Rehab
LightNews LightNews
banner
hatoonrehab.bsky.social
Rehab
@hatoonrehab.bsky.social
120 followers 94 following 200 posts
Natural intelligence is what can defeat the A one.
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by Rehab
olivia.science
It means you don't know these skills at any depth and have decided to stunt your growth. Truly saddening! bsky.app/profile/oliv...
olivia.science Olivia Guest · Ολίβια Γκεστ @olivia.science · Oct 4
We end on an appeal to our fellow psychologists:

"To sit idly by while deskilling and displacing of [our]selves is normalised [...] serves [solely] the technology sector, which avoids criticism and self-reflection and prefers pseudoscience and misinformation."

10/
8 Do not Embrace AI In this paper, we unpacked why we think psychologists need to be on high alert — not just to avoid another replication crisis, but to avoid the total collapse of our science. What we signpost in Table 1 may have been novel to readers until this point, but the deeper problems are absolutely known. Also, as Crystal Steltenpohl et al. (2023, pp. 9–10) state: “Intentions alone are not enough to move science forward. Creating responsible, considered processes for rigorously transparent open science requires involving interested parties from a wide range of backgrounds, perspectives, research areas, and training paradigms.” Indeed, because many such warnings go unheeded — such as the need for a cultivation of shared values and especially the principles of impartiality of researchers and academic freedom from corporate influence — we find ourselves in polycrises that affect our universities, political systems, planet, and ultimately all humanity. “When historians of science look back on the 2010s in social and personality psychology, the decade will likely stand out as a period of exceptional doubt and self-scrutiny in the field.” (Schiavone & Vazire, 2023, p. 710) Why did we ever stop? Should we ever stop? Importantly, Hazel Rose Markus (2005, p. 180, emphasis added) explains that: “Social psychology is often defined as the study of how people respond to and are influenced by other people” Algorithms, chatbots, LLMs, machines, models, inanimate objects are not people — they are the products of people (Guest, 2024, 2025). And to paraphrase Rae Carlson (1984): What’s social about chatbots? Where’s the person in an LLM? We must sure up our subfields from the slow but certain corrosive power wielded by the harmful nonsense that is modern displacement AI. To sit idly by while deskilling and displacing of our students, participants, and selves is normalised — or worse still to profit from it — serves not science but the technology sector, which avoids criticism and self-reflection and prefers pseudoscience and misinformation.
November 2, 2025 at 5:59 PM
Reposted by Rehab
olivia.science
2. the strange but often repeated cultish mantra that we need to "embrace the future" — this is so bizarre given, e.g. how destructive industry forces have proven to be in science, from petroleum to tobacco to pharmaceutical companies.

(Section 3.2 here doi.org/10.5281/zeno...)
4/n
3.2 We do not have to ‘embrace the future’ & we can turn back the tide It must be the sheer magnitude of [artificial neural networks’] incompetence that makes them so popular. Jerry A. Fodor (2000, p. 47) Related to the rejection of expertise is the rejection of imagining a better future and the rejection of self-determination free from industry forces (Hajer and Oomen 2025; Stengers 2018; van Rossum 2025). Not only AI enthusiasts, but even some scholars whose expertise concentrates on identifying and critically interrogating ideologies and sociotechnical relationships — such as historians and gender scholars — unfortunately fall prey to the teleological belief that AI is an unstoppable force. They embrace it because alternative responses seem too difficult, incompatible with industry developments, or non-existent. Instead of falling for this, we should “refuse [AI] adoption in schools and colleges, and reject the narrative of its inevitability.” (Reynoldson et al. 2025, n.p., also Benjamin 2016; Campolo and Crawford 2020; CDH Team and Ruddick 2025; Garcia et al. 2022; Kelly et al. 2025; Lysen and Wyatt 2024; Sano-Franchini et al. 2024; Stengers 2018). Such rejection is possible and has historical precedent, to name just a few successful examples: Amsterdammers kicked out cars, rejecting that cycling through the Dutch capital should be deadly. Organised workers died for the eight-hour workday, the weekend and other workers’ rights, and governments banned chlorofluorocarbons from fridges to mitigate ozone depletion in the atmosphere. And we know that even the tide itself famously turns back. People can undo things; and we will (cf. Albanese 2025; Boztas 2025; Kohnstamm Instituut 2025; van Laarhoven and van Vugt 2025). Besides, there will be no future to embrace if we deskill our students and selves, and allow the technology industry’s immense contributions to climate crisis
September 6, 2025 at 8:24 AM
Reposted by Rehab
olivia.science
I've collected them all here if useful olivia.science/ai#blogs cc @irisvanrooij.bsky.social
Critical AI
On this page are some resources for Critical AI Literacy (CAIL) from my perspective.
olivia.science
November 2, 2025 at 10:00 AM
Reposted by Rehab
jeppsson.bsky.social
THIS.
People say just using it for stuff like writing abstracts is a great time saver, but if your paper is well structured, writing an abstract is very quick work. If you get stuck at the abstract, this might hint at deeper problems you should SOLVE, even if it's hard.
November 2, 2025 at 7:20 AM