The current uproar over artificial intelligence does not show us what the future of AI will look like, but rather how a human population falls into predictable patterns as it contemplates any new development: we are observing not AI but ourselves observing AI.
Looking back at a 2015 post on the idea of interstitial publishing, a new form of publishing that aims to take advantage of what previously was viewed as lost time in between primary events during the day.
Revisiting a 2008 post noting that while it is often argued that open access will reduce the overall cost of scholarly communications, this article proposed that OA will be additive to the size of the current market.
Revisiting a 2017 post: The book is asked to perform many tasks, some of which are not necessarily the best use of the book format, whether in print or electronically. The long-form text, which may be print or digital, is a different matter, and is likely to remain with us and be called “a book” for some time to come.
This is where innovation happens, not among the gods on Mount Olympus but in small, tangible ways where people go about their lives and try to improve them a little bit at a time. We all work together, unknowingly, making things better, faster, cheaper.
Joe Esposito revisits his 2012 post on the unstated theory of the e-book, which assumes that a book consists only of its text and can be manipulated without regard to the nature and circumstances of its creation. This is only one theory of many, but it is now the prevailing one.
It also can be something of a trap for a well-intentioned academic who wants to write for this audience, as writing for the lay person is often contemptuously dismissed as “popularization.” Woe to the academic who puts an article from The Atlantic or a book from Simon & Schuster into her tenure portfolio! It takes courage. My view is that these brave souls should be called out and celebrated. They are my heroes.