“The Latent Space of Meaning and the Novel” — Hannes Bajohr at Digital Aesthetics Workshop, Jan. 13, 2026

We are excited to announce our first event of 2026! Hannes Bajohr will present on “The Latent Space of Meaning and the Novel” on Tuesday, January 13, from 5-6:30pm PT. The event will take place in the Stanford Humanities Center Board Room. Refreshments will be served.

Zoom link for those unable to join in-person: tinyurl.com/3xm7rdku

We look forward to seeing you there!

Abstract: 

“A world – nothing less – is the theme and postulate of the novel,” German philosopher Hans Blumenberg wrote in 1963. At that same moment, AI research, already emerging from its early optimism, turned to “world models” as a means of stabilizing its brittle systems. Today, these two conceptions of “world” – the literary and the computational – converge in large language models (LLMs), which use their latent spaces not just to generate plausible sentences, but entire narratives, even novels, albeit with still uneven results. Yet in what sense are the “worlds” of novels and of AI analogous, and what can each illuminate about the other?

The talk proposes that both novels and LLMs operate within structured networks of relations – assemblages of events, inferences, and expectations – that can yield a form of coherence even when classical causality is weak or absent. Literary techniques from realism to modernism build patterned universes: realist and naturalist fiction through causal-social dynamics, genre fiction through explicit world-building, and modernism through fragmented but still intelligible world-logics. These traditions offer a vocabulary for assessing LLM-generated texts. 

Where early systems like SHRDLU pursued explicit symbolic world models and failed outside narrow domains, contemporary LLMs rely on distributed vector spaces that encode statistical regularities without grounding. My own experiments with a fine-tuned German-language model yielded narratives with stylistic unity but little causal depth. Like certain experimental novels, they evoke meaning through a “weak force” of association rather than strong narrative causality. This talk tries to follow these ideas and aims to resist both overhyping LLMs’ understanding and dismissing them as mere mimicry, thus placing AI-generated fiction, as the meeting points of the two uses of “world,” within a broader theory of modeling and meaning.

Bio:

Hannes Bajohr, is Assistant Professor of German at the University of California, Berkeley. His research focuses on media studies, political philosophy, philosophical anthropology, and theories of the digital. Recent publications include: Thinking with AI: Machine Learning the Humanities (as editor, London: Open Humanities Press) and “Surface Reading LLMs: Synthetic Text and its Styles” (arXiv preprint, forthcoming in New German Critique). In 2027, the English-language translation of his LLM-co-generated novel (Berlin, Miami) will appear with MIT Press.

This event is generously co-sponsored by the Stanford Literary Lab and Stanford Department of English. 

“AI as Existential(ist) Risk and Aesthetic Opportunity” — Keynote at Media Theory Conference 2025 in Toronto, Nov. 7-8

I’m excited to be giving one of the keynotes at the Media Theory Conference 2025 at the Centre for Culture and Technology in Toronto. On Nov. 8, I’ll give a talk titled “AI as Existential(ist) Risk and Aesthetic Opportunity.” Here is the abstract:

Contemporary debates around artificial intelligence often frame the technology in terms of “existential risk.” Yet such framings rarely pause to consider what existential might mean in the existentialist sense. In this talk I return to Heidegger’s account of the “worldhood of the world” and Sartre’s concept of “hodological space” to argue that the risk posed by AI is not confined to catastrophic scenarios of planetary survival, but lies more immediately in the reconfiguration of subjectivity itself. AI systems bypass conscious perception, modulating aesthesis—the sensory, affective, and preconscious conditions of experience—and in doing so recalibrate the orientations that make ethical deliberation possible in the first place.

Seen from this angle, the hazard of AI is not external to us but infrastructural, shaping our movements, postures, and affective attunements. At the same time, this hazard can be taken up as an opportunity: artworks that use machine learning to stage glitches, detours, or dissonances do not merely represent technological change but provide laboratories for inhabiting it, exposing how bodies and worlds are being rewritten. If AI marks an existentialist risk, it also opens an occasion to engage aesthetically with the reorganization of perception and orientation, and to confront the stakes of ethics where they begin—in the aesthetic, in the felt conditions of living and acting in a changing world.

