Post #2755609
2026-05-12 05:40 UTC
Replies (7)
-
@ErikJonker@mastodon.social 2026-05-12 05:45
@ElenLeFoll@fediscience.org we have to think about how to use GenAI in various fields. We are past the stage where we can say it is evil, nobody should use it, ban/boycot it etcetera. It is a journey of finding out what works and what does not, what is responsible and what not etc. So just be very critical about applications, evaluate rigorously and objectively etc
-
@hattom@mastodon.social 2026-05-12 05:58
@ElenLeFoll@fediscience.org Maybe focus on the consequences of outsourcing Thinking-as-a-Service to a loss-leading American tech company. Even if it worked fairly and wasn't unethical, it would be pure stupidity.
-
@tomkalei@machteburch.social 2026-05-12 06:09
@ElenLeFoll@fediscience.org On a whole academia level I don’t know what to do. For a while I thought there is a loss of competence through AI but now I think of it more as a voluntary competence austerity. Academics still have the possibility to study, learn, improve and use computers for good. But they chose not to, instead taking the shortcut. They do exactly what they are telling their students not to!
-
@bipolaron@scholar.social 2026-05-12 06:11
@ElenLeFoll@fediscience.org be prepared to take over their positions when the bubble pops, funding dries up, and it turns out they have to pay for "compute"? What professor actually has time (or likely interest) in writing grants? It doesn't seem like a hard sell, especially since any professor thinks themselves exceptional enough to not be influenced by it being a sycophant and review the output impartially. Public, easy funding. Grant funding is the entire weak link in the story.
-
@dingemansemark@scholar.social 2026-05-12 06:21
@ElenLeFoll@fediscience.org 😵💫 Solidarity. Pick your fights. If you have room, perhaps point folks to the open letter (original has nearly 2000 signatories https://openletter.earth/open-letter-stop-the-uncritical-adoption-of-ai-technologies-in-academia-b65bba1e, German translation available https://openletter.earth/gegen-die-unkritische-anwendung-und-implementierung-sog-kunstlicher-intelligenz-ki-in-der-deutschen-wissenschaft-und-im-hochschulalltag-3094a789) One thing I sometimes think about is that when the slop tide turns, everything built on the shifting sands will crumble, and the only structures and scholarly work with any chance to remain standing are those we've built by ourselves, anchored in actual empirical work
-
@nicebread@scicomm.xyz 2026-05-12 06:53
@ElenLeFoll@fediscience.org In my current thinking, there are two core problems: (a) temporal discounting: Individuals can have short term benefits, but the long-term consequences will aggravate dramatically (both collectively, e.g. environmentally and dependency on big tech; and individually, e.g. the cognitive debt) (b) a connected social dilemma: Individual benefits (e.g. faster writing of grants) leads collectively to a collapse of the system. Solution? No idea. Typical solution in social dilemmas are "institutional control" or „peer punishment“.
-
@jbonk@mastodon-test-virtuos-openstack.uni-osnabrueck.de 2026-05-12 08:58
@ElenLeFoll@fediscience.org what really gets me is when people talk about the inevitability of GenAI adoption. I like to highlight that GenAI services are incredibly unpopular, see this recent incident: https://bsky.app/profile/cabel.panic.com/post/3mlk75u3om22e The other issue I am currently trying to highlight is how scammy the AI industry is. They are not trustworthy, just like their services are not trustworthy.