12,076 research outputs found
Setodes chirotheca Katsuma 2018, sp. nov.
No full textSetodes chirotheca sp. nov. (Figs. 1A–1G, 10A) Setodes minutus: Katsuma 2006, 36, Honshu (Ibaraki). Misidentification mentioned by Katsuma (2008). Setodes sp.: Katsuma 2007, 18, Honshu (Tochigi); Katsuma 2011, 68, Honshu (Ibaraki); Tanaka 2012, 10, male, Honshu (Akita); Ito 2013, 70, Hokkaido (Kushiro); Katsuma 2015, 91, Honshu (Ibaraki). Diagnosis. The male of this species is similar to those of S. moritai sp. nov. and S. obscurus Schmid & Levanidova 1986 described from Far East Russia. The shape of the paramere spines and inferior appendages in lateral view distinguish the male of S. chirotheca from those of the latter species. Each of these paramere spines is curved downward near the tip without any subapical spine. In S. moritai, each spine is curved upward and then bent caudad about 1/6 distance from the tip, and in S. obscurus each spine is curved upward near the tip. In lateral view, the upper lobe of each inferior appendage is strongly extending dorsocaudad in S. chirotheca, but weakly extending dorsocaudad in S. moritai and S. obscurus. The female of this species is similar to that of S. moritai, but they are distinguishable from each other by the shape of the genital chamber in ventral view: The anteroventral margin is shallowly concave in S. chirotheca but deeply concave in S. moritai. Adult. Head and body pale yellow. Forewings each 5.2–6.5 mm long (n = 15) in male, 6.7–7.7 mm (n = 17) in female, covered by golden hair with many silver spots. Wing venation typical for genus. Male genitalia. Segment IX longitudinally short dorsally, long ventrally with many strong setae. Segment X fused with tergum IX, triangular in lateral view, with pair of sclerotized spine-like processes apically; but tips of segment X and apical processes variable in shape: In lateral view, each tip of segment X long-triangular with tiny spine apicoventrally (Fig. 1 Ba), triangular with bifid apex (Fig. 1 Bb), triangular with tiny spine apically (Fig. 1 Bc), triangular without tiny spine (Fig. 1 Bd), or semi-trapezoidal without tiny spine (Fig. 1 Be). Preanal appendages vestigial, integrated into segment X, appearing as pair of oval setose mounds. Inferior appendages mitten-like in lateral view; each upper lobe triangular in lateral view, acute at apex, with short triangular process basomesally; each lower lobe broad, round apically in lateral view with many setae. Phallic shield triangular in lateral view; phallobase syringe-like in lateral view. Phallicata broad, bow-like in lateral view, evenly bent downward midway. Paramere spines paired, arising from endotheca, extending caudad, curved downward near tips. Female genitalia. Segment IX longitudinally long dorsally, short ventrally with many strong setae. Segment X rectangular in lateral and dorsal views, with pair of longitudinal carinae dorsally. Preanal appendages fused with tergum IX, with many short setae. Lamellae capitate in lateral view, narrowest at base, broadest about apical 1/4, each with small mesal lobe bearing 6–7 short hooked setae posteromesally. Gonopod plate fused with sternum IX, with pair of sclerotized longitudinal flanges ventrolaterally, crown-shaped in ventral view. Spermathecal sclerite semi-oval in ventral view, with long acute process posteriorly. Genital chamber triangular in ventral view, large and well sclerotized, extending into segment VIII; anteroventral margin shallowly concave in ventral view. Immature stages. Unknown. Etymology. Latin feminine noun in apposition, “chiro-“ and “-theca”, literally “hand sheath”, broadly translated “mitten” or “glove,” with reference to the shape of the inferior appendages in lateral view. Distribution. Japan (Hokkaido, Honshu (north to central)). Japanese name. Higashi-seto-tobikera. Holotype. ♂ (in alcohol), Ibeshibetsu-gawa, Akan-cho, Kushiro-shi, Hokkaido, Japan, 43°28’N, 144°7’E, 11.viii.1996, T. Ito leg. (CBM-ZI 166027). Paratypes. 