Post #2755610

2026-05-12 05:45 UTC

@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

Replies (4)

@ElenLeFoll@fediscience.org 2026-05-12 05:50

@ErikJonker@mastodon.social I respectfully disagree: we do not "have to think about how to use GenAI". When academics start generating research questions and hypotheses, they are effectively making themselves redundant.

Open ##2755611
@dukeboitans@mas.to 2026-05-12 07:25

@ErikJonker@mastodon.social @ElenLeFoll@fediscience.org But it is evil, and nobody should use it. It's destroying the planet, livelihoods, our brain. Using it is intellectual dereliction, an insult to humanity and life itself.

Open ##2755630
@stragu@mastodon.indie.host 2026-05-12 13:09

@ErikJonker@mastodon.social @ElenLeFoll@fediscience.org I object to the inevitability you paint. But looking at your recommendation to "just be very critical about applications, evaluate rigorously and objectively": can you please share resources that help potential users of these technologies do exactly that, in particular in academia? You sound like you've assembled a sturdy toolbox to achieve that.

Open ##2755631
@vaneeten@mastodon.nl 2026-05-12 22:00

@ErikJonker@mastodon.social @ElenLeFoll@fediscience.org would you say that a digital sweatshop economy serving only the ai companies can ever be considered "responsible use"? Just search for "I Tracked Down the Hidden Workers Secretly Powering ChatGPT" on youtube to see how utterly reprehensible it secretly is.

Open ##2755646