Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

@olivia.science

I wasn't going to post this rant as I'm kind of sick of this & because of this, but I'm also I guess exhausted facing this often alone at home: the sniggering at women academics who have opinions even from other women, although often non-academics, and mostly from men on the dimensions of our 1/n

Page 109 Another science is possible by Isabelle Stengers

Page 110 in https://hcommons.org/?get_group_doc=1003678/1700760973-AnotherScienceIsPossible_A-IsabelleStengers.pdf

November 5, 2025 at 7:56 AM

Olivia Guest · Ολίβια Γκεστ

@olivia.science

Love the gentle — let's call it — playful affectionate lifting of my phrases and whatever by my colleagues here: www.ru.nl/en/radboud-i...

Enhancement is better than replacement, I guess! At least they understood that. I'm touched.

Enhance rather than replace
Whether you are for or against, we believe it is essential to learn about the use of generative AI tools. So that you are aware of the limitations and risks and know how to use them strategically – and also know when it is better not to. In that way, AI can actually become a tool that stimulates and enhances your thought process and creativity, rather than replacing them.

November 4, 2025 at 6:44 PM

Olivia Guest · Ολίβια Γκεστ

@olivia.science

AI "is a thieving, hallucinating, biased, data-scraping, ecо-destroying, surveillance bot that will never be able to reconcile the receipts of its unethical origins."
—A Psalm for the Analog @melaniedusseau.bsky.social

LOOMING: drive.proton.me/urls/JE8JPJR...

www.law.georgetown.edu/privacy-tech...

November 2, 2025 at 4:32 PM

Olivia Guest · Ολίβια Γκεστ

@olivia.science

"UvA parades its high rankings[, while] AI has become the best-rated professor, and [tutorials can] easily be mistaken for a high school classroom. [However, we can] rise above the mire of mediocrity and live up to what we ultimately are: academics in the making."

1/2

While the University of Amsterdam parades its high position in international rankings, the reality is that generative AI has become the best-rated professor, and many tutorial groups could, in terms of atmosphere, easily be mistaken for a high school classroom. When we look at more specialized programs, this trend is—thankfully—less pronounced, mainly because they include many third-year (minor) students from the start. But in large, general studies like law, the level and the expectations of it are engaged in a poorly choreographed waltz.

If the UvA truly wants to take inclusivity seriously, it’s time to adjust its standards. Inclusivity doesn’t mean that everyone automatically gets a place, only to breed mediocrity—it means that everyone has the opportunity to earn a place, thereby maintaining high standards. The cause of this problem lies partly with the university itself (its low admission requirements), but also with society at large (our “diplomacracy” and false meritocracy). We live under the illusion that completing an academic degree is the ultimate proof of competence and the gateway to desirable positions. In reality, the difference between vocational training and academic study at the large humanities and social science faculties is barely visible anymore, and the diploma—the entry ticket—has become a greater goal than the pursuit of knowledge.

October 30, 2025 at 9:36 AM

Olivia Guest · Ολίβια Γκεστ

@olivia.science

Ah, that's also a typical Cartesian approach! We discuss it a lot here: dx.doi.org/10.1037/rev0...

This characterization of human-likeness is the case only in complex or
dubious ways (e.g., Leivada, Günther, & Dentella, 2024). Also, the concept
of deeper models being more human-like is consistent with the classical
dualist perspective: “The difference between machines and natural objects is
simply one of degree for Descartes[. M]achines are works of nature differing
from other natural objects only by degree of complexity” (Hattab, 2009,
p. 85). 3 As in other m

October 29, 2025 at 9:44 PM

Olivia Guest · Ολίβια Γκεστ

@olivia.science

Oooh, Hinton said bridge and biology...
dx.doi.org/10.1037/rev0...

