Jonathan Lipps

Recent efforts to bring Generative AI (GenAI) use into popular demand have spawned a number of urgent questions about the nature of AI and the consequences of embedding such systems more deeply into human life. In this paper, by relying on insights from both philosophy and theology, I will argue that, in addition to the various “external” or existential risks and unintended consequences of GenAI, its use poses a special risk to the “internal” character of human life. Because it treats human creative artifacts as raw grist for the content mill, and surrenders the creative process itself to a technological device, thoughtless GenAI use risks the atrophy of the creative faculties whose expression is an important part of a flourishing human experience and vocation.

After an overview of Swahili's linguistic situation and a basic description of its nominal morphology, verbal morphology, and syntax, I focus on a description of relative clauses. The two basic relative clause formation strategies (the first utilizing the '-o of Reference' as a verbal infix, and the second involving 'amba-') are examined, along with their use in various semantic contexts. I then examine canonical examples of relative clauses from the literature and from corpora in order to highlight the various constraints and generalizations on the use of the different relativization strategies. The goal of these discussions is an analysis of the strategy distribution from within the syntactic framework of Lexical-Functional Grammar (LFG), which itself receives a brief overview. For the analysis, I lay out the basic phrase structure rules that characterize Swahili syntax from the perspective of LFG. Important questions are the status of the '-o' particle...

Open source projects are transforming. Today, work within open source projects has come to be influenced by a growing set of companies and individuals who receive financial remuneration for their engagement. As such, there is a central focus on commoditization and commercialization of open source products, which drives a trend towards a concealment of the various inner workings that produce these products. Within this shift, the product becomes a central aim of open source project engagement, and the means of production becomes incidental. In this paper, we explore the HCI research and design implications of the transformation of open source projects as part of commercial work and how we can come to better understand and protect the rising tide of open source projects.

Popularized in his Technology and the Character of Contemporary Life, Albert Borgmann's conceptualization of the technological pattern (which he calls the Device Paradigm) makes clear claims about what should be considered a technological device. The Device Paradigm is an insightful set of defining features, which circumscribe an interesting class of artifacts within the label of "availability" (the avowed end of technological efforts).

Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) is a phenomenon in the field of Information & Computer Technology that has social, legal, technological, and business descriptions and implications. The technological artifacts of FOSS, being computer programs, are intuitively to be classed as devices, though there are exceptions. More interesting is considering whether FOSS itself is a meta-device, according to the Device Paradigm.

The diversity of kinds of participation in FOSS is waning in favor of a certain kind of use---that of professional, for-profit consumers and contributors. When observing FOSS from this lens, we see that the goal is precisely that of "availability". We can then predict, on Borgmann's theory of technology, that certain effects of this "deviceification" should be observable in the arena of FOSS, e.g., obscurity or obfuscation of the functional inner workings of software artifacts with a concomitant user-friendliness that encourages an orientation of consumption or sheer use, and discourages participation in the inner workings of FOSS artifacts and governance.

Thus we can identify an ironic tension between the stated goals of many FOSS adherents on the one hand, e.g., an openness in code and organization structure, and the pressure towards availability on the other hand (which involves minimizing burdens for the user).