LightNews LightNews
banner
p-backup.bsky.social
@p-backup.bsky.social
7 followers 39 following 25 posts
Posts Replies Media Videos
Pinned
p-backup.bsky.social
p-backup.bsky.social @p-backup.bsky.social · May 11
ยังอยู่ตรงนี้ ยังไปไหนไม่ได้คับ
Reposted
bogbird.bsky.social
computer going to take my job? no. i’ll pour water on it
December 6, 2025 at 8:05 PM
Reposted
morgan666.bsky.social
This article asks, "whether this is open to abuse", but imo, the very existence and implementation of this tech *IS* abuse.

No matter how "restricted" it is. No matter how little an employer uses it.

This is a level of surveillance that is inherently abusive.
abeba.bsky.social Dr Abeba Birhane @abeba.bsky.social · 5d
microsoft promised to "empower every user" and google to "revolutionise knowledge and technological innovation" but in reality what they have given us is an invasive surveillance dystopian nightmare hard to escape

www.forbes.com/sites/zakdof...
Microsoft Teams Starts Telling Your Boss Where You Are—Now Just 8 Weeks Away
Microsoft confirms start date for new Teams update — no more hiding places.
www.forbes.com
December 6, 2025 at 7:36 PM
p-backup.bsky.social
อยากให้ศูนย์ทนายมีฟ้าใส
November 18, 2025 at 1:01 PM
p-backup.bsky.social
ตายแล้วเกิดใหม่ตจวประเทศไทยจะมีขนส่งสาธาที่มัน practical มั้ยวะ
p-backup.bsky.social p-backup.bsky.social @p-backup.bsky.social · 23d
จากระบบขนส่งสาธาที่ล่มสลาย + ขนส่งเอกชนที่เหี้ย และฝนที่ถล่มลงมา ชั้นเดินไป-กลับออฟฟิศสิริรวม 3+ km เร็วกว่าวันธรรมดาที่เรียกรถจากแพลตฟอร์ม แต่ทางเดินก็เสี่ยงรถชนตายกุจะบ้า ทำไมเทศบาลกับมหาลัยไม่ทำขนส่งดีๆ ให้มัน sync กัน ไม่ใช่วิ่งแต่เมนแคมปัสวะอีเปรต หน้าเหี้ย
November 18, 2025 at 12:33 PM
p-backup.bsky.social
จากระบบขนส่งสาธาที่ล่มสลาย + ขนส่งเอกชนที่เหี้ย และฝนที่ถล่มลงมา ชั้นเดินไป-กลับออฟฟิศสิริรวม 3+ km เร็วกว่าวันธรรมดาที่เรียกรถจากแพลตฟอร์ม แต่ทางเดินก็เสี่ยงรถชนตายกุจะบ้า ทำไมเทศบาลกับมหาลัยไม่ทำขนส่งดีๆ ให้มัน sync กัน ไม่ใช่วิ่งแต่เมนแคมปัสวะอีเปรต หน้าเหี้ย
November 18, 2025 at 12:31 PM
Reposted
risu.bsky.social
Learning loss was an ableist concept created by the same people now pumping ai into schools, and feeding student data into ATS systems to reduce their life chances.
It has allowed young people to be written off as damaged.
And as David says- we ignore the impact of a mass death/disabling event
lollardfish.bsky.social David M. Perry @lollardfish.bsky.social · 26d
Every time Covid and learning loss hits the news, people act like the only factor is folk staying home and learning online, rather than… Living through a global mass death event.
November 14, 2025 at 9:12 PM
Reposted
olivia.science
excellent personal journey and critique; thank you for sharing
kbruisch.bsky.social Katja Bruisch @kbruisch.bsky.social · Oct 30
We need a critique of AI in academic publishing. Following my decision not to sign an AI addendum to my contract with Cambridge University Press, I wrote this short essay which is now out in the Dublin Review of Books.
👇
drb.ie/move-over-fo...
Move over for AI - DRB
Katja Bruisch writes: I recently completed a scholarly monograph – an environmental, economic and energy history of peat in imperial and Soviet Russia. After years of thinking and writing, I approache...
drb.ie
October 30, 2025 at 11:59 AM
Reposted
olivia.science
"Our intention is not to stop scientific research, but to stop a genocide. A laboratory being disrupted for one day is incomparable to the devastation in Gaza. We sincerely hope that Radboud University [understands] the urgency of the situation and the need for action." www.voxweb.nl/en/activists...
Activists on the occupation of the Goudsmitpaviljoen: ‘We don't want to stop scientific research, but to stop genocide’ - Vox magazine
OPINION – According to 10 students from Nijmegen Student Encampment, last week’s media reports focused too much on the risks of the occupation of the Goudsmitpaviljoen. As a result, the real reason fo...
www.voxweb.nl
October 15, 2025 at 7:20 AM
p-backup.bsky.social
I'm 2-3 hours away from my beloved cat😭😭
October 11, 2025 at 12:17 AM
p-backup.bsky.social
เห็นคนแชร์เส้นทางวัย 30+ กันมากขึ้น แล้วใจฟูมาก เหี่ยวๆ กับการตามหาความมั่นคงในชีวิตซักพักละ ซึ่งสำหรับนี่ มันไม่มีจริงเลย ภายใต้ capitalism การเงินส่วนบุคคลชนชั้นกลางตอนปลาย ไม่มีคำว่ามั่นคง ยกเว้นขายวิญญาณ ขายสุขภาพกาย สุขภาพจิต ซึ่งกุตายก่อนได้ใช้เงินแน่ๆ ค่ะ
October 11, 2025 at 12:17 AM
p-backup.bsky.social
อยากได้ตุงลายเอนบี้ / แพนอะ รอวันเปิดขายไม่ไหว แต่เดือนนี้เดินทาง+ใช้เงินเกินโควต้า ไม่งั้นจะสั่งอาร์ตบุ้คมาด้วยละ
October 11, 2025 at 12:12 AM
Reposted
thaiforpalestine.bsky.social
[ประชาสัมพันธ์]