Extract from . A metatheory of classical and modern connectionism. Psychological
Review. Advance online publication. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/rev0000591

October 29, 2025 at 9:26 PM

Olivia Guest · Ολίβια Γκεστ

@olivia.science

See this extract or the whole here doi.org/10.1037/rev0...

the claim that multiple layers are the way forwards, asking for
funding to develop such networks (Boden, 2006; McCorduck, 2004;
Olazaran, 1996). And this property of ANNs was only proven to be
the case by Ismailov (2023), so decades later, and for ANNs with
two hidden unit layers for approximating continuous and discon-
tinuous functions. Also,
models with several successive nonlinear layers of neurons date
back at least to the 1960s … and 1970s. [Additionally, a]n efficient
gradient descent method for teacher-based Supervised Learning
(SL) in discrete, differentiable networks of arbitrary depth called
backpropagation (BP) was developed in the 1960s and 1970s[.]
(Schmidhuber, 2015, p. 86)
So the retelling by connectionists (e.g. Kriegeskorte, 2015, and other
examples above) is not entirely faithful to what is found in the
literature, but does heavily figure in the narration patterns we describe
herein. For example, the addition of more layers being perceived as
pivotal even though such a property had preexisted ANNs falling
out of fashion (Schmidhuber, 2015).
Second and more importantly, these are n

October 29, 2025 at 9:03 PM

Olivia Guest · Ολίβια Γκεστ

@olivia.science

ah, not sure the name, but — and this is a tangent back to above — I characterise with doxastic logic the way that we are operating under right now with ANNs / LLMs / AI:

doi.org/10.1037/rev0...

Ancient Egyptians may well have possessed the knowledge of
concrete, but we cannot safely conclude this (solely) from the way
things look. Applying this analysis to M-connectionism, we get,
if ANN behaviors appear to be cognition, then they have human
capacities.
And since it is the case that ANNs display quite readily human(-like)
behaviors, modus ponens can be applied as above. Placed into
doxastic logic, we can express the calculus this way:OðSp′ Þ ∧ ℬðp′≡ pÞ ∧ OðMpÞ → ℬðMp′ Þ, (2)
where each symbol is as before; OðSp′ Þ is the observation that p′occurs in the system under study, ℬðp′≡ pÞ expresses that M-connectionists believe that p′, the phenomenon or capacity people do is the
same as p, the behavior of the model; OðMpÞ is the observation that
the ANN can perform p, recall Figure 2; and ℬðMp′ Þ is the belief thatM does do p′, which is what the neurocognitive system does. The
belief p′≡ p is (minimally tacitly, maximally opportunistically,

October 29, 2025 at 1:04 PM

Olivia Guest · Ολίβια Γκεστ

@olivia.science

"We were raised to believe over the decades that machines will outgrow us[, but] automatons are not consuming the globe brilliantly. They are not outsmarting us—they are overfitting on us."

Snehamol Joseph & Jeena Joseph (2025)
Digital decay: when AI eats its own homework doi.org/10.1007/s001...

Unless AI is kept in check, it will not only eat its own homework but it will also eat its legibility. We will lose the skill to distinguish a composition of a type of work, a deliberate work, against a hybrid work, a piece of work, an argument, fabricated out of past fragments. Audiences will be conditioned to believe that good enough is good enough, until even mediocrity will seem like plenty. Culture will be turned into monocropped and deprived of nutrients. The creative commons will be exhausted. And as is soil when it is overfarmed, once lost, it will not be easily recovered.

Let us not flatter ourselves. It is not that AI will soon surpass us in thinking, it is more likely that it will surpass us in boring. When we leave machines to eat their own homework we are not training a generation of geniuses but beige. The cry is straight: do not confuse abundance with richness, fluency with thought, content with creation. Surprise still matters. Originality is not luxury but lifeline. Unless we defend it, we will drown in competence without creation.

October 29, 2025 at 9:49 AM

Olivia Guest · Ολίβια Γκεστ

@olivia.science

yes, really messed up stuff, see thus by me and @irisvanrooij.bsky.social (2025). Critical Artificial Intelligence Literacy for Psychologists. doi.org/10.31234/osf...

and: bsky.app/profile/oliv...

