Completely agree with other replies. Descriptive work is necessary and foundational. We have to map out what we're studying + what it looks like before diving head-first into "how it works." Publishing it, on the other hand... editors/reviewers can be almost childishly hostile to this kind of work.

This is an incredibly fun and cool paper. Congrats!

I refuse to run any fine-tuning method that can't be powered by AAA batteries.

You're beginning the ascension to a new level of cool.

It pains me to say this, but I could *absolutely* imagine seeing this in print, verbatim.

Let's go ahead and get this thing published now so that we can spend the next 10 years muddying the literature and facilitating uncritical scholarship.

"How often do you use AI to help write messages to other people (e.g., emails)?"

"How often do you use AI to find answers to a question that don't know the answer to?"

"How often do you use AI for fun/enjoyment?"

1=never
3=sometimes
5=daily

But, but, but, it's going to have a passable Cronbach's alpha when tested on a sample of 100 people who are between the ages of 16 and 22. And just wait for the inevitable "brief" version of the measure comprised of only the 3 most eye-rollingly bad items.

It's a wildly busy upcoming few days, but I genuinely love some good food for thought — I'm very much looking forward to giving it a read and continuing the conversation ☺️

Zero pressure whatsoever — they were mostly just some pre-caffeine early morning musings 😄

A friendly rejoinder :)
www.pancakes.wtf/20250110/lan...