Home

The Davis Institute for Artificial Intelligence hosted creative technologist Ross Goodwin last week to discuss how machine learning and literature intersect. Goodwin, who identifies as a data poet, demonstrated how generative writing systems function as collaborative tools for artists rather than replacements for human thought. Throughout the lecture, he focused on the role of code in creating new forms of expression while illustrating his methods through various projects, including a camera that generates poetry from images and a novel written during a cross-country drive.

Goodwin explained that his work relies on using software to give form to imagination, noting that the word poet comes from a root meaning to make. This etymology allows him to view algorithms as instruments for performance. One project, Word Camera, uses sensors to capture visual data and translate it into verse in real time. Goodwin clarified that these outputs serve as intermediary materials rather than final literary works because the goal involves creating serendipity through the interaction between human observation and machine processing.

The presentation also included details on his experimental novel titled 1 the Road. To create the book, Goodwin traveled from New York to New Orleans in a vehicle equipped with a camera, GPS, and microphone. These sensors fed data into a portable computer that generated text based on the environment as the car moved. The resulting manuscript serves as a document of a journey through the perspective of an algorithmic observer, highlighting the potential for machines to archive experiences in unconventional ways while the human creator remains responsible for the system design.

In addition to creative projects, Goodwin addressed the ethical risks associated with generative technology. He warned against the urge to treat artificial intelligence as human, noting that people often project personal desires onto software. This characterization can lead to a misunderstanding of how these models actually function. Goodwin also expressed concern about the potential for technology to facilitate deception, which led him to encourage designers to maintain a clear distinction between the machine as a tool and the human as the ethical agent.

During the question and answer session, the audience asked about authorship and the ownership of generated content. One student asked how much credit a person should take for a poem produced by a model trained on existing texts. Goodwin replied that ownership scales with the design of the system and the thoughtfulness of the prompts. He stated that if a writer spends time fine-tuning a model, they deserve creative credit. He suggested that society will eventually set new standards for original work in the digital age.

Another attendee asked if artificial intelligence could capture the emotional depth of poetry without having lived experiences. Goodwin acknowledged that machines do not feel, yet he argued they can rearrange language to provoke emotions in a human reader. He described this as a collaboration where the human provides intent and the machine offers a different perspective on vocabulary. “What new outlooks or epiphanies might we unlock by getting creative with this technology?” Goodwin asked during the discussion.

Goodwin concluded by stating that technology acts as “a mirror of its era rather than a stone tablet for the future”. He argued that the most meaningful future for artificial intelligence lies in everyday automation and creative assistance. He encouraged students to imagine non-military applications for these systems to protect the public interest.

~ Stephen Owusu Badu `27

Recent U.S. strikes on Iran have heightened tensions in the Middle East, raising new questions about the motivations behind the conflict as well as the risks of potential consequences across the region. While the escalation is often framed around nuclear weapons or regional tensions, many say the current situation is defined as much by strategic uncertainty and weakened deterrence as by traditional territorial disputes.

According to the William R. Cotter Distinguished Teaching Professor of Government Ken Rodman, the motivations behind the U.S. decision to strike Iran remain unclear. “The administration has given many contradictory explanations,” Rodman said. In a conventional foreign policy process, major military actions typically involve deliberation with nuclear experts, regional specialists, and military leaders, along with efforts to build both congressional and public support. In this case, that process was notably absent. 

The claim that Iran posed an imminent nuclear threat has also been called into question. Rodman noted that Iran’s nuclear capability had already been weakened by previous strikes earlier in the year, making an immediate nuclear-based escalation unlikely. “The notion that there was an imminent threat from Iranian nuclear developments is implausible, to say the least,” he said. Instead, the strikes may have been designed to take advantage of Iran’s current vulnerabilities, yet with no clear message from the administration, the underlying strategy remains difficult to determine. 

Mixed signals have added to the uncertainty. Some officials have framed the strikes as a contained air campaign. Others, including President Donald Trump, have suggested that additional military options, including ground troops, have not been ruled out. “There isn’t any clear communication coming from the administration as to what the purpose of this war is,” Rodman said.

From an international relations perspective, the conflict doesn’t conform to typical patterns. Historically, Iran’s pursuit of nuclear capabilities has been interpreted partly as a deterrent strategy against the United States and Israel, weapons that prevent stronger powers from taking military action. 

That, however, has been superseded by events. The network of allies Iran relied on for deterrence has significantly weakened. For decades, Iran leaned on groups such as Hezbollah to threaten retaliation against Israel. Following Israel’s recent military operations, that threat has weakened significantly. “The threat posed by Hezbollah has never been weaker since it first emerged in the early 1980s,” Rodman said.

