It is EXHAUSTING not only being made responsible for coming up with new kinds of assignments for our students; it's also tedious reading op-eds that suggest the core problem is a crisis in teaching. But, as Chris and I lay out here, this isn't a crisis in teaching; it's an attack on learning.

Just like Klarna who fired many people because they thought AI can solve everything, the hype they swallowed was met with the reality that it just doesn't work well. Same lesson different company. As the AI hype and bubble pop, we will see more of these. timesofindia.indiatimes.com/technology/t...

I read a thread a few months ago (apols to the OP) pointing out that MOOCs succeeded insofar as institutions now often claim instructor IP; lectures are recorded; classes are modularised, outcome-focused & 'supported' by generic 'help' resources... MOOC thinking accelerated HE neoliberalism.

Thanks for sharing this document, @rweingarten.bsky.social. I read it, and I believe it's inexcusably inadequate and will not prepare teachers or schools to confront the very real dangers of the "A.i." products pushed by your partners, including OpenAI. A few thoughts for your consideration...

If a software product interacs in a way that imitates a human, the law should consider it an agent of the company just like a human employee, with the people who deploy it held accountable in the same way.

I don’t really see the contradiction, given that those big raises are often predicted in doing exactly all those things. The board wasn’t duped. They got what they wanted.

Things that conservative students have said to me at the uni of Oklahoma Hitler was misunderstood/his economic genius downplayed. We should be using data from Nazi medical experiments. ‘Reverse racism’ is worse than racism. Enslaved people were ‘well taken care of’ This has been building for so long

You may have heard that Trump’s extortion of University of California was defeated in court. But do you know who won this historic case? Spoiler: not a single UC administrator participated. It was all faculty members of the UC Faculty Associations and @aaup.org! Cc: @veenadubal.bsky.social

Excellent thread, with parallels everywhere upsides are claimed. For example, we are told that climate change will be disastrous if "AI" doesn't find a magical third way in which no existing power structures are challenged. Those power structures are the problem and this is their preferred framing.

Good thread. I've been using this slide for those who insist on a technical definition for AI/ML in science. Coming from the perspective of scientific/numerical computing, the colloquial meaning does a lot to exclude (good, "classical") methods. It's deeply frustrating and constraining.

Sure, Flock is fundamentally unserious about security and makes false statements about who has access and sure, they're able to read what's on your phone when you walk near their cameras, but they also have patents to automate racial profiling. patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/77/9a/03/7b3...

100% this. Here is something I wrote that is along simliar lines from earlier this year: buttondown.com/maiht3k/arch...

we are strictly zero tolerance absolutely forbidden to use genAI at work. we have large caseload and a specialized area. Know what we do other than use resources on the intranet? We are constantly on teams asking the brain trust of our department.

This. In the past several years, many have branded their work "AI" for the financial benefits, despite the intense toxicity of the people and tacit assumptions at the center. As communities become conversant in critique and refusal, fragility is on full display as researchers cry out "not all AI". 🧵

Oh wow this is a new low, arguably more insidious and damaging to the integrity of human knowledge than creating fake sources (which at least can be exposed). Reading & judging the quality of the cited support for your claims is the difference between trustworthy research and cherry-picked bullshit

While we're rightly concerned about citing invented AI publications, wider issues underpinning it need consideration - poor training on how to find, read, appraise, synthesise literature - prioritising journals over other sources - pressure to rush search/review process - competition - metrification

Once, a respected person in my field shared a link to one of my articles, alongside enthusiastic agreement with a "quote" from me that does not appear anywhere within the article, or elsewhere in my corpus. Frequently, others yell at me for "saying" things that likewise do not appear in the text.

Really enjoyed this fantastic piece by @sonjadrimmer.bsky.social and @cnygren.bsky.social Here are few favorite pull quotes of mine + one little quibble at the end:

I’m pretty sure a big problem is that people making these decisions don’t understand at all how LLMs work. There are a LOT of people in expert professions who bluff. The problem is that people good at bluffing impress others and are also motivated to bluff. So they tend to get higher positions.

"I only use it for summaries" is the new six word tragedy

Professional societies keep beclowning themselves buying into a lie about what an LLM "summary" is. They are inherently counterfeit: not an epistemic product of the ideas in the source, but summary-shaped text linguistically based on *other* works (in the training corpus) that use related language.

And the best part is we don't need any new rules to do that. We just need to treat it as what it so transparently is: nonconsensual ghost authorship in a blender. Institutions and publishers already agree that ghost authorship is misconduct and have policies to address it.

To record or provide such data would violate the ALA Library Bill of Rights. It's remarkable in today's surveilled society to read the 🔥 2002 Tattered Cover decision in which the CO Supreme Court denied a search warrant for bookstore records of a specific individual. www.aclu-co.org/news/aclu-ce...

Universities are dying of FOMO, eager to normalize using the Academic Misconduct Machine. This epistemicide is not inevitable. We can, and must, engage in the radical act of refusing to use the Academic Misconduct Machine.

