full of functionalities and effeciency, but it has some heart to it. Weird internet stuff like this makes digital culture fun, lively, creative and imaginative.
>Works like Staggering Beauty reminds me of Hayle's text about *computing kin*, *artificial creatures* and *digital subjects*, and the shift in materiality to *"constructions of matter that matters for human being"*. In her view this website will not be entirely useless, because to me(and other humans I assume) it has value, it brings happiness and enjoyment. The scale of usefullness changes depending on the view you have: In a capitalistic view it's totally useless, but in a humanistic/subjectivistic view it's not.
> <img src="https://i.imgur.com/cffjTUG.gif =150x" alt="Stagger" width=150>
![]()

>3. Nina: [FutureMe](https://www.futureme.org/) is a website where you can write a letter to your future self. You can choose a date when the website sends a letter/mail to your e-mail. It can be days or years. On the website you can also see an archive of other people's letters, some dating back 10 years! I think it's interesting how the web is used as a time capsule in a way, that wasn't possible before. In the past you could hide a letter/box/etc. for your future self to find, here it is digitized. You can't access the letters you have send, that *have travelled to the future* as the site states to preserve the surprise. I'm very fond of the romanticization of the digital possibilities.

>4. Nicoline: Wii is a popular gaming console that has become a household name in many homes. This digital object interests me because it has been a huge part of my own childhood and is still a part of my adult life. I believe it has had such a big impact in my life because it is so interactive, easy to use and it creates a feeling of me being one with the game on the screen - somehow I feel more connected with a game that I am playing on the Wii than on a PlayStation.

>5. Johannes: First of all i understood this as the place to submit the reflections over the assigned readings, so...: The assigned readings have made me further consider how our lives have become influenced and molded by this ever-developing digital society. How my life is knowingly / unknowingly being shaped by all my everyday objects. From my tv, speakers and electric heater. They all have become a central part of my life and has become a standard for most of us. This really gives the sensation of moving further towards a world where technology becomes more and more integrated and forming our lives. As an example, the Tv has changed my conception of many things in life. How I relax and access my home. Making it an everyday ritual to be placed in sofa binging content from many different services. This is a very new ideal. When my parents were kids and television was making an entry to the households, only a few single programs were scheduled with only one channel to select. When I was a kid, 20 years ago, I remember waking up early in the morning and waiting for the broadcast to open. As it was normal not to broadcast anything between 00 to 06 in the morning. Today I would question my friends if they were watching flow tv instead of binging content from Netflix, HBO, TV2 Play or any of the many other services. The conception of television has completely changed. Likewise, the way we use it. The issues that can arise from this, might be the structures which has created these technologies in the first place. All these aspects of the content and the tv itself has been designed by, mostly, larger cooperation’s seeking profit. They have slowly turned this way of life into a norm for me, and many others. This way of being influenced is of course a reason to be critical and reflect, but it is becoming more and more difficult as we transcend into this post-human way of being, making it inseparable what we are being manipulated to behave like, and what is a person’s own deliberate choice. This is just one example of how our conceptions of the digital world is changing and how our definition is forever changing with it.