7 Equivocation of Human-Human & Human-AI
AI products enact direct dehumanisation, intrinsic psychological harm to children, patients, and other vulnerable populations, resulting in grave consequences such as causing severe
mental illness, pushing people to suicide, recommending illegal drug use, and sanctioning murder (Abrams, 2025; Akingbola et al., 2024; Bellan, 2025; Bender, 2024; Borau, 2025; Broderick, 2025; Chen et al., 2023; Dang & Liu, 2025; Dupré, 2025;
Eichenberger et al., 2025; Horwitz, 2025; Huntington, 2025; Jargon & Kessler, 2025; Kaplan, 2024; Kim & McGill, 2025; Klee,
2025; Koike & Loughnan, 2021; Landymore, 2025; Laricheva et
al., 2024; Montgomery, 2024; Morrin et al., 2025; Neville, 2025;
Omar et al., 2025; Pejcha, 2023; Purtill, 2025; Rajkumar, 2025;
Reiley, 2025; Roose, 2024; Schoene & Canca, 2025; J. Taylor,
2025; Tiku, 2025a, 2025b; Warzel, 2025; Wei, 2025; Xiang, 2023).
ChatGPT doesn’t offer genuine emotional attunement. It cannot replicate the human connection
necessary for healing. More dangerously, it can delay access to professional help. People think they’re
improving, but often they’re not. (Shmais, 2025,
n.p. also Akingbola et al., 2024; Al-Sibai, 2025; L.
Clarke, 2025; Lebovitz et al., 2021; Turkle, 2015;
Turkle et al., 2006)
The focus here is the effect that confusing human-object with
human-human has if normalised for social psychological scientific practice (e.g. Goff et al., 2014; cf. Appelman, 2023; BBC
News, 2021; Grant and Hill, 2023; Hern, 2018; Neville, 2025).
Typical cases are when displacements happen in the relationship between client and therapist, student and teacher, patient
and doctor — and perhaps most shockingly between friends or
romantic partners — and when academics see these displacements as acceptable (Akingbola et al., 2024; Bender, 2024; Chen
et al., 2023; Dang & Liu, 2025; Kim & McGill, 2025; Koike &
Loughnan, 2021; Litwack, 2024; Oldfield, 2023; Vanman & Kappas, 2019). These are not social interactions. They …

All AI, and indeed any technology in mental or other healthcare settings requires “keeping users safe [and this in turn] requires substantial input from clinicians and careful planning to
reduce risk.” (Abrams, 2025) This is key because it is not possible to keep people safe without a highly qualified human-in-theloop (Amironesei et al., 2021; El-Mhamdi et al., 2022; T. Liu et
al., 2025; Salecha et al., 2024; Sharma et al., 2025; Weidinger et al.,
2022) and even then the risk of deskilling is present (e.g. Budzyń
et al., 2025; recall section 4: Outsourcing Programming to Companies). Relatedly, and taking the example of the therapist-client
relationship, dehumanising parallels encoded in expressions such
as: “the country needs all the quality therapists we can get —
be they human or bot” (Riddle, 2025) cannot become normal
in our scientific discussions. No therapist under proper ethical
functioning would cause their client to be addicted to their therapy (Huntington, 2025) nor would they, as in the Replika example (The Luddite, 2024), introduce a sexual relationship between
them and their client (Pettit, 2024b). Any such suggestions to
use a chatbot as a therapist would go against professional codes
of conduct and possibly the law (e.g. Abraham, 2002; American
Psychological Association, 2017; Belanger, 2025; British Psychological Society, 2021; Cole, 2025; Illinois Department of Financial
and Professional Regulation, 2025; Mental health Foundation,
2022).
Finally, as scientists we have to analyse situations carefully, so

October 28, 2025 at 7:45 AM

Olivia Guest · Ολίβια Γκεστ

@olivia.science

Release her! Don't be an ananasshole!🍍

Treeshrew trapped and forced to look at the ananas (pineapple) but she thirsts for its flesh. Let her go and give her the pineapple chunks. Also remove the neuropixels. And give her other fruit too.

October 27, 2025 at 8:00 PM

Olivia Guest · Ολίβια Γκεστ

@olivia.science

Massively glad to see initiatives like this, pushing back against the nonsense! You cannot displace participants with chatbots or other AI!

Read the post below and see more also here:
Critical Artificial Intelligence Literacy for Psychologists. doi.org/10.31234/osf...

Artificial Involvement? Why AI Does Not Replace Lived Experience in Psychosis Research.
By
stephanie.allan
October 27, 2025
We write as researchers who do lived experience work in psychosis. We are concerned about a recent article which proposes using large language models (LLMs) to provide Patient & Public Involvement (PPI) in areas such as grant proposals. The development appears designed to address longstanding concerns about difficulties in doing PPI work, such as a lack of time and capacity for researchers to do the work that successful PPI requires (Evans et al., 2025). While psychosis is not mentioned, PPI in psychosis faces a lot of the same issues, and this approach may appear tempting in the face of often challenging research infrastructure (Husain, 2025).