2♂ 11♀ (in alcohol) same data as the holotype (CBM-ZI 166028–166040). Other Specimens examined. Hokkaido: 1♂ 1♀, Sarufutsu-gawa, Sarufutsu-mura, Soya, 31.vii.2007, T. Ito; 1♂, Shumarinai, Horokanai-cho, Kamikawa, 2.viii.2017, T. Ito; 2♀, Ibeshibetsu-gawa, Akan-cho, Kushiro-shi, 31.viii.1996, T. Ito; 3♂ 22♀, ibid, 26.vii.1999, T. Ito; 4♂ 15♀, ibid, 27.vii.1999, T. Ito & A. Ohkawa; 2♂, ibid, 13.ix.1999, T. Ito & N. Minakawa; 1♂ 4♀, ibid, 9.viii.2007, T. Ito; 1♂, Akan-ko, Akan-cho, Kushiro-shi, 31.viii.2002, T. Ito; 6♂ 7♀, ibid, 7.viii.2007, T. Ito; 1♂, Takkobu-numa, takkobu, Kushiro-cho, Kushiro, 8.viii.2006, T. Ito; 9♂ 21♀, Otofuke-gawa, Shihoro-cho, Tokachi, 28.vii.2008, T. Ito; 5♂ 79♀, ibid, 12.viii.2008, T. Ito; 1♂ 3♀, Chitose-gawa, Daiichi-usakumaibashi, Chitose-shi, 5.viii.2007, T. Ito; 1♂, Chitose-gawa, Rankoshi, Chitose-shi, 12.ix.1999, T. Ito; 1♂, ibid, 18.vii.2001, T. Ito & A. Ohkawa; 1♂, Chitose-ko, Bibi, Chitose-shi, 3.ix.2001, T. Ito; 13♂ 37♀, Uzura-gawa, Kozuki-bashi, Assabu-cho, Hiyama, 3.viii.2006, T. Ito & T. Hattori. Aomori: 1♂, Kabahagi-sawa, Aomori-shi, 2.vii.2011, Y. Murakami; 2♂ 3♀, Tsukimino, Aomori-shi, 9.vii.2011, Y. Murakami. Iwate: 1♀, Yakushi-gawa, Taimagura, Etsunagi, Miyako-shi, 10.viii.1994, T. Hattori. Akita: 1♀, Sannaimitsumata, Yokote-shi, 5.viii.2011, M. Tanaka; 1♀, ibid, 8.viii.2011, M. Tanaka. Miyagi: 1♂ 1♀, Natorigawa, Akiu-machi, Taihaku-ku, Sendai-shi, 25.vi.2011, N. Katsuma. Fukushima: 2♂ 1♀, Surikami-gawa, Nakamoniwa, Iizaka-machi, Fukushima-shi, 31.vii.1996, T. Kishimoto; 1♂ 33♀, Yanohara-kogen, Showa-mura, 19.viii.2008, N. Katsuma; 4♀, Shitoki-gawa, Shitoki-ohashi, Miyamae, Kawabe-machi, Iwaki-shi, 11.vii.2010, N. Katsuma; 28♂ 6♀, Shitoki-gawa, Oinudaira, Tabiuto, Tabito-machi, Iwaki-shi, 15.viii.2009, N. Katsuma. Tochigi: 1♀, Akiyamagakuryo, Akiyama-cho, Sano-shi, 23.viii.2014, K. Tojo; 1♀, Naka-gawa, Ogawa, Nakagawa-machi, 6.viii.2005, N. Katsuma. Ibaraki: 1♂, Okami, Hitachiota-shi, 8.viii.2009, N. Katsuma; 1♂, Takinokura-shitsugen, Kamikimida, Takahagi-shi, 18.viii.2010, N. Katsuma; 1♂, Ai-kawa, Shimoisehata, Hitachiomiya-shi, 18.vi.2005, N. Katsuma. Tokyo: 1♀, Minamiaki-gawa, alt. 740m, Kazuma-kami, Hinohara-mura, 23.vi. 2010, T. Nozaki & T. Kagaya. Remarks. Setodes chirotheca sp. nov., S. moritai sp. nov., and S. obscurus belong to the Primitive Branch (Schmid 1987) since the morphological characteristics of male genitalia are consistent with the theoretical ancestor of Setodes: 1) male genitalia are essentially simple and basically little specialized; 2) segment X is thick, roofshaped, and extending backward; 3) inferior appendages are more or less branched; and 4) the phallic apparatus is complete with phallobase, endotheca, phallicata, and paramere spines. Schmid & Levanidova (1986) placed S. obscurus among ‘‘isolated species’’ in this Branch.Published as part of Katsuma, Nobuyuki, 2018, The genus Setodes Rambur (Trichoptera, Leptoceridae) in Japan, pp. 191-212 in Zootaxa 4407 (2) on pages 192-194, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4407.2.2, http://zenodo.org/record/121631
