Matthew Kirschenbaum’s introduction to the forum
Lisa Siraganian’s “On Accidental and Parasitic Language“
Hannes Bajohr’s “When in Doubt, Go to the Beach“
Seth Perlow’s “Intention and Text Machines“
Rita Raley and Russell Samolsky’s “Against AI?“
Tyler Shoemaker’s “Machines, Reading“
Annette Vee’s “Against Output“
Alex Gil ‘s “On the Uses of Text beyond Intention“
Caroline Bassett’s “Silicon Beach“
Kari Kraus’s “A View from the Periscope“
Ted Underwood’s “The Empirical Triumph of Theory“
Steven Knapp and Walter Benn Michaels’s “Here Is a Wave Poem that I Wrote . . . I Hope You Like It!“
N. Katherine Hayles’s “Afterword: Learning to Read AI Texts“
In the Moment 
“Against Theory” Again!?
Amazing. I guess if you live long enough, you get to verify the old theory of the “eternal return.” And so here it is again. Steve Knapp and Walter Michaels classic polemic, “Against Theory” rises from the grave to engage in the debate over Artificial Intelligence.
As the editor who wrote the introduction to the collected book version of Against Theory (University of Chicago Press, 1982-1985), I have to admit to very ambivalent feelings about the revival of this notorious polemic. On the one hand, I recall being the member of CI’s editorial board who argued most strenuously for the acceptance of the article. Most members of the editorial group were against it on the grounds that the argument was weak, and the position was antithetical to the very existence of what we hoped was the leading journal of criticism and theory at that time. On the other hand, although I disagreed with the argument and recognized that it was a threat our livelihood as theorists, I was committed to the idea that CI should publish essays that we disagreed with if they offered an interesting provocation, including arguments against our own existence. We found a rather absurd name for this editorial philosophy (“dialectical pluralism”) and it won the day. “Against Theory” was published and the rest is history. Lots of prominent scholars weighted in against it from a variety of perspectives. And the “theoretical enterprise” did not “come to an end” as Knapp and Michaels argued that it should. Instead, a thousand flowers of theory bloomed in the pages of CI, and now seems to be the time to bring AI into its garden.
Will it flourish there? I believe so, especially if Matt Kirschenbaum’s call is heeded. He urges us to bring back into play the incredibly rich reservoir of theoretical reflection on meaning, intention, authorship, and language that have flourished in the pages (and now the web pages) of this journal over the years. Stochastic parrots can now join up with poems written on the beach by random waves. I have already started reading the tea leaves myself, as evidenced in the following contribution to Counterpunch: “An English Professor Confronts Artificial Intelligence.”
–W. J. T. Mitchell, Senior Editor, Critical Inquiry
Thank you for the bracing comment and the history here, Tom! I’m most struck by the energy (and, as several contributors said, spirit of fun) in all of the forum entries, those published and yet to come.
Pingback: Again Theory: A Forum on Language, Meaning, and Intent in the Time of Stochastic Parrots | In the Moment