Beyond just giving opinions and feedback on research, PPI involves people with personal experience of mental illness bringing their lived experience, identity, and reflections about encounters with systems where they may have had difficult and frightening experiences of being disempowered. This contextualised knowledge, borne out of sometimes painful personal experiences, is important for researchers to understand when they want to do research which is acceptable to people with mental health problems and respects their rights. An LLM cannot be a person – it will not be able to contribute to research in a human way, which is the basis for our scepticism. For further concerns on the critical adoption of LLMs within research, please see (Guest et al., 2025)

Table 1 from Critical Artificial Intelligence Literacy for Psychologists. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/dkrgj_v1

section 3 from Critical Artificial Intelligence Literacy for Psychologists. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/dkrgj_v1

October 27, 2025 at 12:50 PM

Olivia Guest · Ολίβια Γκεστ

@olivia.science

Bathroom walls. Honestly breathtaking, but also very disturbing.

Bathroom with like seriously blue cabinets and sinks and actually brown carpet on the walls

October 26, 2025 at 3:01 PM

Olivia Guest · Ολίβια Γκεστ

@olivia.science

I'm down

Virgin American republican versus chad Irish republican

October 24, 2025 at 9:38 PM

Olivia Guest · Ολίβια Γκεστ

@olivia.science

Saw this the other day, and kind of made me sad because I realised it's not even generally"other people's" really, it's companies with very dubious everythings. ☹️

There is no cloud, just other people's computers.

October 24, 2025 at 8:38 PM

Olivia Guest · Ολίβια Γκεστ

@olivia.science

“The advice is ingrained with the optimism that this technology will only get better. It’s the same story the AI companies are telling: with more computers and more data, all will be fine. That’s bullshit. This is and will always be a statistical, associative machine.”

apache.be/2025/10/24/b...

Learn how to use it
Wim Vanrie: “You can only critically assess the output of an AI chatbot if you have the skills to do so, and you don’t develop these skills by using AI”
University guidelines on how to use AI as a student or teacher are invariably very positively formulated. “The advice is ingrained with the optimism that this technology will only get better. It’s the same story the AI companies are telling: with more computers and more data, all will be fine. That’s bullshit. This is and will always be a statistical, associative machine.”

“Guidelines now focus on early adoption of the technology by students and schoolchildren. But what does it mean to ‘learn how to use ChatGPT’? What are you teaching them? Copying and pasting the output of a chatbot? My advice would be to teach them how computers work, how to code, how to think about the processes behind all this”, says Steels.

Nicky Dries takes issue with the idea that AI use would prepare students for the labour market. “Are we just going along with the marketing pitch that AI will be inevitable in the workplace? Academic education has always implied a broader, intellectual education. You can’t view this tendency to prioritise education and research with an immediate economic purpose separately from the planned cuts in higher education by the current government.”

October 24, 2025 at 10:29 AM

Olivia Guest · Ολίβια Γκεστ

@olivia.science

Wim Vanrie: “This involves detailed reading of philosophical and moral science texts, recognising, analysing and forming arguments, seeing and expressing conceptual connections, etc. Generative AI is a shortcut that is detrimental to developing these skills.”

apache.be/2025/10/24/b...

The Department of Philosophy and Moral Sciences at Ghent University ultimately failed to introduce a limited ban on the use of generative AI. But why did they want to ban it in the first place? “Bachelor’s and master’s theses are meant to teach students certain skills”, says faculty member Wim Vanrie.

“This involves detailed reading of philosophical and moral science texts, recognising, analysing and forming arguments, seeing and expressing conceptual connections, etc. Generative AI is a shortcut that is detrimental to developing these skills.”

Ghent University, as well as the universities of Leuven, Brussels, and Antwerp encourage the “responsible use” of generative AI: the use under certain conditions. But Vanrie wonders what students need to be capable of such ‘responsible use’. “You can only critically assess the output of an AI chatbot if you have the skills to do so, and you don’t develop these skills by using AI. Before you can be critical of an AI summary, you have to learn to understand a text without having it summarized by an AI tool.”

Wim Vanrie
Wim Vanrie, assistant professor, Department of Philosophy and Moral Sciences, Ghent University.
“It’s our responsibility to teach students certain skills”, says Vanrie. “We must train them to become independent, critical thinkers. They can only become that by doing the hard work themselves, not by outsourcing it. Within the department, we are concerned about the detrimental effects on our students' development.”

