It’s difficult to translate the word “creepy” into other languages. When talking to my Spanish-speaking friends, I’ve often heard them insert the word into their sentences. For example, la película fue un poco creepy, ¿verdad? (The movie was a little creepy, right?) While words like espeluzante (terrifying) or perturbador (disturbing) could replace the word, they are unable to encapsulate all of the connotations within the word “creep.”

Neda Atanasoski and Nassim Parvin, in conversation with Francesca Romeo*, outlined what it means for technology to “creep” during the DSI Lecture Series event, “Forging Feminist Futures from ‘Creepy’ Technologies: The Politics of Smart Tech and Liberation Dreams” on Sept. 30th. The first 25 attendees also received a copy of their recently published book, Technocreep and the Politics of Things Not Seen. According to Atanasoki and Parvin, there are four senses of creep: slow and imperceptible movement, a repugnant sensation, persistent growth, and intuition of a disturbance. All of these factors combined create the network of “creepy” technologies that coexist, invade, and linger in our lives. 

Let’s consider Amazon Alexa. This technology has been readily incorporated into millions of homes—a device that is always listening for its key “wake up” word. Many find it unnerving that Alexa also records commands. By simply logging into the Alexa app, I can find all the recorded commands from my family across our different households. At 11:51 pm, my Mom asked Alexa to “turn off the lights.” At 7:00 a.m., my sister asked Alexa to “snooze her alarm for 30 minutes,” and at 8:19 a.m., I asked Alexa what the forecast was for the day. By using Alexa daily, we relinquish some of the privacy within our homes. 

Other technologies, such as facial recognition software and wearable tech, track movement and store personal data that was previously considered private. While surveillance technologies are not necessarily bad, they do provide a lens to look at the costs and benefits of emerging and prevalent software. 

Then there’s the concept of the uncanny—something strange and mysterious in an unsettling way, as defined by Oxford Languages. An AI personal assistant is great until it begins to look and act too much like a real human. I remember my confusion when an AI-generated podcast included “likes” and “ums” in the dialogue and inserted coughing noises. When the line between robot and person is blurred to the extent that you can’t see the difference between the two, it creates a sense of unease. But for the sake of meeting deadlines and making life “easier,” we’re quick to look beyond some of the drawbacks that come with the “latest and greatest” inventions. 

There’s a constant expectation to do things faster; we increase the speed of production to increase the output. But what gets lost, broken, and sacrificed in the race to do more? What happens when we use AI to summarize readings instead of taking the time to comb through and critically engage with them ourselves? What biases are overlooked when we innovate for profit instead of for the common good? 

Attendees of the event asked Atanasoski and Parvin about what a solution would look like to counter the chaos. Slowing down and going back to community seems simple as a concept, but it’s easier said than done. What we can do is go back to older forms of creation. One medium that has resurfaced in popularity is the Zine, which is a small, self-published magazine. Zines are a method of sharing information and self-expression that can be both hyperlocal and global. Due to the spam of digital content we receive daily, many of us are more likely to engage with something we’re handed in a physical format instead of a link buried within an email. 

During the talk, the event speakers explained that we can still decide the platforms and technologies we use to communicate. Think about sending a letter instead of a text to check in on a friend. Sure, snail mail may not be as efficient or practical, but isn’t it so much more exciting to receive a handwritten message in the mail? Slower and non-artificial methods of creation haven’t disappeared. While it may be difficult to carry out our everyday lives without some of these “creepy” technologies, we can still be intentional about how we interact with the digital world and each other. 

*Neta Atanasoski is a professor and chair of the Harriet Tubman Department of Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at the University of Maryland. 

Nassim Parvin is an Associate Professor at the University of Washington (UW) Information School, where she also serves as the Associate Dean for Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, Access & Sovereignty (IDEAS).

Francesca Romeo is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Digital Studies Institute at the University of Michigan.