Human-AI Collaboration in Academic Writing: towards a Synergy Model and A Case to Include AI as a Co-Author
No full textAs generative AI systems such as ChatGPT and Gemini 2.5 become increasingly integrated into academic workflows, the question of their legitimacy, limitations, and potential in scholarly writing has become urgent. This paper presents a reflexive case study of a sustained collaboration between a domain expert in consciousness studies and Gemini 2.5, culminating in the co-authorship of a peer-reviewed research article. By analyzing exactly 37,440 words of recorded interactions, we identify patterns of synergy, including recursive refinement, conceptual amplification, and accelerated manuscript development. We argue that when guided by a knowledgeable human author, AI can act as a cognitive partner rather than a passive tool—amplifying scholarly creativity and improving efficiency without compromising academic rigor. The case supports a '1+1=3' synergy model for co-authorship, in which human steering and AI fluency converge to produce novel insights and polished output faster and more effectively than either could achieve alone. The findings advocate for a paradigm shift from prohibitive policies to the responsible, expert-guided integration of AI in academic research and writing, grounded in transparency and accountability, and present arguments for why the AI tool should be listed as a co-author despite current injunctions against such practice
Meaningful human control: actionable properties for AI system development
No full textHow can humans remain in control of artificial intelligence (AI)-based systems designed to perform tasks autonomously? Such systems are increasingly ubiquitous, creating benefits - but also undesirable situations where moral responsibility for their actions cannot be properly attributed to any particular person or group. The concept of meaningful human control has been proposed to address responsibility gaps and mitigate them by establishing conditions that enable a proper attribution of responsibility for humans; however, clear requirements for researchers, designers, and engineers are yet inexistent, making the development of AI-based systems that remain under meaningful human control challenging. In this paper, we address the gap between philosophical theory and engineering practice by identifying, through an iterative process of abductive thinking, four actionable properties for AI-based systems under meaningful human control, which we discuss making use of two applications scenarios: automated vehicles and AI-based hiring. First, a system in which humans and AI algorithms interact should have an explicitly defined domain of morally loaded situations within which the system ought to operate. Second, humans and AI agents within the system should have appropriate and mutually compatible representations. Third, responsibility attributed to a human should be commensurate with that human’s ability and authority to control the system. Fourth, there should be explicit links between the actions of the AI agents and actions of humans who are aware of their moral responsibility. We argue that these four properties will support practically minded professionals to take concrete steps toward designing and engineering for AI systems that facilitate meaningful human control.Interactive IntelligenceDesign AestheticsCyber SecurityHuman-Robot InteractionEthics & Philosophy of TechnologyHuman Information Communication DesignWeb Information System
