Post #1490116

2026-04-11 06:45 UTC

@ngaylinn I think it's more depressing that the author thinks that no-one is talking about these issues - I am not sure if it's depressing about their bit of astrophysics or about science itself. I have been talking about precisely these issues in academia for several years now - and I don't think I'm particularly special! So, the question is; is it just that the "LLMs are obviously a case of dangerous intellectual automation" people aren't getting into the groups that adopt LLMs wholesale?

Replies (1)

@ngaylinn@tech.lgbt 2026-04-11 10:30

@aoanla I appreciate you doing it! I gotta say, I've been surprised at how many folks I see in science who choose to be totally checked out when it comes to institutional / cultural issues. They just want to focus on the science, and let the system they work within dictate the terms. As an engineering manager in the past, this makes me deeply uncomfortable. The cultural systems are the most important part! Good point about the sort of selection bias we're seeing here. In my case, I am split between two lab groups. Neither was into LLMs when I joined. In the past year, one got real excited about LLMs, but the other did not. I wonder what the difference is? Certainly, if one starts to identify as "AI-users" that could change the vibe and who joins up considerably. Luckily, neither PI seems to think that's a good idea right now. Though, they're also feeling out where and how they want to use this tech, since they don't feel like ignoring it is an option.

Open ##1490117