October 24, 2025 at 10:26 AM

Olivia Guest · Ολίβια Γκεστ

@olivia.science

"It’s a belief eagerly embraced by the capitalist system, with venture capitalists at the forefront. If such a god can be created, and if you can gain a monopoly on it, then you not only have the prospect of great wealth, but also a great deal of power."

apache.be/2025/10/24/b...

“These systems will never be able to think and provide reliable information with the current approach to AI”, says Steels. And that current approach is focused on so-called large language models (LLMs). In short, such models are ‘trained’ via machine learning to place one word after another in the most credible way possible.

“Especially in the US, there’s a belief that we are dealing with a kind of god-like system”, says Steels. “A Judeo-Christian deity who supposedly knows everything, sees everything, understands all languages, can predict everything... And the people in Silicon Valley believe they can build this. It’s a belief eagerly embraced by the capitalist system, with venture capitalists at the forefront. If such a god can be created, and if you can gain a monopoly on it, then you not only have the prospect of great wealth, but also a great deal of power.”

Katrien Beuls, an AI researcher specialising in language technology, argues that the technology has shortcomings. “We know that, and that will never change. It is inherent to this technology.” Steels agrees: “The system is powerful, but it has fundamental limitations. ‘Hallucinations’ are part of the architecture of such a system.”

Those ‘hallucinations’ are outputs that make no sense, but American linguist and AI critic Emily M. Bender opposes the use of the term ‘hallucination’ because it is an all-too-human term for a non-human system. An LLM system generates plausible language that a human can interpret and understand, but it has no concept of ‘meaning’ or ‘accuracy’ of what it processes and generates.

October 24, 2025 at 10:22 AM

Olivia Guest · Ολίβια Γκεστ

@olivia.science

> Computing has always been a seesawing discipline. We had the AI winters of the 1970s and the 1990s, and we had the dot. com crash and the ensuing “Image Crisis.” It seems another crisis is upon us. Will we ever learn? It is time for some serious thinking!

cacm.acm.org/opinion/comp...

Computing Is Indeed a Discipline in Crisis
While Silicon Valley is investing tens of billions of dollars chasing the AGI dream, academic computing research in the U.S. is facing a severe drought.

By Moshe Y. Vardi
Posted Oct 14 2025

October 23, 2025 at 11:29 AM

Olivia Guest · Ολίβια Γκεστ

@olivia.science

Did you grow up with karagiozis shadow puppet long arm boyo? I feel we all need that rascal extended appendage energy sometimes to bonk people on the head as needed.

Greek, Turkish Shadow puppet karagiozis or Karagoz

October 22, 2025 at 9:45 PM

Olivia Guest · Ολίβια Γκεστ

@olivia.science

adorable hoof to leg ratio

A small pony with hooooooves and a horse behind

It behoves you to appreciate her blonde bangs too, she's a brown pony

October 22, 2025 at 4:17 PM

Olivia Guest · Ολίβια Γκεστ

@olivia.science

Sign our letter here: openletter.earth/open-letter-...

Read more here: www.nature.com/articles/d41...

See our work here: bsky.app/profile/oliv...

When students entered Tsinghua University in Beijing this year, one of the first representatives they met wasn’t a person. Admission letters to the prestigious institution came with an invitation code to an artificial-intelligence agent. The bot is designed to answer students’ questions about courses, clubs and life on campus.

The future of universities

At Ohio State University in Columbus, students this year will take compulsory AI classes as part of an initiative to ensure that all of them are ‘AI fluent’ by the time they graduate. And at the University of Sydney, Australia, students will take traditional, in-person tests to prove that they have learnt the required skills and not outsourced them to AI.

All this is part of a sea change sweeping through campuses as universities and students scramble to adapt to the use of generative AI tools such as ChatGPT. These tools can, within seconds, analyse complex information, answer questions and generate polished essays — some of the exact skills that universities have conventionally taught. Eighty-six per cent of university students were regularly using AI in their studies in 2024, according to one global survey1 — and some polls show even more. “We are seeing students become power users of these tools,” says Marc Watkins, a researcher who specializes in AI and education at the University of Mississippi in Oxford.

To some, AI presents an exciting opportunity to improve education and prepare students for a rapidly changing world. Universities such as Tsinghua and Ohio State are already weaving AI into their teaching — and some studies hint that AI-powered tools can help students to learn. A randomized controlled trial2 involving physics undergraduates at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, suggested that those who used a custom-built AI tutor learnt more in less time than did students who were taught by humans alone.