A Two-Dimensional Explanation Framework to Classify AI as Incomprehensible, Interpretable, or Understandable
No full textBecause of recent and rapid developments in Artificial Intelligence (AI), humans and AI-systems increasingly work together in human-agent teams. However, in order to effectively leverage the capabilities of both, AI-systems need to be understandable to their human teammates. The branch of eXplainable AI (XAI) aspires to make AI-systems more understandable to humans, potentially improving human-agent teamwork. Unfortunately, XAI literature suffers from a lack of agreement regarding the definitions of and relations between the four key XAI-concepts: transparency, interpretability, explainability, and understandability. Inspired by both XAI and social sciences literature, we present a two-dimensional framework that defines and relates these concepts in a concise and coherent way, yielding a classification of three types of AI-systems: incomprehensible, interpretable, and understandable. We also discuss how the established relationships can be used to guide future research into XAI, and how the framework could be used during the development of AI-systems as part of human-AI teams.Accepted author manuscriptInteractive Intelligenc
Setodes shirasensis Kobayashi 1984
No full textSetodes shirasensis Kobayashi 1984 (Figs. 3A–3G, 10C) Setodes shirasensis Kobayashi 1984, 10–12, male, female, Sado; Uenishi 1993, 82; Tanida 2005, 541, 548, male; Nozaki 2016, 401, male. Diagnosis. The male and female genitalia of this species are similar to those of S. schmidi Yang & Morse 1989 and S. carinatus Yang & Morse 1989 described from China, but the following characteristics set them apart. In males, the paramere spines do not reach the serrate area on the apicodorsal margin of the phallicata in S. shirasensis. However, the paramere spines do reach the area in both S. schmidi and S. carinatus. The lower part of each inferior appendage is short, horn-shaped in lateral view in S. shirasensis, but longer, extending caudad in S. schmidi and S. carinatus. In females, the mid-ventral line on sternum IX is absent in S. shirasensis but present in both S. schmidi and S. carinatus. Adult. Head and body very pale. Forewings each 4.5–5.4 mm long (n = 20) in male, 4.8–5.6 mm (n = 20) in female, covered by pale golden hair with many silver spots. Wing venation typical for genus. Male genitalia. Segment IX pear-shaped in lateral view, with pair of mound projections dorsally, each bearing 5–6 setae, longitudinally long ventrally with many long setae. Segment X sub-triangular in lateral view, with pair of longitudinal carinae dorsolaterally, divided into pair of lobes at apical 1/ 4 in dorsal view, each apex round. Preanal appendages oval in lateral and dorsal views with many short setae. Inferior appendages each divided into two branches; upper branch broad, rectangular in lateral view, serrate dorsally with small triangular lobe dorsomesally and with two small triangular lobes posteroventrally; lower branch horn-shaped in lateral view, apex acute in lateral view, round in ventral view. Phallic shield broad, semicircular in lateral view, covering endotheca and basal half of paramere spines. Phallicata bent caudad at 1/4 distance from base, apicodorsal margins serrate. Paramere spines slender, well sclerotized, not reaching serrate area on