>6. Mikael: A common theme in this weeks writings is describing some kind of transition from an analogue culture to a digital culture or just simply the emergence of a digital culture. While this in these texts are explored from a linguistic or literature-focused perspective it might be interested to apply a more artefact- or behavior-based perspective. To explore this one might take a digital artefact and explore what cultural effects it has had on its surrounding culture. This might not be considered actual digital culture, since it is more a mix of analogue culture and digital culture, but one might argue that this is always the case, since “Every digital device is really an analogical device.” as Benjamin Peters describes it. For this weeks assignment we had to choose a digital artefact that interests us and which might have some influence on digital culture. I chose my ordinary Bluetooth headset since I find it interesting how digital devices have made listening to music something much more individualistic and pervasive in our everyday lives. If we tried to explore how different types of portable music devices and their accompanying headsets have changed our culture, this might give us insights of a different nature than a linguistic or literature-based analysis might offer. We might find that our ability to listen to music anywhere and at anytime distances us from our surroundings, or maybe it simply adds another layer to our interaction with our surroundings. Perhaps we would find remnants of a less digital music culture for example lovers of vinyl music, who believe that this bit-based music is inferior to at more “analog” type. An interesting point that Benjamin Peters makes is that the emergence of the digital often both creates the digital version of something but also its analogue counterpart. So exploring the emergence of a digital artefact might uncover both the digital culture it creates, but also its analogue counterpart and where these meet. This might not be entirely correct since the analogue counterpart often already existed, but is simply given the descriptor “Analogue”. The analogue counterpart might also change in some way related to its new digital counterpart, but that might not be necessary. In the example of the development of music the “analogue” counterpart, which in this example could be music printed on Vinyl, already existed, so it has simply become the counterpart to the digital music. But this has also changed it from simply being a way to listen to music, to becoming almost a statement against its digital counterpart and gaining a new cultural significance. It might be interesting to use these insights to look into other technologies that are currently emerging, and trying to identify how this emergence might affect its analogue counterpart.

>7. Martin: Cloud storage have been a part of everyday life for a long time. The name suggests it is something light and fluffy and a counterpart to storage in the physical world. However the severs themselves are sadly not clouds, but big heavy servers. The digital aspect has not taken away the physical aspect of storage. The only real difference is the effectiveness in certain areas like the volume, speed and distance of which you can store digital objects. The more interesting thing about the “cloud” is the way we use the word. It is still new enough to go by the new term “cloud” and not just storage. Just as “digital photography” and “digital television” has lost “digital” and become digital by default, which Peters describes in his essay (Digital pp. 93). It will be interesting to see if the term “cloud” will change the way we talk and think about digital storage and the digital in general. It seems to me, that people already sees digital media as something fluffy and not physical, but there is very much a physical side to our digital tools.

>8. Erik: I’m interested in the parallel reality media and digital culture somehow make through the windows of our screens. I come from a background in film and I believe that humans structure the meaning of their worlds and lives through narrative. I have become increasingly aware how we more and more are seduced by digital media narratives and entertainment. And maybe therefor spend more time individually and passively behind screens. We sometimes forget that what we see behind the screens isn’t really reality but a constructed and edited version of it. Screens manipulate the way we think the world is organized and this fictional/abstract/digital world of media-reality have somehow let to an increasingly subjective sense of reality, separated from our physical and bodily lives among neighbors and other people. In worst cases separated from facts.

>9. Camilla: Based on the assigned reading for this week i began thinking about smart watches. A smart watch is a digital device that gives the user/owner information about themselves, the world around them such as the weather, notifications that are more or less important and so on. The way Peters describe how the digital can work as an index because of the way that it points to something in the world, but is not that thing in itself, made me consider what a smart watch actually does. The way that a smart watch can count the number of steps a person takes during the day, and measure how many calories this person burns, refers to something that is happening in reality but is not the numbers in itself. The user gets access to information that is not otherwise visible to them, through a digital media like a smart watch. An interesting question about this indexing of information in the real world, is whether this information has any value to the user. Does it make any difference that you have a device telling you how many steps you have taken during the day or how well you slept last night?

>10. Mathilde: In the introduction chapter it is questioned what the language of the information age do, how it moves, shape and affects ways of being in the current media environment and what sources of power our current vocabulary hide and reveal about our digitally lit world. Within the first pages of the chapter ‘Digital’ a “digital condition” is mentioned, which is that digital media do what fingers do. Like fingers digital media carry out three categories of actions: digits count the symbolic, they index the real, and once combined and coordinated, they manipulate the social imaginary. This made me think of the calorie counting app Lifesum you may use to control your diet either to gain or lose weight or to track your lifestyle. Through this digital media the users get access to information about how the food and exercise affects their body, which otherwise would not be visible to them. In a way this way of tracking, counting and controlling your way of eating and exercising must somehow also be manipulating the user’s social imaginary. This app makes you think of food and exercise as something countable and your body is the result of this calculation. In this way this kind of digital food calculation might affect the user’s world view. Lifesum probably makes it easier for the users to control their weight and bodies and is at the same time educating the user in how different food and exercise affects the size of your body. But as mentioned this way of thinking about food and exercise must also affect both your understanding of your body and food in general. Without this calorie app, you would have to listen to your body signals instead, feel whether you are full or not, whether food taste good or not, whether you’re feeling well or bad, or maybe whether you exercise was fun and easy or maybe hard an exhausting. So maybe you can say that by controlling our body and eating habits through a digital device our world view and way of living is affected and manipulated with digits and indexes?

