Dr. Casey Fiesler
@cfiesler.bsky.social
information science professor (tech ethics + internet stuff)
kind of a content creator (elsewhere also @professorcasey)
though not influencing anyone to do anything except maybe learn things
she/her
more: casey.prof
Casey Fiesler is an American associate professor at University of Colorado Boulder who studies technology policy, internet law and policy, and public communication.
Source: Wikipedia
Computer science
40%
Communication & Media Studies
18%
I seriously hate social media sometimes. The way that some people (not here) are coming for me for this video being “wrong” or basically for me not managing to cram an entire Applied Machine Learning class into 60 seconds of a *stand up comedy* set is wiiiiiild.
Apple TV’s new intro was done entirely practical, not CG 😮💨 #apple #appletv #tech #ios26 #iphone
YouTube video by 9to5Mac
youtube.com
I would kind of love if Apple was the tech company to be like “eh we don’t really need to compete on AI, let’s be the ones to champion human creativity instead.” youtube.com/shorts/C3uLR...
Guess what percentage of comments I’ve already gotten on other platforms are people telling me I’m wrong lol
Standup comedy about AI ethics has to be a new level of dystopia right?
YouTube video by Casey Fiesler
youtu.be
I do! (Occasionally, this was only the third time.) This is this set, there’s another on my YouTube channel too. youtu.be/4XdJ2xiPies
I am sometimes grateful that my constitutional law professor was so scary that I studied a lot haha.
Spending all day at an AI+Copyright conference at the law school that I (nominally) helped organize, and thinking once again that I should hang out with law professors more. :)
Standup comedy about AI ethics has to be a new level of dystopia right?
YouTube video by Casey Fiesler
youtu.be
If you're interested in learning about why ChatGPT seems to want to date you, the way that AI might actually be our doom (spoiler: it's not the robot wars), and why you shouldn't put glue on your pizza, you might enjoy watching an information science professor do standup comedy. youtu.be/4XdJ2xiPies
I just got the video of the standup set I did a couple of weeks ago. :D (Currently working on getting it up on YouTube, hence the Canva screenshot haha.)
oh no we missed a serious marketing opportunity with this new one haha!
Oh I don't think it really matters; it's just a question of whether they feel comfortable with the specific use case of the assignment.
Part of this assignment will be talking to/interviewing people who use AI.
oh that's a great point, I'll ponder what that would look like
I don't understand this question either. :) What does it mean to "write against"?
I'm afraid I don't understand this question... why would they need recorded data?
For the specific assignment here, I'm imagining a combination of talking to/interviewing people they know who use AI + exploring online content like discussions in subreddits.
That would be very interesting! I mean I guess it would make things easier for me.
I did waffle on this a bit in large part due to concern about workload of coming up with alternative assignments etc... but I think it's important that students who are critical of AI also have an opportunity to learn about it. And the class will be small this first time so may as well try it out!
I'm workshopping my AI & Society course for next semester, and in particular what I've been calling the "conscientious objector" path through the class (though I've given it another name). Thoughts?
I have not had this experience!
the ick I get at Sam Altman describing Sora as fanfiction... copyrightlately.com/openai-backt...
Sometimes I imagine what it might be like to teach an entire course on technology and intellectual property instead of just a single class. I feel like the students get the most absolutely chaotic but hopefully interesting brain dump from me in that class though haha.
If you click through a subtle link on results you do get to a decent disclaimer/warning from Westlaw, but wouldn't it be a good idea to FORCE users to see this (and to click "I understand") before using the tool? And also ideally an educational explanation for how it works and why it can be wrong?
But importantly, Westlaw makes no attempt to explain WHY it generates fictitious sources. There is zero attempt at education here, which I think is usually the case even when LLMs have disclaimers.
And again, I highly suspect that legal technology companies are downplaying limitations.
And again, I highly suspect that legal technology companies are downplaying limitations.
I just had a look at the Westlaw AI tool, blamed by one of the lawyers in the article (re: them not understanding at the time that it used AI and could generate fictitious sources). This is the disclaimer on the main page for the tool, but there's nothing included with generated results.
... I suspect even when not mentioned there is overtrust in AI here. As I mentioned in my original thread I think it's really important that lawyers are educated about the limitations of AI and sufficiently scared of hallucinations.
But this issue re: legal research AI tools is really concerning!
But this issue re: legal research AI tools is really concerning!
A lawyer in my social media comments is telling me that it's "cruel" to suggest that lawyers should be ethically accountable for mistakes introduced by AI because the weight of technology's flaws shouldn't be on burned out lawyers.
And like, all sympathy to junior associates, but also...
And like, all sympathy to junior associates, but also...
In a great piece of work @404media.co (via @jasonkoebler.bsky.social ) analyzed court records "where a lawyer offered a formal explanation or apology" for problematic AI use: www.404media.co/18-lawyers-c... There is more blame on overwork than lack of knowledge, though...
‘Completely shattered.’ Changes to NSF’s graduate student fellowship spur outcry
The announcement comes months later than usual, leaving many would-be applicants stranded
www.science.org
Not even so much about the change, but the *timing* of announcing was borderline cruel for:
(1) Students who assumed they were eligible and have already been preparing materials
(2) Students who assumed they could apply next year and have to scramble to apply now
www.science.org/content/arti...
(1) Students who assumed they were eligible and have already been preparing materials
(2) Students who assumed they could apply next year and have to scramble to apply now
www.science.org/content/arti...
An informal poll for fellow academics: What is an appropriate/typical range for numbers of papers to review on an annual basis? Either pure numbers or e.g. proportionate to the number of papers that you submit per year. I'm curious what folks' heuristics are for this.
I'm working on some new standup material, and I have this joke about how thanks to my sadistic constitutional law professor who used cold calling and the socratic method I know way too much about constitutional law, and now every day since January has been a bad day.