หนังสือภาพ "By the sea, under olive trees, we remain." รวมผลงานจากศิลปินชาวปาเลสไตน์และชาวไทย เปิดให้สั่งซื้อล่วงหน้าแล้ววันนี้ถึง 15 ตุลาคม

ขอขอบพระคุณศิลปินทุกท่านที่ร่วมวาดและเขียนเพื่อปาเลสไตน์ 🫒✊️

#ThailandStandsWithPalestine #ปาเลสไตน์

สั่งซื้อที่นี่ / Order here: forms.gle/GRNGkifMZDkg...
October 7, 2025 at 6:05 AM
Reposted
irisvanrooij.bsky.social
We used to speak of ‘sloppy science’ when there were QRPs. Now we have slop science 😔
olivia.science Olivia Guest · Ολίβια Γκεστ @olivia.science · Oct 4
New preprint 🌟 Psychology is core to cognitive science, and so it is vital we preserve it from harmful frames. @irisvanrooij.bsky.social & I use our psych and computer science expertise to analyse and craft:

Critical Artificial Intelligence Literacy for Psychologists. doi.org/10.31234/osf...

🧵 1/
Cover page of Guest, O., & van Rooij, I. (2025, October 4). Critical Artificial Intelligence Literacy for Psychologists. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/dkrgj_v1 Table 1 Guest, O., & van Rooij, I. (2025, October 4). Critical Artificial Intelligence Literacy for Psychologists. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/dkrgj_v1 Table 2 Guest, O., & van Rooij, I. (2025, October 4). Critical Artificial Intelligence Literacy for Psychologists. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/dkrgj_v1
October 10, 2025 at 11:12 PM
Reposted
irisvanrooij.bsky.social
AI “summaries” are not summaries but slop
October 10, 2025 at 11:10 PM
Reposted
olivia.science
Fourth, some strange ideas on theory, which would if taken to their logical conclusion result in the end of being able to work theoretically, something already under threat (section 6 doi.org/10.31234/osf... also see table 2). Declaring a conflict of interest has almost become meaningless.

