Marcus audio note 20230910

Audio note from George Marcus iPhone,  transcribed by https://otter.ai

The present potential of chatbot to ethnography is an improvement or enhancement of the keen inter inner voice. If you want secret sharing, reference Conrad of reflection thinking in anthropology that whose object is the review of field notes which is generally a private territory and seek some sort of articulation and single authored concept work or even representation of dialogue etc. This is the legacy of the examination of the construction of ethnography from a field where no books writing etc The evolution of artificial intelligence ads and an enhancement of a redoing of that sort of moment of reflexivity. As a tangible result that the representation of dialogue etc. The replacement of realist representation never really satisfied in experiments and ethnographies of the 90s etc. There is a sense in which the internal bakhtinian dialogues become material through the use of chat GPT. So far when AI develops more of a power or personality, something that seems other other than prompting or it reiterating what you might already know or think or clarifying it then it will provide more but at the present time, it does provide a kind of useful prompt to review materials that stay out of bounds very often in anthropological work. I've always been beguiled by both the flaws and the genius of immediately produced field materials from inside field work and the difficulty skill or art of using them in accepted forms of anthropological discourse. So in a very modest way, I'm interested in how G GT GPT technology as it now exists, can Reba fie interest, reflexive interest in filled materials? It's sort of a bye bakhtinian mechanism. Why bring this all back because I believe that the reflexive exposure data is, at its best is an enduring legacy and impossibility of the 90s 80s and 90s discussions, which you know, have receded into the near history of the discipline. I find it particularly appropriate here in that my long standing relationship to Tom Otto and valued has been through a kind of history of dialogue and remember dialogue or encounters which actually have no record and we're having a very sparse record, but those encounters were moments of dialogue and conversation and chat BTT GPT. If you find a textual revenue residue in terms of footnotes and publication, create an entree into the background thinking, collective thinking of those exchanges or encounters. And I'm thinking that this suggests a further enhancement or tool or middle range tool for all the discussions of collaborative ideals and norms. More explicitly in the development of anthropological research. Reporting, as we know from science, writing, etc, and reporting on collaboration is a difficult thing and often comes out as practices of crediting. But reflection encounters of how something is shaped by collaborations is difficult. And I believe at the current moment whatever the future holds, chat GPT in its flaws and possibilities is a tool that we didn't have before and or that at least, a mediating tool that we can work on and one thing that an anthropologist could do different fields would have different ways of thinking about this. possibility or this what do you call it? Convenience or this? New things that causes change of discourse in anthropology. What it really suggests is creative use of a primary sources which one does anyhow, in converting field notes in a variety of ways to analytics and writing and ethnography as we know it. So to go back to the origins is, at least for now, a curious thing to do or thing I have curiosity about, you know, unclear productivity, but I do think that something like chatbox jumbles up the whole manner of moving forward by creating conceptual nodes or concept work, which power Ave in his later work was so much interested in documenting or furthering in terms of the kinds of discourses labs, in fact, de facto in which scientists anthropologists, scholars produce their work