These shifts are also affecting other regional powers. When the Obama administration negotiated the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, both Israel and Saudi Arabia opposed it, fearing that lifting sanctions would strengthen Iran’s influence. Those shared concerns helped drive the cooperation that eventually produced the Abraham Accords. Today, however, some Gulf states worry that continued escalation could destabilize the region further.

Despite rising tensions, Rodman says the conflict is unlikely to draw in major powers like Russia or China directly. Russia remains focused on Ukraine, while China has generally avoided projecting military force beyond its immediate region.

The more immediate danger, Rodman warned, is potential destabilization within Iran itself. Efforts to weaken the Iranian government could create “ungoverned spaces” where state authority collapses, conditions similar to those that followed the U.S. invasion of Iraq and contributed to the rise of ISIS.

The path toward de-escalation remains uncertain. Opposition to the United States is central to how Iran’s government justifies its rule, making compromises politically costly. The absence of well-defined U.S. goals offer little foundation for negotiation. “It’s not entirely clear how this ends,” Rodman said.

For now, the region holds its breath, caught between a conflict with no clear purpose and no clear path forward to peace.

~ Mia Dinunzio `28

The Goldfarb Center’s In the News series hosted the Executive Director of the Wabanaki Alliance and a citizen of the Penobscot Nation, Maulian Bryant, for a conversation titled “Sovereignty and Shared Humanity.” Bryant began by explaining what tribal sovereignty means in practice. For her, sovereignty is rooted in stewardship of land, water, and natural resources across the Wabanaki homeland. She noted that the four federally recognized Wabanaki nations in Maine — the Penobscot Nation, the Passamaquoddy Tribe at Sipayik and Motahkomikuk, the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians, and the Mi’kmaq Nation — share ancestral ties to lands across the entire state.

Tribal sovereignty, Bryant explained, involves the ability to care for those lands and waters and to protect what is sacred. But the 1980 Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act has significantly limited those powers. Bryant described the act as the result of a lawsuit brought by the tribes and the federal government after it was discovered that large portions of Maine had been taken without properly ratified treaties. While the settlement resolved the dispute, she said it created a legal framework unlike those that governed tribes elsewhere in the United States. In Maine, state authority often stands between tribal governments and their ability to exercise full jurisdiction over matters concerning natural resources, taxation, and criminal law.

Much of Bryant’s current work focuses on efforts to amend the Settlement Act. The Wabanaki Alliance, which she leads, was formed in 2020 after tribal leaders and state lawmakers convened a task force to study possible reforms. That process produced recommendations for legislative changes aimed at restoring elements of tribal sovereignty and clarifying access to federal law.

Building support for those reforms has required an unusually broad coalition. Bryant described a network that now includes environmental groups, faith communities, businesses, and political leaders across party lines. She said the coalition has expanded largely because personal relationships have changed how people understand tribal issues. According to Bryant, when people hear directly from tribal leaders, elders, and younger generations about the lived consequences of the settlement act, the issue becomes less abstract.

She also discussed national advocacy, including a testimony she delivered before a congressional Appropriations Committee on the crisis of missing and murdered Indigenous women. The hearing, she said, stood out for its unusually personal tone and bipartisan support. Lawmakers listened as Indigenous women from across the country described gaps in data collection, jurisdiction, and law enforcement coordination that have complicated investigations of these cases.

In Maine, Bryant said one significant development has been the expansion of tribal jurisdiction under the federal Violence Against Women Act. Previously, tribal courts often lacked authority to prosecute certain domestic violence cases involving non-tribal perpetrators on tribal lands. Changes in federal law have begun to address those gaps.

Near the end of the conversation, Bryant reflected on the event’s theme of shared humanity. She described her early activism against Indigenous mascots in Maine schools, an effort that eventually contributed to the state’s ban on such imagery.

At first, Bryant said, her advocacy was driven largely by anger at stereotypes and cultural appropriation. Over time, however, she realized that meaningful change required understanding why communities held onto those symbols. During one school board meeting, she recalled, a man confronted her and insisted that his community’s mascot was part of their identity. Rather than dismissing the comment, Bryant said the moment forced her to think more carefully about how identity and belonging shape people’s reactions. While she remains firm in her belief that such mascots are harmful, she emphasized that real progress often requires patience, empathy, and discipline.

Bryant described this approach as “leading with love,” a principle she sees not as sentimentality but as demanding work. Understanding the emotions behind anger or resistance, she said, can make it possible to move difficult conversations forward.

~ Sophia Ikiri `29