8/
6 The End of Scientific Theory Marginalisation of scientific theorising in psychology has a long history, and is related to the medicalisation of psychology (Ellemers, 2013; Pettit, 2024b). This history allows a partial genealogy on why methodologies, such as from clinical trials, like preregistration, are imported to psychological science (Bakan, 1966). In fact, these methods are not scientific per se, but appropriate constraints for medical research which has important differences with basic science (cf. Calvert, 2006; Mayo-Wilson et al., 2025; Pielke Jr, 2012). Fundamental research in basic science (third row, Table 2) does not set out with a goal, such as to develop a medication or engineer a specific result (Devezer et al., 2021; Ellemers, 2013; Pham & Oh, 2021; Rubin & Donkin, 2024; Szollosi et al., 2020). In contrast, because experiments run by companies with the goal of delivering a medical product to market have a biased incentive structure (first row, Table 2), with significant conflicts of interest, clinical trials are regulated (Bhatt, 2010; European Union, 2022; Guest, 2024; Patel & Elkin, 2015; Rhee & Wilkinson, 2020; U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2024; Washington, 2006). Clinical trials, and furthermore preregistration thereof, were devised because otherwise there is an understandable and expected — maybe even required for good healthcare — cognitive bias to want to see patients recover, as well as in the present severe industry pressure to peddle pharmaceutical products for profit. These factors are not at play when there is no external interference or requirement for patient care, as in basic science. Nonproceduralised, substantive explorations are provably necessary for science (Rich et al., 2021; van Rooij et al., 2024b). The chaotic human preferences for going down rabbit holes and supporting ideas with evidence, formalism, and argument are the beauty of scholarly work (Guest, 2024). Herein our focus is on properly protecting our science, which aims to develop, discard, and evaluate theories: our explanations, descriptions, and understandings of the cognitive, neuroscientific, and psychological worlds. While conceptually these two types of psychological research — applied clinical science versus fundamental science — are by no means zero sum, it is the case that practitioners’ time is and therefore their skill sets can be. So when doing fundamental research we must exercise our academic freedoms to keep private interests at bay. This means that it is up to us to not only state conflicts of interest (Guest & Martin, 2025b; Guest, Suarez, et al., 2025; KNAW et al., 2018), but to think deeply about what it means to have a conflict in a time where industry hype along with universities promote and in fact coerce the use of AI products: from writing our peer reviews and proposals, performing our literary search and re… If theory constitution (seeing an AI product as embodying a theory) or formal or informal articulation (allowing an AI product to ‘write’ verbal and formal theories; cf. Guest & Martin, 2023; van Rooij & Guest, 2025) is permitted, then not only are companies expressing our scientific ideas for us, they control them (Guest, 2025; Guest, Suarez, et al., 2025). Science is under full corporate capture (third row, worse case, Table 2), no new independent, impartial, transparent, or publicly-owned and -funded knowledge production can happen. Open science ends, and in fact science itself is merely a shadow of its former self; with knowledge only released when it favours profit with no safeguards against it accurately matching the world. Everything is p-hacked, everything is HARKed, everything is double-dipped. Nothing is new, nothing is independently verifiable.
October 4, 2025 at 6:24 AM
Reposted
olivia.science
Third, the peculiar idea that somehow we don't need to read, write, or perform literature reviews anymore; popping up like a satanic mushroom in almost all so-called OK uses of LLMs.

Companies writing our papers via their chatbots is not scientific at all. See section 5: doi.org/10.31234/osf...

7/
table 1 extract from Guest, O., & van Rooij, I. (2025, October 4). Critical Artificial Intelligence Literacy for Psychologists. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/dkrgj_v1 5 Ghostwriter in the Machine A unique selling point of these systems is conversing and writing in a human-like way. This is imminently understandable, although wrong-headed, when one realises these are systems that essentially function as lossy2 content-addressable memory: when input is given, the output generated by the model is text that stochastically matches the input text. The reason text at the output looks novel is because by design the AI product performs an automated version of what is known as mosaic or patchwork plagiarism (Baždarić, 2013) — due to the nature of input masking and next token prediction, the output essentially uses similar words in similar orders to what it has been exposed to. This makes the automated flagging of plagiarism unlikely, which is also true when students or colleagues perform this type of copypaste and then thesaurus trick, and true when so-called AI plagiarism detectors falsely claim to detect AI-produced text (Edwards, 2023a). This aspect of LLM-based AI products can be seen as an automation of plagiarism and especially of the research paper mill (Guest, 2025; Guest, Suarez, et al., 2025; van Rooij, 2022): the “churn[ing] out [of] fake or poor-quality journal papers” (Sanderson, 2024; Committee on Publication Ethics, In addition, who is held accountable if nobody with intent authored the text? Because while the original data fed into the system is certainly written with goals, messages, and audiences in mind jumbling this into ad-libbed word salad removes authorial intent (Bender et al., 2021). So do the companies who own the chatbot own the text or do the original authors? These questions denote legal battles, which are being currently fought in the public eye and which affect all of us in all roles, not just as academics (Creamer, 2025; Knibbs, 2024; Reuters, 2025). Either way, even if the courts decide in the favour of companies, we should not allow these companies with vested interests to write our papers (Fisher et al., 2025), or to filter what we include in our papers. Because it is not the case that we only operate based on legal precedents, but also on our own ethical values and scientific integrity codes (ALLEA, 2023; KNAW et al., 2018), and we have a direct duty to protect, as with previous crises and in general, the literature from pollution. In other words, the same issues as in previous sections play out here, where essentially now every paper produced using chatbot output must declare a conflict of interest, since the output text can be biased in subtle or direct ways by the company who owns the bot (see Table 2). Seen in the right light — AI products understood as contentaddressable systems — we see that framing the user, the academic in this case, as the creator of the bot’s output is misplaced. The input does not cause the output in an authorial sense, much like input to a library search engine does not cause relevant articles and books to be written (Guest, 2025). The respective authors wrote those, not the search query!
October 4, 2025 at 6:16 AM
Reposted
olivia.science
Second, if we uncritically adopt AI in psychology, we outsource programming of our experiments to companies. This undoes a lot of open source: experiments are under industry capture, written without formal specifications. It deskills us: psychologists spent the last decade learning to code.

