Pressure Project #2 – Transcendence through Snares
Posted: March 3, 2026 Filed under: Uncategorized Leave a comment »- Description of my cell-block:
- Independently, my cell-block uses the snare of the audio provided to cycle through a set of mouth shapes to simulate lip syncing (albeit not realistic lip syncing). It also takes the video input and through Ramp and Displace, warps the image based on the “mid” registered from the audio as well. Without outside input the audio used is “Position Famous” by Frost Children, and the video is a looping timelapse POV of a subway traveling underground. This was to create a sense of motion and exhilaration (the movement of the subway and displacement), and playfulness (the lip syncing).
- Collective documentation:
- Video/photos of the assembled system: Admittedly, I forgot to take footage of the showcase. I was a bit more nervous about this project, worried about everything working properly with the other cell-blocks. Once it was my turn, I only focused on presenting my work. I plan to reach out to classmates to see if they recorded footage.
- Process reflection:
- The cell-block was self-contained but, on the exterior, was connected to incoming TOP and CHOP inputs as well as feeding those inputs out. So, on its own, the block would play as planned, but once outside audio and video were fed in, they would then take the effects of the previous media. There were some issues with feedback loops when testing this out, but mostly, it worked. The lips were a last-minute add and therefore independent…so no matter what, the lips stayed on screen; how it reacted depended on the audio input.
- I made the choice to control the level of flashiness and movement with my visuals. It’s easy to fall into producing loud and flashy imagery with programs like TouchDesigner or even After Effects, however, I try to use media responsibly, and I also didn’t want to give myself a headache. I’ve made materials that are hard for photosensitive people to take in, and while some others loved the chaotic visuals, I wasn’t satisfied knowing a group of people wouldn’t be able to watch it (and enjoy it).
- I was surprised a lot of people didn’t use audio that contained a lot of snares (or used much audio at all)… I was also surprised that everything worked together for the most part (if you can’t tell, I was nervous).
- Everyone’s work offered me something new when combined. I would combine with Luke’s when I wanted the most cohesive combination, I would combine with Zarmeen’s when I wanted to destroy everything (or use her audio), I combined with Chad’s because I wanted to appear on his channels more, and I combined with Curtus when I wanted to see a dragon.
- This project was a new way to envision Halprin’s cell-block method, but in a strictly digital realm. The goal was to have every block exist on its own and influence others (multiply the possibilities of the content produced). I think we mostly did that, although networking still feels stressful to me; I at least know how it works (sort of).
- Individual documentation:
Pressure Project #1 – A Walk In Nature
Posted: February 9, 2026 Filed under: Uncategorized Leave a comment »Description: “A Walk In Nature” is a self-generating experience that documents two individuals’ time together deep in the woods.
The Meat and Bones (view captions for descriptions):
Photos I took before production (I had no real clue what I was going to do)
The Reactions:
I am very thankful for Zarmeen’s presence, as I don’t know if I would’ve achieved all the bonus points without her. While I received relatively affirming verbal feedback at the end, without her talent of reacting physically, I would have felt way more awkward showing this messed-up video.
Reflections:
I was actually extremely relieved to have a time limit on the project, as I am very limited on time as a grad student with a GTA and part-time job (it’s rough out here). I loved the idea of throwing something at the wall and seeing what sticks. I chose to do the majority of the work in one setting, figuratively locking oneself in a room for five hours and leaving with a thing felt correct. I did note ideas that popped up throughout the week, but I didn’t end up doing any of them anyway.
I was far too hung up on the idea of making sure people pay attention; original ideas had the machine barking orders at the viewers to “not look away”, but that felt mean. So I went with the idea of making everyone so uncomfortable that they forget to look away, like how I feel watching Fantastic Planet. Towards the last hour, I realized that aside from robots talking, I needed user interaction to make this feel whole. However, the cartwheel and petting action didn’t work out as pictured above. So what if the audience could be the deer?
The last hour was me messing with an app to use my camera as the webcam (Eduroam ruined my dreams there). So I grabbed a webcam from the computer lab the day of. (sorry Michael) I knew I was going to choose one lucky viewer to hold the camera, and choosing Alex was improvised I just thought he would be most excited to hold it. I was pleasantly surprised that there were expressions of joy while watching, as when I showed my partner, she was scared and mad at me. I am glad my stupid sense of humor worked out. 🙂
AI Expert Audit: I made Notebook LM theorize about Five Nights of Freddy’s
Posted: February 4, 2026 Filed under: Uncategorized Leave a comment »The Source Material (I kind of went too far here):
we solved fnaf and we’re Not Kidding
https://www.reddit.com/r/GAMETHEORY/
How Scott Cawthon Ruind the FNAF Lore
https://freddy-fazbears-pizza.fandom.com/wiki/Five_Nights_at_Freddy%27s_Wiki
https://www.reddit.com/r/fivenightsatfreddys/
GT Live react to we solved fnaf and we’re Not Kidding
My Source Material, Why Did I Choose This?:
I actually chose materials that weren’t important to me, but they were when I was younger. I love listening to video essays and theories on various media. Whenever I was animating or doing a mundane art task in my undergrad, I would have that genre of video in the background to take a break from listening to the news (real important shit). It’s super silly stuff, but when I was a teenager, Game Theory first started getting BIG; seeing a huge channel discussing my favorite IPs, subverting and contextualizing their narratives felt very important. It really validated my feelings that video games were art.
