The two texts that I will be critically comparing are The Iphone Erfahrung by Emily McArthur, and Extending “Extension” by Yoni Van Den Eede, both found in the book Design, Mediation, and the Posthuman. They both talk about extension and evolutions in technology and how they relate to the human experience, and because of this they certainly relate.
The Iphone Erfahrung Summary
McArthur’s article focuses on Siri, which when it was written in 2014 was a fairly new piece and advancement of technology. Siri is talked about as being an extension of the human (McArthur), as any thought that enters someone’s mind can be nearly instantly asked to Siri. While Siri is primarily used as a faster Google, or an answering machine, the way in which individuals speak to their phone and receive a response from a voice is anything but normal, at least not 10 years ago. The article talks alot about Walter Benjamin’s concept of ‘aura’, and how Siri represents aura due to its magical nature and its place in the social hierarchy (McArthur); as in, it can be considered an authority for truth (like a faster Google). Despite Siri’s magical appearance though, all it really does in terms of looking back at the user is make a guess based on what its learned, rather than come up with something on its own (McArthur). The article also talks about how that applies to other algorithms and modern systems, like online shopping or digital newspapers recommending you articles based off your recent reads. All in all, McArthur’s article focuses on the aura of Siri, the way in which sound can penetrate the unconscious, and the limits of its capabilities.
Extending Extension Summary
Van Den Eede’s article briefly recaps the idea of extension through history and talking about McLuhan’s perspective on it, before narrowing its focus and discussing self-tracking software and applications, like FitBits and other technologies that we essentially input our data into, arguing with McLuhan’s help that they are unique extensions of the body(Van Den Eede). From surveillance issues, to the notion that self-tracking apps are solving a “problem”, this article and how it discusses technology certainly relates to McArthur’s article, as they both provide interesting perspectives on how humans interact with technology.
How the Texts can be Used Together
When reading through both of the articles, one topic in particular immediately came to mind, as this one tends to – artificial intelligence. When considering software like Siri and algorithms that predict behaviour and using technology as an extension of self, there are fewer subjects more applicable than AI. The texts relate in numerous ways, but because they were written over a decade ago, naturally the technological references they utilize and predict are outdated. Using the lens of AI when comparing them helps enhance their similarities and makes it more clear just how much not only AI affects us, but also how it will continue to in the future.
McArthur’s article talks about how Siri doesn’t necessarily know exactly what you say, but it uses its language processes to essentially make a guess to what you are saying. This applies moreso when verbally speaking, but this can also apply to text, since alot of meaning that can be inferred between two humans speaking can be lost when it is typed out. In today’s world, AI very much does the same thing, particularly in image and video generation. All it does is read what the user types in, and makes the best guess it can for what they imagine the user wants. This can also apply to students who use AI to sort and organize their notes for them, as even if the student emphasizes a certain way they’d like their information to be presented, only they truly know what that looks like, not the AI.
All of this culminates in a couple of outcomes: ease of use, and extending one’s self. Both articles talk about how technology makes things easier, whether it be using Siri as an instant-answer machine, or using a self-tracking app to count one’s calories instead of using a book and doing calculations on their own. People use these apps because it is easier than doing the activity themselves, and that is how these companies make all the money that they do, because they promise an easier lifestyle. At the same time, this technology is an extension of the self. Using AI to sort through your notes, or generate an opening paragraph that ‘sounds like your writing’, is in essence an extension of one’s self. However, this dois not to say that what the AI generates is ‘yours’, or even creative. There is a lot of contention when it comes to passing off AI-generated art or video or content in general as one’s own, and that is not what is being advocated for. Despite the lack of authorship though, if someone puts in their notes or writing into an LLM and asks it to generate something, the product that emerges is an extension of them also because they asked the AI to generate it to begin with. It is an extension that highlights the user’s creativity (or lack thereof).
McLuhan also discusses an idea in Van Den Eede’s article about the medical concept of an irritant and counter-irritant, saying that many extensions in the world are created in response to a problem in order to solve the problem (Van Den Eede). However, there is always a cost, and any time a counter-irritant is used to enhance something or a body part, it also weakens something else, almost like a sort of exchange. This thinking can be applied to McArthur’s article, since using AI to do your thinking for you is a perfect example of this. While the problem may be that someone doesn’t know how best to plan someone’s 30th birthday, by asking the AI to help solve the problem (the irritant) through using an AI-generated plan after being fed all of the birthday person’s interests (the counter-irritant), the trade-off is part of their brain will inevitably suffer as they rely more and more on AI and outside help for idea generation and problem solving instead of using their own brain muscles to do it. Another interesting comparison is that McLuhan argues that people are aware of technology as an ‘other’ and it is obvious (Van Den Eede), but as more and more people get fooled by AI scams and as McArhur’s article discussed that sound penetrates the mind with relation to Siri, the lines get blurrier and blurrier.