apicodorsal margins of phallicata. Female genitalia. Segment IX longitudinally short dorsally, long ventrally with rounded lobe on each side posterolaterally; anterodorsal margin of segment IX shallowly concave in dorsal view; posterodorsal margin of segment IX with pair of mound projections, each bearing 5–6 setae. Segment X triangular with acute apex in lateral view, tongue-shaped in dorsal view, slightly excised apically. Preanal appendages clavate in lateral view, oval in dorsal view with many short setae. Lamellae semi-trapezoidal in lateral view, bilobed; each upper lobe serrate posterolaterally, with long setae; each lower lobe reticulated laterally, bearing 6–7 short setae posteromesally. Gonopod plate U-shaped in ventral view, apices round. Anterior part of spermathecal sclerite bell-shaped in ventral view, extending anterad beyond anterior margin of segment VIII. Immature stages. Unknown. Distribution. Japan (Hokkaido, Honshu, Shikoku, Kyushu). Japanese name. Shirase-seto-tobikera. Type series materials. Holotype male, allotype female, labeled 7330 ♂ ♀, Shirase River, Ryotsu-shi, Sado, Japan, 25.viii.1983, M. Kobayashi (CBM). Other specimens examined. Hokkaido: 1♂, Panketo, Akan-cho, Kushiro-shi, 11.viii.1996, T. Ito & A. Ohkawa; 5♂ 3♀, Ibeshibetsu-gawa, Akan-cho, Kushiro-shi, 31.viii,1996, T. Ito. Aomori: 230♂ 111♀, Futamata, Obuchi, Rokkasho-mura, 7.viii.2008, N. Katsuma; 6♂ 2♀, Kabahagi-sawa, Aomori-shi, 13.viii.2011, Y. Murakami; 1♂, ibid, 2.vii.2011, Y. Murakami; 1♂ 1♀, Tsukimino, Aomori-shi, 9.vii.2011, Y. Murakami; 1♂, Sawayama, Aomori-shi, 5.vii.2017, Y. Murakami. Iwate: 1♀, Yakushi-gawa, Taimagura, Etsunagi, Miyako-shi, 10.viii.1994, T. Hattori. Akita: 1♀, Sannaimitsumata, Yokote-shi, 5.viii.2011, M. Tanaka. Miyagi: 1♀, Natorigawa, Akiu-machi, Taihaku-ku, Sendai-shi, 25.vi.2011, N Katsuma. Fukushima: 2♂ 34♀, Yanohara-kougen, Showa-mura, 19.viii.2008, N. Katsuma. Ibaraki: 1♂, Sato-gawa, Ochiai-cho, Hitachiota-shi, 11.vi.2011, N. Katsuma; 105♂ 43♀, Ai-kawa, Shimoisehata, Hitachiomiya-shi, 18.vi.2005, N. Katsuma. Kanagawa: 1♂, Amatsubo, Minamiashigara-shi, 26.vi.2003, unknown collector; 1♂, ibid, 26.v.2003, unknown collector; 1♀, ibid, 8.ix.2003, unknown collector; 1♀, ibid, 18.ix.2003, unknown collector; 1♂, Matsutakeyama, Toya, Midori-ku, Sagamihara-shi, 25.vi.2003, unknown collector. Yamanashi: 1♂, Aimatakyo, Minobu-cho, 6.vii.1997, K. Tojo; 1♂, ibid, 5.x.1997, K. Tojo. Nagano: 1♀, Shiosawa, Yonezawa, Chino-shi, 13.vii.2014, T. Torii; 1♂, Aoki-ko, Aoki, Taira, Omachi-shi, 28.viii.2008, N. Katsuma; 1♂, Uchimura-gawa, Ueda-shi, 21.vi.1997, K. Tojo; 1♀, ibid, 25.vi.1997, K. Tojo. Shizuoka: 6♂ 2♀, Kazouno, Shimoda-shi, 20.vi.2009, S. Inaba. Mie: 1♀, Mie: Washiyama, Seki-cho, Kameyama-shi, 10.ix.2013, T. Ito; Misugi-cho, Tsu-shi, 14.vi.2009, N. Katsuma; 14♂ 3♀, Kihoku-cho, 10.vi.2017, H. Morita; 3♂, ibid, 2.ix.2017, H. Morita; 19♂ 16♀, Ushikusa-yama, Minamiise-cho, 30.v.2017, H. Morita. Shiga: 9♂ 11♀, Miyajiri, Shigaraki-cho, Koka-shi, 30.vi.2014, N. Kawase; 29♂ 2♀, Kanzaki-gawa, Yuzurio-cho, Higashiomi-shi, 6.ix.2013, T. Ito. Kyoto: 6♂ 3♀, Takano-gawa, Oharashourinin-cho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto-shi, 28.vi.2014, S. Kobayashi. Osaka: 1♂, Kawakubokeikoku, Kawakubo, Takatsuki-shi, 13.viii.2012, S. Morimoto. Hyogo: 2♂, Wadayama-cho, Asago-shi, 4.viii.2004, K. Inazu. Tokushima: 1♂ 1♀, Kitou, Naka-cho, 4.viii.2003, K. Nio. Ehime: 2♂, Odamiyama-keikoku, Uchiko-cho, 9.VIII.2016, E. Yamamoto. Kochi: 7♂ 