Art & Artifice: Or, What AI Means for Aesthetics — John Fekete Distinguished Lecture, Trent University, November 6, 2025

I am honored to be delivering this year’s John Fekete Distinguished Lecture at Trent University. On November 6, 2025, I will speak about my current book project, Art & Artifice: Or, What AI Means for Aesthetics.

Abstract:

The rapid spread of generative AI tools has sparked urgent debates about ethics, governance, and even existential risk. These concerns are real, but they often miss a prior and constitutive dimension: the aesthetic. In this talk, I argue that no adequate understanding of artificial intelligence—and no robust AI ethics—can be developed without sustained attention to the aesthetic forms through which AI enters human experience.

Today, many critical responses to AI focus on transparency, bias, or political economy. Yet when machine learning systems generate images, sounds, and texts, or when they infiltrate experience in subtler ways, they reshape foundational lived relations to the sensible world. Aesthetics is not merely a matter of artistic style but of the mediation of experience itself—a matter of the ways we sense, interpret, and imagine.

Accordingly, to speak of “AI aesthetics” is to invoke both aesthesis—the broad field of perception and sensation—and aesthetics in the narrower sense of artistic form. Both are crucially at stake in today’s machine-learning algorithms. AI systems like Midjourney, DALL-E, or GPT-5 not only generate potential artworks but also make otherwise invisible computational processes indirectly perceptible and actionable; in so doing they insinuate themselves into the fabric of experience and reshape the very conditions of perception. In this sense, aesthetic forms are not secondary embellishments but essential mediators of how AI becomes intelligible to us—as well as crucial vectors with respect to who “we,” as perceiving, deliberating, and agential subjects, are. By analyzing artworks that grapple with these new technologies, I show that AI aesthetics is foundational to the cultural, political, and ethical challenges now unfolding. 

More info here.

New Article: “On the Very Idea of a (Synthetic) Conceptual Scheme” — Out now in Philosophy and Digitality

My article “On the Very Idea of a (Synthetic) Conceptual Scheme” has just been published in the open access journal Philosophy & Digitality, in a special issue on “LLMs and the Patterns of Human Language Use.”

The title of the piece plays on, and the article draws substantially on, Donald Davidson’s “On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme.” By way of this classic text, I engage closely with M. Beatrice Fazi’s provocative article “The Computational Search for Unity: Synthesis in Generative AI.” I agree with Fazi that we have to take the outputs of LLMs as genuine language (contra the “stochastic parrots” crew), and that the best way to account for their operations is in terms of a kind of philosophical “synthesis.” But whereas Fazi sees LLMs synthesizing their own individual “worlds within,” I argue that the genuineness of their linguistic outputs (i.e. the fact that they produce real language) instead suggests that they refer to a world shared in common with human language-users (which commonality should not, however, detract from their alterity or alienness to our embodied Lebensform, or form of life).

In the same issue of Philosophy & Digitality, Fazi has a response to my article, titled “A Transcendental Philosophy of Large Language Models,” which I also highly recommend, and which brings our differences—as well as agreements—into sharper relief. I have the feeling this is the beginning of a longer exchange!

I’d like to thank Sybille Krämer and Christoph Durt for inviting my participation in the special issue and shepherding it toward publication–and for soliciting Fazi’s response. And thanks, above all, to Beatrice Fazi for producing such thought-provoking work in the philosophy of AI and computation!

“Dimensionality, Perspective, and Imagination in Computational Media” — Talk at UC Berkeley conference on Dimensional Vision in Flux, May 29-31, 2025

I’m excited to be speaking, alongside an amazing lineup of scholars, at a conference this week (May 29-31, 2025) on Dimensional Vision in Flux: The Stereo-Aesthetics and Politics of 3D Cinema and Media, hosted by the Department of Film & Media at UC Berkeley. I’ll be giving a talk on “Dimensionality, Perspective, and Imagination in Computational Media.”