6/
4 Outsourcing Programming to Companies [Sanford’s mechanical vernier chronoscope] had two pendulums, one set longer than the other but both set at known lengths. When the stimulus appeared, the longer pendulum was released mechanically. When the participant pressed the key in response, the shorter pendulum was similarly released. By counting the number of swings it took the shorter pendulum to catch up with the longer, experimenters could use a mathematical formula to calculate the difference in time between the two events. (Evans, 2000, p. 322–323) A century later, all this is now done by programming computers to display stimuli, and collect and analyse data. The largely harmless and perhaps even beneficial (cf. Guest, 2025) transition to computational experimentation, where all instruments (e.g. EEG, fMRI, eye-tracking) are hooked up to the codebase for running experiments and the database for storing participant data, has been completed through: the adoption of programmes such as SPSS for statistics (Landau & Everitt, 2003) and E-Prime for presenting stimuli (Spapé et al., 2019); and training psychologists to use programming languages (e.g. R, Python; British Psychological Society, 2017; Peirce et al., 2022). The last part, from the mid 2010s onwards, where psychologists spent time and effort learning how to program is a massively laudable case of reskilling (N. D. Anderson, 2016; Guest & Forbes, 2024; Scherer et al., 2019) From the 2020s, however with the rise of the kinds of AI products we critique herein, this is under threat. If scientists accept the AI “snakeoil” and “con” (Bender & Hanna, 2025; Bjarnason, 2023; Narayanan & Kapoor, 2024) and use it to deskill themselves from learning proper programming, then code reproducibility and verifiability are lost causes; not just short-lived, dead on arrival (Becker et al., 2025a). If the code is for running experiments, strange side-effects will be present from so-called ‘vibe coding’ (Harkar, 2025), which is ‘programming’ using a chatbot such that nothing is checked or verified against software engineering principles and only the output being seen as acceptable under a small sample of conditions is evaluated. This means that because standards are ignored and best practises are violated the stimuli may be presented in the wrong order, participant data may not be properly or securely saved, and the code may be unmaintainable (Burgess, 2023, 2025; El-Mhamdi et al., 2022; Greshake et al., 2023; Ming, 2025; Tangermann, 2025). And the same is true for this non-engineered code in the case of analysing data, which will not only not be analysed, but open to all sorts of bugs. To add insult to injury, because the scientist is not practising programming or never learned how to code, all this will be outside their skill level and they will be unable to detect and fix these issues (Becker As Danielle Navarro (2015) says about shortcuts through using inappropriate technology, which chatbots are, we end up digging ourselves into “a very deep hole.” She goes on to explain: The business model here is to suck you in during your student days, and then leave you dependent on their tools when you go out into the real world. [...] And you can avoid it: if you make use of packages like R that are open source and free, you never get trapped having to pay exorbitant licensing fees. (pp. 37–38) These were and are the reasons to switch from e.g. SPSS, which is owned by IBM, to R or Python (Wills, 2019). The same and more hold for being locked in and addicted to AI products, which have closed or industry-controlled source code (Hao, 2025; Liesenfeld & Dingemanse, 2024; Liesenfeld et al., 2023; Maffulli, 2023; Maris, 2025; Mirowski, 2023; Solaiman, 2023) , and mislead us into overestimating our programming abilities (Lehmann et al., 2025)
October 4, 2025 at 6:07 AM
Reposted
olivia.science
Without Critical AI Literacy (CAIL) in psychology (doi.org/10.31234/osf...) we risk the following:

1️⃣ misunderstanding statistical models, thinking correlation is causation;

2️⃣ confusing statistical models and cognitive models, undermining theory;

3️⃣ going against stated open science norms.