2♀, Kitaoi, Hane-cho, Muroto-shi, 3.vi.2006, M. Takai. Miyazaki: 1♂ 1♀, Gokase-gawa, Nanaori, Hinokage-cho, 22– 23.v.2015, S. Inaba; 5♂, Hinokage-gawa, Nanaori, Hinokage-cho, 22–23.v.2015, S. Inaba; 16♂ 13♀, Ayanamigawa, Shimoda, Suki, Kobayashi-shi, 19–20.v.2015, S. Inaba; 9♂ 25♀, Ayanami-gawa, Kitamata, Aya-cho, 19– 20.v.2015, S. Inaba. Kagoshima: 10♂ 2♀, Shinmido, Tarumizu-shi, 28.vi.2014, S. Inaba. Remarks. This species belongs to the Setodes tejasvin Species Group (Schmid 1987) since the morphological characteristics of male genitalia are consistent with this group. Yang & Morse (1989) suggested that S. schmidi, S. carinatus, and S. shirasensis constitute a monophyletic group since they share a pair of spinulose-serrate areas on the apicodorsal margins of the phallicata.Published as part of Katsuma, Nobuyuki, 2018, The genus Setodes Rambur (Trichoptera, Leptoceridae) in Japan, pp. 191-212 in Zootaxa 4407 (2) on pages 196-197, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4407.2.2, http://zenodo.org/record/121631
Using Generative AI in Research
No full textThe slides accompany a workshop that is intended for graduate students to learn more about generative AI in the context of the research lifecycle. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons license so that others may share and adapt the content for other purposes as long as appropriate credit is provided to the author of the work. To access the Google slides, click here: https://bit.ly/Library_AI_Research
Learning Objectives
At the end of the session participants will be able to:
Demonstrate a basic understanding of how AI tools work
Differentiate between grounded and ungrounded AI tools
Identify key considerations for grad students/researchers
Identify ways AI tools can be used to support the phases of the research lifecycle
Identify main areas of concern with using AI tools
Outline the steps and potential resources for evaluating and citing AI outpu
The AI Author in Litigation
No full textMany scholars have posited whether a computer possessing Artificial Intelligence (AI) could be considered an author as defined per the Copyright Act of 1976. What was once a thought experiment is now becoming reality. To date, scholarship has focused primarily been on whether an AI meets the requirements of authorship from a purely objective legal framework or whether an AI could be an author based on the doctrines of incentives, independent creation, and creativity.
However, a burden inherent in the rights and liabilities of authorship is the ability to be held liable if that author’s expressive work is infringing on another’s. A cause of action is meaningless if a copyright owner cannot enforce it by suing the infringer or if the infringer is judgement-proof. Thus, when contemplating whether an emancipated AI—or any non-human—can be an author under the Copyright Act, part of that examination should be whether the AI which created the work can sue or be sued for infringement.
This article considers issues from the theoretical, like civil procedure and remedies, to the practical, such as legal representation and discovery. How is an AI served with a lawsuit? What would be an adequate, enforceable remedy for an AI’s infringement? Is an AI even bound by our laws? Additional questions—and procedural barriers—are raised when considering other roles an AI might play in an infringement action: as a witness, a co-party, or even a plaintiff seeking to protect its own creative expression.