The complete program can be found here. And here’s my abstract:

Dimensionality, Perspective, and Imagination in Computational Media

Dimensional vision finds itself in flux, as the title of this symposium would have it. The flux in question has to do with recent and contemporary transformations in visual media: witness the many booms and busts of 3D cinema, recall the short-lived push to put 3D televisions in our living rooms, and consider the rapidly changing landscape of VR, AR, MR, XR, whatever-R. In order to get a handle on the flux of dimensional vision in relation to such media-technological changes, however, I would like to take a step back and observe that dimensional vision has always and only ever been in flux. I mean this, first, in the sense that dimensionality is given to human experience immediately and inseparably from the spatiotemporal flux of embodied existence; this “microperceptual” dimension (in Don Ihde’s terms) is epitomized in Edmund Husserl’s descriptions of the flux of “adumbrations” as he walks around a tree, whereby a multidimensional model of “the tree,” never wholly seen, takes shape in his mind. In a second, more historical sense, dimensional vision has always been in flux in a way that is more closely attuned to the media changes described above; rather than exceptional, however, such flux is a constant because there is no natural or neutral state apart from mediation: the “microperceptual” level of embodied experience can never be thought apart from what Ihde calls the “macroperceptual” level of cultural and technological conditioning (and vice versa).

Taken seriously, this means that dimensionality and perspectival vision are inherently contingent and deeply political—not just perspectival representation, but the embodied experience of perceptual perspective and spatial orientation itself. And while I argue that this has always been the case for humans as an essentially biotechnical species, the political stakes are heightened in an era of computational media. The latter, including VR and similar media of 3D visuality, operate faster than and bypass human perception, opening dimensional vision to fine-grained reengineering. In order to make this argument, I turn to Kant’s notion of the productive imagination (Einbildungskraft) and the stereotyping operation of the “schematism” that connects visual stimuli to concepts of the understanding. Following philosophers Wilfrid Sellars and Alan Thomas, schemata are perspectivally indeterminate but determinable, and through them the Kantian imagination is responsible for our empirical experience of things as having depth and unseen backsides—responsible, that is, for our sense of the world as a dimensional, volumetric space within which I am positioned. Meanwhile, computational media are constructing their own spatial models of the world (or worlds), models that exceed and resist human perceptual access while positioning us both virtually and physically. In this way, they assume functions of the imagination and modulate the flux of dimensional vision at both microperceptual and macroperceptual scales. 

AI and the Automated Imagination — Keynote at the Spiral Film and Philosophy Conference, Toronto (May 23-24)

Screenshot

Next week, May 23-24, I’ll be giving the keynote at the 5th Spiral Film and Philosophy Conference in Toronto. My talk is titled “AI and the Automated Imagination.”

Find more info at the conference website: https://spiralfilmphilosophy.ca

“The Productivity of Artificial Flatness” — Sybille Krämer at Digital Aesthetics Workshop, April 8, 2025

We’re delighted to welcome our next speaker for the Digital Aesthetics Workshop, the first of the Spring quarter. Sybille Krämer present on “The Productivity of Artificial Flatness: On Digitality, The Cultural Technique of Flattening, and Artificial Intelligence” on Tuesday, April 8, from 5-7pm PT. The event will take place in the Board Room at the Stanford Humanities Center, where refreshments will be served.

Zoom link for those unable to join in-person: tinyurl.com/38vjpaz6

Abstract:

Do chatbots understand human language? This is one of the most debated issues about contemporary artificial intelligence, oscillating between the opposing answers ‘able to understand’ (meaning-sensitive) and ‘unable to understand’ (meaning-blind). In this talk, I argue in favor of meaning blindness by highlighting several issues that are not considered enough in the debate. My arguments are based on a media-philosophical and cultural-technical approach. Artificial intelligence is becoming a ‘cultural technique’ in transitioning from print culture to digital literacy. However, it is an alien and non-human kind of performing intelligence and processing language. Not similarity and homology but difference and diversity are the foundations for successful interaction between humans and AI. This is explained by analogy with the ‘cultural technique of flattening’: Projecting visual and textual information into the two-dimensionality of inscribed and illustrated surfaces is not deformation and impoverishment, but a creative force. What is the key to the scientific and artistic productivity of artificial flatness (images, writings, diagrams, maps, screens)? And what is the connection between the cultural technique of flattening and Chatbots’ token-statistical operations?

Speaker Bio:

Sybille Krämer was a Full Professor for Philosophy at the Free University Berlin; since retirement in 2018, a guest professor at the Institute Cultures and Aesthetics of Digital Media, Leuphana University Lueneburg. Previously a member of the German ‘Scientific Council’ (2000-2006), of the European Research Council (2007-2014)); member of the ‘Senat’ of the ‘German Research Foundation’ (2009-2015), ‘Permanent Fellow’ at the ‘Wissenschaftskolleg’ zu Berlin/ Institute for Advanced Study (2005-2008). Several International Visiting Professorships and Fellowships (Oxford, UC Santa Barbara, Yale, Vienna, Seoul, Shanghai, Tokyo); 2016 Honorary Doctorate by Linköping University/Sweden.