4/
The three aforementioned related themes sketched out in this section, will play out in the AI-social psychology relationships we will examine — namely: a. misunderstanding of the statistical modelswhich constitute contemporary AI, leading to inter alia thinking that correlation implies causation (Guest, 2025; Guest & Martin, 2023, 2025a, 2025b; Guest, Scharfenberg, & van Rooij, 2025; Guest, Suarez, et al., 2025); b. confusion between statistical versus cognitive models when it comes to their completely non-overlapping roles when mediating between theory and observations (Guest & Martin, 2021; Morgan & Morrison, 1999; Morrison & Morgan, 1999; van Rooij & Baggio, 2021); c. anti-open science practices, such as closed source code, stolen and opaque collection and use of data, obfuscated conflicts of interest, lack of accountability for models’ architectures, i.e. statistical methods and input-output mappings are not well documented (Barlas et al., 2021; Birhane & McGann, 2024; Birhane et al., 2023; Crane, 2021; Gerdes, 2022; Guest & Martin, 2025b; Guest, Suarez, et al., 2025; Liesenfeld & Dingemanse, 2024; Liesenfeld et al., 2023; Mirowski, 2023; Ochigame, 2019; Thorne, 2009). Being able to detect and counteract all these three together comprises the bedrock of skills in research methods in a time when AI is used uncritically (see Table 1). The inverse: not noticing these are at play, or even promoting them, could be seen as engaging in questionable research practises (QRPs; Brooker & Allum, 2024; Neoh et al., 2023; Rubin, 2023). Therefore, in the context of critical AI literacy for social psychology, and indeed cognitive, neuro-, and psychological sciences in general, the three points above serve as totemic touchstones, as litmus tests for checking somebody’s literacy in AI (Guest, 2024; Guest & Martin, 2021, 2025a, 2025b; Guest, Scharfenberg, & van Rooij, 2025; Guest, Suarez, et al., 2025; Suarez et al., 2025; van Rooij & Baggio, 2021; van Rooij & Guest, 2025; van Rooij et al., 2024b). To wit, if somebody is able to minimally articulate these three related issues, how they manifest, and why they matter to our science, we can rest easy they know the basics of how to critically evaluate AI products in science.
October 4, 2025 at 5:51 AM
p-backup.bsky.social
Dear #Taehyung #V @BTS_twt

Pls don't consume or promote Dior or any companies that are financing the genocide in Palestine. 

We love you and want you to stand with humanity. Pls learn and pay heed to the @bdsmovement.bsky.social 🚨

#SpeakYourselfBTS
#HybeDivestFromZionism
October 5, 2025 at 1:08 AM
Reposted
olivia.science
OK, I started this related critical AI list too here: olivia.science/ai#allies with allies & resources — @jsanofranchini.bsky.social @annakornbluh.bsky.social @ehayot.bsky.social (let me know if I failed to tag anybody)

and importantly, feel free to contact me to add more! 🤍
allies & resources Here are some related academics' websites (feel free to contact me to add more): Refusing GenAI in Writing Studies: A Quickstart Guide, by Jennifer Sano-Franchini, Megan McIntyre, & Maggie Fernandes AGAINST AI, by Anna Kornbluh, Krista Muratore, & Eric Hayot
September 19, 2025 at 9:11 AM
p-backup.bsky.social
Dear #JIMIN @BTS_twt

Pls don't consume or promote Dior or any companies that are financing the genocide in Palestine. 

We love you and want you to stand with humanity and your Palestinian fans. Pls learn and pay heed to @bdsmovement.bsky.social 📍

#SpeakYourselfBTS
#HybeDivestFromZionism
October 1, 2025 at 2:40 PM
p-backup.bsky.social
เปิดการมองเห็น เพี้ยงง💜

Dear #JIMIN @BTS_twt

Pls don't consume or promote Dior or any companies that are financing the genocide in Palestine. We love you and want you to stand with humanity. Pls learn and pay heed to @BDSmovement 🕊️

#SpeakYourselfBTS
#HybeDivestFromZionism
October 1, 2025 at 2:05 PM
p-backup.bsky.social
Dear #JIMIN @BTS_twt

Pls don't consume or promote Dior or any companies that are financing the genocide in Palestine. 

We love you and want you to stand with humanity and your Palestinian fans💜 Pls learn and pay heed to the @bdsmovement.bsky.social

#SpeakYourselfBTS
#HybeDivestFromZionism
October 1, 2025 at 1:15 PM
p-backup.bsky.social
Dear #JIMIN @BTS_twt

Pls don't consume or promote Dior or any companies that are financing the genocide in Palestine. 

We love you and want you to stand with humanity. Pls learn and pay heed to the @bdsmovement.bsky.social 🤲🏻🚨

#SpeakYourselfBTS
#HybeDivestFromZionism
October 1, 2025 at 12:45 PM
p-backup.bsky.social
มีโอกาสที่พี่เขาจะเข้าโซเชียลยุน้า
October 1, 2025 at 12:25 PM