Trump's attack on civil rights protections seems to be more of a vehicle for the president to expand his assault on disparate impact liability than it is about AI regulation, argues Leah Frazier, director of the Digital Justice Initiative at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

"This promise of an AI future, is really just a collective anxiety that wealthy people have about how well they're gonna be able to control us in the future." - @tressiemcphd.bsky.social with an absolute mic drop moment about AI bullshit. Incredible words. Listen to all of it!

Should scientists apply to OpenAI's fund for research on AI & mental health? Should policymakers consider it a credible safety effort? Avriel Epps & I see it as "grantwashing," and it's an insult to anyone whose loved one's death involved chatbots. We explain: www.techpolicy.press/beware-of-op...

I'd like to also raise the alarm about this planned chat interface. This impulse brought us a slew of horrific whoopsies this year * chat with pacifist John Brown about compassion for enslavers * chat with Harriet Tubman about the upsides of slavery * chat with Anne Frank about not blaming the Nazis

„We will soon add chat-style interactivity to our content and search functionality (…) we conduct regular audits for hallucinations and other errors.“ Besides that this is like whackamole: with novel papers where your ideas are not in the training data, how would that even work?

"AI"/LLMs are inherently ambivalent to facts and have no place in a news room. I'm a monthly donor because I trust the journalists doing in-depth investigative reporting. Please join me in telling ProPublica leadership not to blow up their core identity. Solidarity forever ✊️

Accessibility without verifiability isn’t clarity—it’s risk transfer. AI summaries don’t simplify truth; they abstract accountability. If readers can’t validate claims, the output degrades from aid to liability.

How are people dealing with AI use in their grad programs, specifically for thesis proposal, qualifying exam, dissertation? Banned completely? Allowed, but have to recognize its use? No guardrails at all? We have to develop a policy and I’m totally at a loss.

"The psychologist and cognitive scientist Iris van Rooij has argued that the emergence of AI “slop” across scholarly resources portends nothing less than “the destruction of knowledge” www.rollingstone.com/culture/cult...

Update: the ACM DL is being updated so that author-provided abstracts are the default view again, and AI summaries are more explicitly labeled with "AI-Summary". These changes should be visible worldwide by sometime tomorrow.

These models are surrogates for the physical processes and they divert resources from understanding those processes. Even if they can extend a forecasting window (an unproven conjecture) they do have significant externalities on the research/information environment and vulnerability to capture.

Coming out of 3 week migraine (status migrainosus, look it up) & seeing my work — w/ @marentierra.bsky.social @irisvanrooij.bsky.social @altibel.bsky.social @jedbrown.org @felienne.bsky.social @lucyavraamidou.bsky.social — in Rolling Stone. Guess I shouldn't be as depressed anymore based on facts 😌

A truly moving speech. 5 minutes, no notes, from the heart.

Are you passionate about exploring what a conceptually cogent, methodologically sound, and well-founded AI evaluation and safety research might look like? Come do a PhD with us. Closing Date: 10 February 2026 Apply here aial.ie/hiring/phd-a...

This is a reckless and self-destructive decision by ACM. It violates trust to cover up the peer-reviewed abstract with a lousy, error-ridden counterfeit. It sets a bad example for the community, implying that LLM "summaries" have epistemic value and that reading isn't necessary.

NCAR is quite literally our global mothership. Everyone who works in climate and weather has passed through its doors and benefited from its incredible resources. Dismantling NCAR is like taking a sledgehammer to the keystone holding up our scientific understanding of the planet. Unbelievable.

A deeply dangerous — and blatantly retaliatory action against Colorado — by the Trump administration. NCAR is one of the most renowned scientific facilities in the WORLD — where scientists perform cutting-edge research everyday. We will fight this reckless directive with every legal tool we have.

The University of Washington's Center for an Informed Public is looking to bring on new postdoctoral scholars to join our research community starting in 2026-2027. Come collaborate w/ our amazing, interdisciplinary team working to understand & help people navigate our complex information ecosystem!

This is not a "glitch", it's just how LLMs always work. If it's more obviously discordant with reality today, that's reflecting less available content and more ambiguity in which content to associate with the prompt. It's the same mechanism as when a "correct" answer is (incidentally) emitted.

Remember that UC did not have the courage to fight. Instead, they negotiated a 27-page betrayal. It was faculty/AAUP prevailing in federal court that saved UCLA. For now.

These companies do not have the courage to make this button because they can't handle the truth it would reveal.

"if we were serious we would pull this tool immediately." Something a lot of companies who jumped on the AI bandwagon should consider

Judge F Kay Behm explains the fallacy perfectly: > [T]he fact that Plaintiffs [...] did not “fabricate cases or cite nonexistent decisions” is of no help. > LLMs do not perform the metacognitive processes that are necessary to comply with Rule 11 law.justia.com/cases/federa...

While procuring big raises for themselves, these presidents were dismantling entire departments, firing faculty en masse, and signing expensive contracts with the epistemicide company in defiance of shared governance. Abject betrayal of the university mission. www.currentaffairs.org/news/ai-is-d...

This depiction is much too kind to computer scientists, many of whom have been marinading in TESCREAL brine, receiving professional credit for physiognomy, and proudly betraying scholarly norms. CW: The press release is LLM slop.