This event is generously co-sponsored by the Stanford Literary Lab.

“Borrowed Time: Mediating the Nonevental” — Rizvana Bradley at Digital Aesthetics Workshop, March 4, 2025

The Digital Aesthetics Workshop is looking forward to welcoming Rizvana Bradley, who will present “Borrowed Time: Mediating the Nonevental” on Tuesday, March 4, at 5-7pm PT. The event will take place in the Watt Dining Room at the Humanities Center, where refreshments will be served. Below you will find the Bradley’s bio and a brief abstract, as well as the poster for the event. See you there!

Zoom link for those unable to join in-person: https://stanford.zoom.us/meeting/register/mc9g6VF9SIyeMQ7L-bVFAw#/registration

Abstract:

This talk approaches the concept of mediality, which gets to the heart of a number of theoretical questions concerning the entanglements of raciality, mediation, and immediation, and the worldly violence of the everyday. Interrogating the racialized grammars of ontology, phenomenology, and (aesthetic) form, one can begin to further understand the depth of the violence and scope of the implications of what Bradley theorizes as black mediality. Black mediality has massive implications for both the grammar of technics that predominates in the philosophy of media, as well as the conception of mediality this grammar inscribes. Moving by way of artistic example, the talk demonstrates how both mediatic forms and the perceived technological exteriorizations of the modern human subject are bound to normative, phenomenological conceptions of temporality.

Bio:

Rizvana Bradley is Associate Professor of Film and Media and Affiliated Faculty in the History of Art and the Center for Race and Gender at the University of California, Berkeley.

Bradley’s book, Anteaesthetics: Black Aesthesis and the Critique of Form (Stanford University Press, 2023), moves across multiple histories and geographies, artistic mediums and forms—from nineteenth-century painting and early cinema, to contemporary text-based works, video installations, and digital art—in order to inaugurate a new method for interpretation, an ante-formalism, which demonstrates black art’s recursive deconstruction of the aesthetic forms that remain foundational to modernity.

Bradley serves on the Advisory Board of October. Her articles appear in journals such as Diacritics: A Review of Contemporary CriticismFilm QuarterlyBlack Camera: An International Film JournalDiscourse: Journal for Theoretical Studies in Media and CultureTDR: The Drama ReviewRhizomes: Cultural Studies in Emerging Knowledge, and Women and Performance: A Journal of Feminist Theory. Her art criticism has also been published in The Yale ReviewArtforume-fluxArt in AmericaNovember, and Parkett, as well as numerous exhibition catalogs, including for the Serpentine Galleries, the New Museum, Whitechapel Gallery, Leslie-Lohman Museum of Gay and Lesbian Art, Institute of Contemporary Art Philadelphia, and the Berlin Biennale for Contemporary Art. Bradley has curated a number of academic arts symposia, including events at the British Film Institute, London, the Serpentine Galleries, London, and the Stedelijk Museum of Art, Amsterdam.

“Rise of the Machines” — Spiral Film and Philosophy Conference, May 23-24 2025

I am excited to announce that I will be giving the keynote lecture at the Spiral Film & Philosophy conference in May. I attended Spiral back before the pandemic, when Deborah Levitt gave the keynote, and I have been wanting to return ever since.

They’ve put together an excellent theme this year — please share the CFP widely!

“Artificial Imagination” — Out now in new issue of Cinephile (open access)

The new issue of Cinephile, the University of British Columbia’s film and media journal, is just out. The theme of the issue is “(Un)Recovering the Future,” and it’s all about nostalgia, malaise, history, and (endangered) futurities.

In this context, I am happy to have contributed a piece called “Artificial Imagination” on the relation between AI and (visual) imagination. The essay lays some of the groundwork for a larger exploration of AI and its significance for aesthetics in both broad and narrow senses of the word. It follows from the emphasis on embodiment in my essay “From Sublime Awe to Abject Cringe: On the Embodied Processing of AI Art,” recently published in Journal of Visual Culture, as part of a larger book project tentatively called Art & Artificiality, or: What AI Means for Aesthetics.

Thanks very much to editors Will Riley and Liam Riley for the invitation to contribute to this issue!