But many education specialists are deeply concerned about the explosion of AI on campus…

Olivia Guest, a computational cognitive scientist at Radboud University Nijmegen in the Netherlands, who led the writing of the June protest letter, says she has observed related problems with students in the past couple of years. “Their skills have dramatically changed,” she says: some struggle to reference a source or write an essay.

Students in focus groups are worried, too, says Attewell. “Students are aware of the fact that overuse of AI will lead to them not developing intellectually,” she says, and some say they are even dialling back their AI use as a result. That’s one reason for Jisc’s recommendation this year that universities should teach students responsible use of AI by embedding training in their courses. But Bellamkonda argues that the worries are overblown, and that using AI for some tasks can free up brain space for other useful things, just as using a calculator allows people to outsource some maths without major harm.

October 21, 2025 at 2:55 PM

Olivia Guest · Ολίβια Γκεστ

@olivia.science

We end on underlining that "their interests are maximizing profit and market power. The AI industry is no different, and educators should repudiate its false promises." www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/a...

Also big thanks to @marentierra.bsky.social and Barbara (not on bsky; sensible)!!!

5/n

To sustain the latest iteration of the AI con, the industry relies on anthropomorphic sleight of hand – claiming that models “think,” “reason,” and “learn” to suggest cognitive abilities they demonstrably lack and may never develop. This rhetorical trick not only exaggerates the products’ capabilities but also dehumanizes people by falsely humanizing machines, which is why many educators and students have begun to reject AI.
In response, the AI industry has lobbied government agencies to mandate the use of its products, claiming that without them, students will be unprepared for the job market. What is actually needed is the opposite: scholars with expertise in AI-related fields must have the freedom to critique these technologies, while those in other fields must be able to teach without interference by companies seeking to cash in.
Industry agendas – whether the industry is tobacco, petroleum, pharmaceuticals, or tech – rarely align with human welfare or disinterested research, especially when left unchecked and unregulated. Instead, their interests are maximizing profit and market power. The AI industry is no different, and educators should repudiate its false promises.

October 17, 2025 at 3:12 PM

Olivia Guest · Ολίβια Γκεστ

@olivia.science

Wow really a time travel journal! #academicsky

"The manuscript must be sent via messenger and writtten on high quality vellum. We do not accept parchment."

October 17, 2025 at 2:41 PM

Olivia Guest · Ολίβια Γκεστ

@olivia.science

Two, the conflicts of interest for modern connectionism practitioners and supporters need to start to be disclosed and dismantled: "halt the “anything goes” antiscientific dictum of industry funding; and become aware of what follows from our reasoning"

For more see: doi.org/10.1037/rev0...

11/n

Finally, connectionism, and cognitive science generally, can rid
ourselves of the hidden conflicts of interest inherent in taking
industry funding to build and use such models (Forbes & Guest,
2025; Gerdes, 2022; Liesenfeld & Dingemanse, 2024; Liesenfeld
et al., 2023). This is possible by requesting that we and our fellow
practitioners disclose such conflicts during and at the point
of publication. Relatedly, we need to acknowledge that such
relationships to industry effectively bend our metatheoretical
positions towards un-, or minimally a-, scientific reasoning that we
are under obligation to keep in check if not at bay (also see Andrews
et al., 2024; Bender et al., 2021; Birhane & Guest, 2021; Forbes &
Guest, 2025; Gerdes, 2022; Guest, 2024; Spanton & Guest, 2022).
Ultimately, it is up to us, theoreticians and modelers alike, to decide
on the fate of our own fields and on the basis on which we create,
understand, and reason about and over our models. Connectionism
can be perhaps be redeemed, but it requires us to: sacrifice
superficial understanding of what role models play and what they
constitute; halt the “anything goes” antiscientific dictum of industry
funding; and become aware of what follows from our reasoning
when we engage mechanistic and/or functional explanations; and if
done carelessly, we risk being incoherent or self-undermining.
Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory seems to be connectionists’ speciality, however the only difference may be that, this
time round the stakes are higher both for science specifically and
society at large.

October 17, 2025 at 1:43 PM

Light upyour news

Sign in to Lightnews

Sign up to start reading

Connect Bluesky

Connect with Bluesky

Light up
your news