Published version now available in Current Directions in Psychological Science: journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/...

It's toxic and it's promoters are lying about the longterm risks.

The difference: we are women scientists 🤐

Wrote this in 2024, only more relevant today ...

Critical refusal and critical literacies have been lampooned in ed tech circles as "burying your head in the sand." In fact, they reflect awareness of the full spectrum of options in responding to emerging tech and the commercial products being pushed on schools.

> Those academics who just ask for time to think – who do not name those putting pressure on them, preferring to address ‘society’ and ask for protection – do not feel there is an option at all.

it's this also

❤️‍🩹🌸

Thing of beauty ✨

Indeed! 💯

fun fact! everything a LLM can do, you can do too with an abacus! (seriously. for softmax, just use taylor series.) this means that with enough time, beads, and determination, you can make a wooden object feel pain! or perhaps you feel the pain. or maybe the universe does. it goes somewhere!

> Theoretical such models bidirectionally link theory to phenomena and observations furthering our understanding of the entities on both sides of this relationship.

this is a perennial misunderstanding within and outside computational modelling, wherein even so-called allies think that it's a good use of models to do this — but actually models should be used to understand if our stated principles do what we want, align with our values and our understandings

The strength of confirmation bias is remarkable in such situations: Recently, I've observed the same individual phils approving (inaccurate) criticism by an avowed non-expert of a paper authored by multiple experts then go on to tell an expert they aren't expert enough to criticize a Nobel laureat🤷‍♂️