This morass of legal headaches goes beyond any doctrinal issues regarding authorship, and provide ample reason to keep legal authorship in the hands of humans or entities controlled by humans—at least until legal procedure catches up to technological realities and possibilities for litigation that AI parties present
Recommended from our members
The AI Author in Litigation
No full textMany scholars have posited whether a computer possessing Artificial Intelligence (AI) could be considered an author as defined per the Copyright Act of 1976. What was once a thought experiment is now becoming reality. To date, scholarship has focused primarily been on whether an AI meets the requirements of authorship from a purely objective legal framework or whether an AI could be an author based on the doctrines of incentives, independent creation, and creativity.
However, a burden inherent in the rights and liabilities of authorship is the ability to be held liable if that author’s expressive work is infringing on another’s. A cause of action is meaningless if a copyright owner cannot enforce it by suing the infringer or if the infringer is judgement-proof. Thus, when contemplating whether an emancipated AI—or any non-human—can be an author under the Copyright Act, part of that examination should be whether the AI which created the work can sue or be sued for infringement.
This article considers issues from the theoretical, like civil procedure and remedies, to the practical, such as legal representation and discovery. How is an AI served with a lawsuit? What would be an adequate, enforceable remedy for an AI’s infringement? Is an AI even bound by our laws? Additional questions—and procedural barriers—are raised when considering other roles an AI might play in an infringement action: as a witness, a co-party, or even a plaintiff seeking to protect its own creative expression.
This morass of legal headaches goes beyond any doctrinal issues regarding authorship, and provide ample reason to keep legal authorship in the hands of humans or entities controlled by humans—at least until legal procedure catches up to technological realities and possibilities for litigation that AI parties present
The Death of the AI Author
No full textMuch of the recent literature on AI and authorship asks whether an increasing sophistication and independence of generative code should cause us to rethink embedded assumptions about the meaning of authorship. It is often suggested that recognizing the authored — and so copyrightable — nature of AI-generated works may require a less profound doctrinal leap than has historically been assumed. In this essay, we argue that the threshold for authorship does not depend on the evolution or state of the art in AI or robotics. Rather, the very notion of AI-authorship rests on a category mistake: it is an error about the ontology of authorship.
Building on the established critique of the romantic author, we contend that the death of the romantic author also and equally entails the death of the AI author. Claims of AI authorship depend on a romanticized conception of both authorship and AI, and simply do not make sense in terms of the realities of the world in which the problem exists. Those realities should push us past bare doctrinal or utilitarian considerations about what an author must do. Instead, they demand an ontological consideration of what an author must be. Drawing on insights from literary and political theory, we offer an account of authorship that is fundamentally relational: authorship is a dialogic and communicative act that is inherently social, with the cultivation of selfhood and social relations being the entire point of the practice. This discussion reorientates debates about copyright’s subsistence in AI-generated works; but it also transcends copyright law, going to the normative core of how law should — and should not — think about robots and AI, and their role in human relations
Player agency in interactive narrative: audience, actor & author
No full textThe question motivating this review paper is, how can
computer-based interactive narrative be used as a constructivist learn-
ing activity? The paper proposes that player agency can be used to
link interactive narrative to learner agency in constructivist theory,
and to classify approaches to interactive narrative. The traditional
question driving research in interactive narrative is, ‘how can an in-
teractive narrative deal with a high degree of player agency, while
maintaining a coherent and well-formed narrative?’ This question
derives from an Aristotelian approach to interactive narrative that,
as the question shows, is inherently antagonistic to player agency.
Within this approach, player agency must be restricted and manip-
ulated to maintain the narrative. Two alternative approaches based
on Brecht’s Epic Theatre and Boal’s Theatre of the Oppressed are
reviewed. If a Boalian approach to interactive narrative is taken the
conflict between narrative and player agency dissolves. The question
that emerges from this approach is quite different from the traditional
question above, and presents a more useful approach to applying in-
teractive narrative as a constructivist learning activity
- …
