Notice bibliographique
Résumé
CYBERFEMINISM AND ARTIFICIAL LIFE Sarah Kember London and New York: Routledge, 2003; 257pp. In order to appreciate Sarah Kember's approach to identity and information and communication technologies or global information network, you need to appreciate concepts such as materialization within technoscience, technological discursivity, and posthumanism. This means that having read Karen Barad, Donna Haraway and Katherine Hayles respectively, you would be better able to appreciate what Kember attempts to do in advancing bioethics of posthumanism in context of artificial life or alife, not to be confused with artificial intelligence that Kember maps out for us as Alife's post Cold War precedent. To simplify, and perhaps oversimplify, Alife is to AI what postmodernism is to modernism. To develop her theoretical position, which is that of democrat in age of globalization, postmodern and somewhat reluctant cyberfeminist, and an ethically aware student of technoscience, Kember first engages with key principles from identity politics, including autonomy and artificiality, within discursive analysis of AI and Alife. Technoscience here refers to Haraway-like play between technology or artificiality and biology or what is traditionally structured as life. In particular, Kember examines cognitive psychology, biological meaning of life, and its increased alignment with communication and information technologies: the new biology. And finally, Kember engages with development of Alife, and computational modeling of living systems, in terms of autonomy, agency and vitalism. She grounds and further engages with all of these principles in case study based on in-depth interviews with Alife computer game designer, Steve Grand. Her conclusion, she says, synthesizes and explicates critical positions outlined in earlier chapters and [is] manifested, I hope, in degree of patience and at least willingness to risk deferring until sense of of field [has] been presented (pp. ix-x). The terms judgement and complexity are important. They refer to struggle both in feminist criticism and in so-called science wars over constitution and significance of materiality (particularity corporality for feminists) and way of truth (especially for traditional scientists). Kember engages with material, particularly alife (intentional lower case to distinguish her approach from formal one), hopefully and through dialogue, rather than, as she quotes from Haraway, in a kind of hands-on-your-hips negative critique (p. 52). In her earlier discursive critics of Alife and its various contexts, Kember claims that concept of technological autonomy is anthropomorphized and maintains too discreet distance from social, political and psychological. It is Kember's position that feminism can contaminate this position and thus realize potential for non-dualistic, non-anthropomorphic and non-social Darwinist alife that she unearths in Alife. She challenges feminists to veer away from simple counter positions to claims of artificial and autonomous intelligence in information technology and to risk entering dynamic dialogic relationship which. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».