>11. Ester: Reflection upon class 01 assigned readings:
Reading the introduction of Digital Keywords by Benjamin Peters, made me think about language in general. The theme of this book is of course Digital keywords, which the book organises in 4 different categories, subjects, objects, things and relational enviroments. Although as Benjamin also mentions, it is not possible to separate what we might call the digital language, from the natural language. Metaphors drawing on our experience of the natural world constitute our understanding of a digital keyword, whether it be clouds or algorithms. Originally these metaphors were created or chosen in order to convince or explain an audience about a specific argument, function or perspective. Leading me to the use of natural language in a rhetoric situation. The Rhetoric Bitzer constitutes the rhetoric situation as consisting of exigence, audience and constraints. But what was exigence, audience and constraints when “cloud” moved from our natural language as a natural/physical phenomenon into our digital language as a keyword for a storage unite, that many might still believe is something floating around above us somewhere. Maybe the people choosing or initiating the understanding of storage space as the cloud, didn’t think about the rhetoric power such a word can incur. Are these words chosen more at random, or what has the incitement been in the process of chosing a digital keyword such as cloud. How does language constitute the meaning of the cloud? Or is it instead our knowledge of the digital cloud that constitutes a new understanding of language? Furthermore, how can we express ourselves and talk about these digital keywords if were don’t have the same united/social understanding of the keywords.
Language constitutes meaning and meaning likewise constitutes language. Similar to how Kathrine Hayles reflects upon the posthuman and argues that we should not leave out the embodiment of the posthuman. Referring back to rhetoric, hereby meaning the act of constituting meaning in a audience, we cannot leave out the environment in which this happens in. Depending on when and where and to whom we present our metaphors of language, the situation has great impact on the result or the conclusion of meaning. If we look at digital literature, for example a chronic published online on a newspaper website, we might not have the physical happening of the author presented her arguments to the audience, but we relate and search for our understanding in the real world, in the physical environment to understand why the author present her arguments in the way she does. Who is she? In which situation did she write this article? Which real life events prompted her to write the article? Which other actors was she influenced by? And how will this digital article create new movements or discussions of meaning in new environments? Just as Hayles talks about how we earlier understood the world as a clockwork from Einstein’s theories, we now understand humans and the world more and more as computation. Therefore, the things we interact with, the governing understandings of our time will influence how we understand both ourselves and the environments we are a part of. Therefore, as technology changes and develops our understanding of ourself, the posthuman, the world simultaneously changes and develops.