Takeaways and Conclusion
In conclusion, McArthur’s text and Van Den Eede’s text both discuss extension in relation to technology, and by using the more modern perspective of AI and its impact on people, the two articles can be used as a helpful guide to highlight how Ai (and technology in general) greatly impact us all, and also discuss some interesting ways to talk about it, like the irritant and counter-irritant theory brought up by McLuhan in Van Den Eede’s article. This all is important to know for people my age as being able to discuss these processes and theories is more important than ever. As more and more people grow accustomed to AI being embedded in daily activities, whether it be apps or transactions or whatever else, the times from just a few years ago where that was not the case will slowly be lost. Being able to articulate these processes isn’t to wish for a return for the way things were, as that is nigh impossible at this point, but it is still critical to know so that we can still stay ahead of the technology as best we can, and stay informed through it all.
Works Cited
McArthur, Emily. “The Iphone Erfahrung: Siri, the Auditory Unconscious, and Walter Benjamin’s “Aura”.” Design, Mediation, and the Posthuman. Ed. Dennis M. Weiss Ed. Amy D. Propen Ed. Colbey Emmerson Reid Lanham: Lexington Books, 2014. 113–128. Postphenomenology and the Philosophy of Technology. Bloomsbury Collections. Web. 1 Dec. 2025. <http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781666993851.ch-006>.
Van Den Eede, Yoni. “Extending “Extension”: A Reappraisal of the Technology-as-Extension Idea through the Case of Self-Tracking Technologies.” Design, Mediation, and the Posthuman. Ed. Dennis M. Weiss Ed. Amy D. Propen Ed. Colbey Emmerson Reid Lanham: Lexington Books, 2014. 151–172. Postphenomenology and the Philosophy of Technology. Bloomsbury Collections. Web. 1 Dec. 2025. <http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781666993851.ch-008>.
Hey Owen 🙂 great read! I came into this topic knowing basically nothing about posthumanism or extension theory, so your comparison was helpful for me. I liked how you used AI as a modern lens, as it made both texts feel a lot more relevant. The part about McLuhan’s irritant/counter-irritant idea was especially cool to think about.
Hi Lea,
I appreciate your kind words, and I’m glad that you found the McLuhan irritant/counter-irritant concept interesting to think about, as I did too. I find myself coming back to the topic of AI a lot in this class, but that just seems to be the way things are going in general nowadays, it’s impossible to escape. I’m curious, do you use AI in a way that you would consider applies to the irritant/counter-irritant concept?
Hi Owen! I really like how you bring McArthur and Van Den Eede into the present by reading their ideas through AI. Your point about AI operating through “best guesses” feels like a natural continuation of McArthur’s discussion of Siri’s aura and its limits, and it sharpens the idea of extension as something that always involves interpretation rather than perfect translation. What stood out to me most is how you connect this to McLuhan’s irritant/counter-irritant: the way AI simplifies tasks while quietly weakening certain cognitive habits. It shows that extension isn’t only about reducing effort, but about how technology subtly shapes our habits and sense of self. Your analysis makes it clear how these older concepts of mediation still have a lot to say about our current technological environment.
Hi Lorainne,
I like your comment about how the technology shapes our habits and sense of self, as I think it especially applies to AI and the “best guesses” concept. There are countless examples nowadays of people who developed attachments to AI and feel as though only the AI truly understands them, when in reality, the tech is only responding based off of previous information the user put in (and whatever else was used to configure the AI to begin with). I’d like to think that most people are aware that that’s how AI works, but I can also see a world where there’s a global fracturing between those who communicate with AI as a peer and those who communicate with AI as a tool, or not at all. Do you think your sense of self has been shaped by AI?
Hi Owen!! I really enjoyed the way you connect both articles to how we use AI today. Your point about Siri “guessing” meaning and how that mirrors modern AI really stuck with me, and the counter-irritant idea was such a sharp way to frame the trade-offs we make for convenience. The whole reflection on growing up alongside this tech shift felt especially real.