However I am now grown, and I care far less about Five Nights of Freddy’s, now it feels like fun junk food for my brain. (Although teens and kiddos still care about the spooky animatronics, so it’s been a clutch move when bonding with the youths when I was a nanny.) I also hate AI, I hate it. I don’t hate automation; it makes life way better when done currently. I don’t think “AI” is done correctly; it’s mostly bullshit even down to the name. It’s a marketing strategy giving excuses to companies to fire workers and build giant databases that poison the land. I did not want to give Notebook LM anything “meaningful”. I didn’t want to let it in on the worlds I care about on my own volition. So, I gave it the silly spooky bear game that I know way too much about.
The AI Generated Materials
“Create an info graph of the official Five Night of Freddy’s Timeline with the information presented. Creating branches of diverging thought alongside widely agreed upon information.”
“Form a debate on what Timeline is the canon for FNAF.
Each host has to make their own original timeline.
Both hosts should sound like charismatic youtubers with dedicated channels to the video game and it’s lore.
Both Youtubers should use the words often associated with the Fandom and culture of FNAF.
Both hosts you have distinct personalities and opinions from one another.
Both hosts will have different opinions on whether the books should be used in lore making.”
1. Accuracy Check
What did the AI get right?
The basics. It was able to categorize the general hot topics (e.g., MCI or the Missing Child Incident, The Bite of 83’ and 87’, The Aftons…). It sometimes would match what theory goes with what Youtuber. It’s pretty efficient in barfing out information in bullet point fashion.
What did it get wrong, oversimplify, or miss entirely?
The transcripts from the videos aren’t great; they don’t separate who is saying what, so when trying to describe the multiple popular theories out there and how they conflict, it struggles. When I had it made an audio debate where two personalities choose a stance to argue about from the materials I provided. It was pretty much mincemeat. Yes, both were referencing actual game elements but in ways to make no sense to the actual theories provided, the “hosts” argued about points no real person would argue about. In the prompt, I instructed one personality to use the books as reference while the other did not, and it took that and made 70% of the podcast arguing about the books. The mind map struggles to clarify what theory is and what is a canon fact. The info graph was illegible.
Were there any subtle distortions or misrepresentations that a non-expert might not catch?
Going back to the mind map, and in other words it doesn’t cite its sources well. It does provide the transcript it referred to, but the transcripts aren’t very useful as described above. It flips flopped between stated what as a theory and what was canon to the game (confirmed by the creators). If someone were to read it without much knowledge, they would be bombarded with information that conflicts, isn’t organized narratively, and stated in context of its origin.
2. Usefulness for Learning
If you were encountering this material for the first time, would these AI-generated resources help you understand it?
Semi-informative but not at all engaging.
What do the podcast, mind map, and infographic each do well (or poorly) as learning tools?
Both podcast and mind map were at least comprehensible; the info graph was not.
Which format was most/least effective? Why?
The podcast is the most effective; there was some generated personality to distinguish the motivation behind certain theories, not great distinctions but more than nothing.
3. The Aesthetic of AI
It’s safe to say Youtubers and podcasters are still safe job wise. Hearing theories about haunted animatronics in the format and aesthetics of an NPR podcast was deeply embarrassing. Hearing a generated voice call me a “Fazz-head” was demoralizing to say the least.
They made pretty bad debaters too. The one who was presumably assigned the role of “I will only use the games as references” at one point waved away their opponent’s claim with the response, “yeah but that’s if you seriously take a mini game from 10 years ago”.
It took out all of the fun; there were no longer cheeky remarks of self-depreciating jokes about the silliness of the topic and efforts. Often theorists will acknowledge Scott Cawthon did not think these implications fully out, that this effort may be rooted in retcons and wishful thinking, but it’s still fun. The hosts and mind map acted like they were categorizing religious text, and it was remarkably unenjoyable to sit through.
4. Trust & Limitations
AI is good at taking (proven) information and organizing it in a way that is nice to look at. It’s great for schedules or breakdowns. It sucks at just about everything else. I only really have benefitted from AI when it comes to programming; it’s really nice to have an answer to what is wrong with your code (even if it’s not always right; it usually leads you past the point of being stumped).
When it comes to art, interpretation, and comprehension, I wouldn’t recommend AI to anyone. If you are making a quiz, make it yourself. The act of making a quiz based off study topics will increase your comprehension far more than memorizing questions barfed out to you. If you don’t have the time to produce something, then produce something you can with the time you have or collaborate with someone who can produce with you. Use AI to fix your grammar (language or code), use AI to make a schedule if you suffer from task paralysis, but aside from accommodations and quick questions, leave it alone.