>12. Magnus: In the assigned reading, I found the notion of keywords as markers of more comprehensive and subtle shifts in society (as noted by Peters in the introduction) particularly interesting - it's something we see very clearly at the moment, where a number of new "keywords" have fallen into everyday use. Phrases like "samfundssind" that were only used scarcely before, have become common, even if in a very specific context, and a flood of blog posts, news articles and speeches now start with the same sentence: "I disse corona-tider". A phrase that many have adopted, to the letter, to an almost uncanny degree. A few years ago we saw an extremely similar phenomenon with the phrase "I disse MeToo-tider". That too, acted as a concrete marker of a debate, a movement, and a struggle with the status quo that has swept the West these last few years. The MeToo-movement of course is much more closely related to digital culture, insofar as the movement was driven by the massive exposure and mobilization afforded by social media platforms in particular.
For my digital object, I have chosen the blockchain-based "game" [CryptoKitties](https://http://www.cryptokitties.co/). Like the Tamagotchi, or Neopets, CryptoKitties is about collecting a variety of digital pets with different attributes, looks, and more importantly; rarity. The problem with digital artifacts that accrue value based on rarity, is that digital media is typically very easy to copy, in exact form. The art world has suffered under this problem ever since mechanical reproduction of images became feasible, as it made the image of the artwork trivial. The Mona Lisa can be had on T-shirts, coffeecups, as a screensaver on your laptop, or accessed in a million other ways. Thus, the value of the *original* artwork shifted. The original Mona Lisa is still obscenely valuable, but precisely and only because it is the original.
More recently, the large media industries - music, cinema and videogames - have been at war for decades with the practice of piracy, which is often defended morally with the argument that producing a copy takes nothing away from anyone else, and therefore cannot be considered theft. What these things have in common, is that the ease of copying these media have been a highly disruptive force, and has forced us to think differently about such media.
What CryptoKitties does, is weave its digital artifacts into the security of a blockchain system, which can precisely and securely track the movement of the digital objects it contains, be it money or digital pets. This ensures, to an unparalleled degree, that the *scarcity* of these artifacts can be maintained, so that rare artifacts remain rare, and counterfeit is largely impossible.
Even if CryptoKitties is little more than a lighthearted pastime, it employs a profoundly interesting solution to the issue of digital scarcity.

>13. Anne. <br> <img src="https://i.imgur.com/lakSRu7.png" width="400"> <br>[r/place](https://i.imgur.com/lakSRu7.png) was an April Fools day event that took place on the website www.reddit.com in 2017. Before it was archived, a user could go onto the page and place one pixel of a specific color every 5 minutes. At first, the pixels were placed without any real method or reason outside of copying what other users were doing, or placing pixels at random, but as the event went on, "communities" started moving in. Communities on Reddit, also known as "subreddits," joined with all the users within that subreddit to create distinct pieces representing the subreddit's culture. Countries made their mark on r/place by making flags representing their nation and fan cultures made icons that represented their community. Communities even formed with the exclusive purpose of creating something on r/place. One of the most prominent pieces, and one of the first things to take complete shape on r/place, was a monologue from the Star Wars prequels helmed by users on the r/prequelmemes forum. A complete timelapse of r/place can be seen [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnRCZK3KjUYhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnRCZK3KjUY).
>The existence of r/place spawned not only new communities formed around the existence and concept of the digital media they were interacting with, but also pulled together members of existing communities to make a mark on a canvas with limited space. People of smaller communities had to pool their resources together in order to make themselves visible on the canvas, while other communities were so big and popular that they could push others out in favor of showcasing their own interests and values. An example is the Swedish flag in the upper right corner of r/place which used the blue color of the flag to cover several pieces of imagery made by smaller communities in order to better represent the Swedish reddit community. Opposite that, there were groups who found humor in destroying the imagery created by other users simply for the fun of it and without any specific agenda. Some communities began battling for space, like the German and French communities, and some were eradicated for moving in on a territory that another community considered "theirs," as was the case with the Swedish flag and the smaller communities who tried to create imageries over the Swedish flag.

>14. Mathias. Upon reflection of this weeks assigned readings, I am reminded to not always take things at face value. Peters' outline in the introduction of why keywords matter alongside his argument in the "Digital" essay that "[...] big data surely means big data brokers" reminds me that even seemingly uninteresting mundane things such as digital keywords in a Google search bar may hold more importance than you would think at first glance. Peters' argument that digital keywords could be seen as obligatory passage points (OPP's) made me think of them in a new light. If we adopt the argument that digital keywords, such as search words in Google, could be seen as OPP's, that would make them a necessary step in retrieving information online. Simultaneously though, I was wondering if these same digital keywords could also be regarded as an indexing action - these keywords point to certain information which may in turn reflect something from the real world. If we accept digital keywords as indexing, and adopt the argument that they act also as OPP's, I think that makes for an interesting debate on making information accessible only to those who hold the correct key(word). My main takeaway from Hayles prologue was her definition of materiality as junction between physical reality and human intention - It is the human intention element of this definition that caught my interest. I recall reading the essay "Algorithm" by Andrew Goffey a few years ago, which argued that the algorithm becomes material through the effects it's actions have on the real world. Clearly, that effect would count as the physical reality part of Hayles definition - but what about the human intention part?