Hi Nate,
I like how you put it at the end, that we are growing up alongside this tech shift. It’s a bit surreal, considering the fact that alot of the old dangers of the Internet warned to us by our parents or mentors are almost all outdated, replaced with a collective sense of confusion and not knowing just how dangerous some of the technology really is, from deepfakes to voice mimicking. Do you think you can pinpoint a certain moment or technology that’s emerged that felt significant to you, in the same way that the iPhone was significant to young people a generation ago?
This was a super interesting read, Owen. The opening example of someone talking to their phone ten years being completely different today than it was ten years ago is very sharp and opens this well-done comparison in the exact direction needed to grasp your observations. Contextualizing the personally-trained LLMs as extensions of one selves is something I’d not considered before but now, I don’t think I’ll be able to ‘un-see’ it. I think we are in an era where there is a certain dystopian nerve bleeding into AI discourse; that we are approaching a singularity of knowledge. However, beyond it’s advanced search functions and it’s intellectual base is not superior to anything we already have on the net. Frankly, I think this framing articulates the increased bias that AI can currently foster, in that searches are conducted by models that directly extend the users bias more so than a blank search on say, Wikipedia, would.
Hi Colin,
Your point about searches extending the user’s bias is really good, since I often forget that even Google tailors search results and other things to the user, and I tend to treat Google as fact (once I skip past the AI overview). You’re very right though in that as more and more people use AI heading into the future, our own personal algorithms will become just that: personal, biased, and ultimately untrustworthy. I can easily see a world where people’s LLMs argue against one another during arguments or debates because “my AI said this and had this evidence!”.
Great work! This was a great exploration of extension in technology! It’s interesting to consider McLuhan’s counter-irritant concept here. As AI solves problems for us, we gain efficiency but risk weakening certain mental faculties or habits, which parallels concerns about dependency on GPS or algorithmic curation. As AI becomes more integrated into daily life, in what ways do you think humans will change what it means to “think”independently?
Hi, thanks for your comment and question! As someone who does rely on GPS I can at least see for myself how I am exhibiting the irritant/counter-irritant concept. For your question, I think that to think independently could just be as simple as not using AI. Thinking independently nowadays usually can incorporate some research, but as AI progresses it could default to my original definition of not using AI being the primary barometer for what’s considered independent or not. That being said, I could easily be wrong and maybe thinking independently ends up being considered as “only” using your own personal LLM rather than an unbiased one. What do you think?
Hi Owen! I really enjoyed reading this, and it made me think about how quickly our idea of “extension” has changed even in just a few years. One thing I’m curious about is how you see the line between “helpful extension” and “over-reliance” in everyday life. For example, when does something like Siri or a self-tracking app feel like it’s supporting your thinking, and when does it start replacing it?
Hi Mio,
I think your question is what’s going to define the discussion surrounding this topic going forward, to be honest. When it comes to self-tracking apps, I personally don’t see that as too much of an infringement if what the app is replacing is doing mental math or calculations on a pen and paper elsewhere. Siri, or AI, on the other hand, is different, since it basically fills the missing pieces for you after you say your question, rather than maybe being dissatisfied with the list of links Google gives you and having to rephrase. Calorie counting isn’t “creative”, but asking a question is, and I think that’s where the line is drawn. What is your perspective on this?
Hi Owen, this is such a well written, cohesive post! Your comparison of McArthur and Van Den Eede is compelling because it captures something neither author could have anticipated in 2014: the way AI would collapse the distance between extension and substitution. It’s really interesting to me because by the sound of your analysis, both texts treat technology as a supplement to human capacity but you extend to show how AI actually unsettled that line of thinking. These tools don’t just extend us anymore, but we’re kind of becoming them since they actively participate in producing the self they claim to mirror. Both of these authors seem to reply on an implication that the humans remains the stable center from which all technological augmentation radiates. Like you said, Siri extend thinking, Fitbit extends sensing. But with AI in the picture, this relationship becomes recursive. AI isn’t extending thinking, but we’re almost outsourcing it to it. AI will assess, organize, decide, and produce on our behalf. Where is the human in this? The prompter? Do we even need a prompter, or is this just a placeholder to convince us we’re not obsolete? This makes extension less like McLuhan’s prothesis and more like a site of co-production where the boundary of “self” becomes a lot more negotiable. I think we’re. now at a time where this extension begins to shape not just what we do, but what we expect ourselves to be able to do. When the counter-irritant becomes the normative baseline for competence? When thinking without AI feels like an irritant in itself? Perhaps this is too bleak of a thought. Something this piece has left me wondering is if extension once described how technology amplifies human abilities, what concept describes the moment when technology begins to reconfigure the very sense of what counts as human capability in the first place?