>15. Cathrine: In this week assigned readings I especially found the text “Computing Kin” in My Mother was a Robot, interesting. The text explores the relationship between humans and computers, and how we perceive computers as containing human properties. In this sense, we often assign human thoughts and actions to a computer when it is created. Similarly the text explores how we connect a sound to an environment, here the sound of a mothers voice is connected to the natural environment, and the sounds of the computers is connected to the computational universe and environment. For me, this separation makes sense, because I grew up without too much technology, and instead I often listened to stories read to me by my parents. But in the case of the new generation, who are growing up with their own iPads, and living in a world in which they are constantly met with technology, will they be able to distinguish between the natural environment and the computational environment, or will they understand the sounds of the computers as being natural?
The text further explains how we humans often conceal how a computational device is programmed, and why it acts as it does. Furthermore, we are beginning to assign the computer more human treats, such as motives, goals and strategies. This made me think about self-driving cars. These cars are programmed by humans to act in traffic as a human would do. But if an accident occurs, and the car has to decide who is going to be get hurt, who takes responsibility for it? This a huge ethical problem we are facing when we assign human actions to a computer, because it is not a human. It does not possess moral, and it is not possible for the computer to take responsibility for its actions. When we assign humans actions to a computer, should we then also agree on which humans take responsibility for the actions? And if the programming behind the actions are hidden, then how do we know what code triggered the actions? For me it seems like we are starting to give the computers more and more human power and control, without the computers being able to think about the moral of their actions, which I think that if we keep assigning human treats to them, we are going to live in a world where it is harder to assign responsibly to the actions being made.

>16. Line: Reading the assigned readings made me reflect upon the relation between the digital culture and the analog culture, and therefore I chose Adobe Illustrator as a digital object that can be used as a way to discuss this relation. Adobe illustrator is a vector graphics software that allows users to create unique digital illustrations as well as taking analog artworks and drawings and making them into digital illustrations. I'm interested in the way that digital software in combination with analog artworks impact creativity and makes it possible to edit and change your art in a way that would not be possible without the digital. I find it interesting how the digital artworks have transformed the way that we perceive art and has opened up to all new creative processes. The way that art can be created using software have changed the way in which art stimulates our senses, such as feeling the brushes moving and the paint being manipulated, whereas all you need in digital illustrations is a computer and so all you feel is a mouse or a screen. I think this gives rise to discussions about creative processes and how the digital affects our meeting with art and our understanding of art culture.

>17. Majken: Throughout the text, a particular sentence stands out from Peters “Whatever else it is, the digital revolution is a revolution in language.” When we talk about Digital Culture, the language is one of the main pillars of this culture - a culture interpreted and used across nationalities - a common language has been founded for the entire world. Mainly this “New Language” is founded from the english dictionary, so the words are easy to adopt. But why adapt a basis for a new language? If yo say as Heidegger, the language is the “house of being” to be interpreted as the postmodern recontruction into the new-founded common language - a digital/technical update - and when it is founded, the posibility to shape the cultural, social and political life becomes a reality. The establishment of a language then opens a door to new meanings to be used in data as keywords whereafter it can be placed in certain contexts and carry a special weight and has its own vocabulary. The Memory Card is a construction rooted in the digital language and holds a meaning into which we need to store certain portable data, and depending on the product to which the data needs to be located in/on, this data should be “memorised” the same way from the original data input. The construction of the word Memory is relatable to the human ways of memory and remembrance and the keyword therefore opens the pathway to understanding and working in a specific context.

---