Vilgot Huhn

There’s a lot of bad things to say about mental health/illness discourse online nowadays but personally I still remember it as somehow worse when I was younger. Like I haven’t seen extended debates on ”is everyone actually faking it?” in a long time.

On the other hand, in some other contexts I’ve found the search results it comes up with to be kind of blasé or off (at least when I’ve tested it for researching).

My got o example to generate LLM hallucinations used to be to ask them about somewhat obscure graphic novels, but trying it now I found Claude is able to see if it such information exists in the training data and go into search mode instead. An interesting development imo.

I can often be a bit skeptical about solutions that aren't that, because I also want to understand things well enough to critically evaluate the literature. Although perhaps that's just an excuse for me to do the nerdy things I enjoy.

For me personally, right now, I feel like the challenges in my own research are difficult for me to address except by just "learn more stuff". Zone of proximal development. Figure out who does it well and try to understand why that was well done.

Sage Journals: Discover world-class research Subscription and open access journals from Sage, the world's leading independent academic publisher.

I definitely agree with the framing of the problem which Dr Rohrer (and friends) has also written about in this article. The "taboo" against causal inference combined with people actually being interested in causal questions has led to strange, confusing, contradictory norms.

Lots of food for thought in this talk, though in hindsight I realize it was directed at people more expert in causal inference than me. I'm far away from a position to provide resources/commentary/tutorials/templates. On the other hand I feel inspired to try my best to be a positive example.

>pay 100 million dollars for stolen french crown jewels.
>try them on
>feel like a king haha
>look in the mirror
>cringe
>hide them in the back of the closet forever

On the other hand I have gotten terrible AI anime waifus in my Discover feed, by japanese accounts that none the people I follow seem to follow, the post themselves not liked by anyone I follow, so no doubt there’s some black box weirdness going on.

Stealing crown jewels from The Louvre has great romantic heist energy and joie de vivre, but like what do you do after? who’s the buyer for that sort of stuff?

We had the exact same thing with our neighbor growing up! and it was just as wasted on me because I didn’t like mushrooms back then

D:

I consider generating AI images/video/voices of the (recently) dead to be a form of corpse desecration, unless the deceased explicitly asked for it.

Off topic but I once had exactly this debate, with me on Kevin's side and my friend on Aylwyn's side, except we were (are) both way dumber and way less informed. Interesting to read how the debate could sounded if we had known more stuff.

Very ominous dag. Unclear figure but imo risk of collider bias dissolving ATF causing Third Impact?
2/10, would not estimate.

lying around. But they don't need that rhetorical power to win. Instead they seem fully able to win on "the marketplace of ideas" using conspiratorial moon-logic, is my point.

I definitely worry about open science arguments being misappropriated to destroy rather than improve science, and I have seen that attempted by some "thought-leaders". But mainly I feel like it's all pretty unrelated. Some of the anti-science folks may pick up those arguments since they're //

Sometimes it's not about you. You're a side character. Your death works well for the advancement of the plot.

But this is trying to understand the outcome of a war without any reference to the agency and capacities of the aggressor! I think it's natural of course to think about "what could we have done better", but that thinking can also be distorted by an egocentric bias.

The implicit model which says "academia did too many p-hackings and now the laypeople don't trust us anymore" is way worse than "doing anti-scientific populism that prays on people's fears and frustrations works well electorally".

I've seen many people talk about the loss of trust in "experts" as being (simply/mainly/only) the fault of the experts. But like the US HHS deciding to claim "tylenol causes autism" seems completely unrelated to the real failures of academia.

I'm taking a course on open science right now, which is very fun and inspiring, but there has been a jarring contrast between the well intentioned intra-academia discussions on how to best improve science during the day and doomscrolling about measles being back during the evening.

I feel like "replicated across cultures" is a bit of an awkward phrase for observational data (for example "those high in neuroticism sleep worse, also in Japan"), but I've seen it a few times. Is there a word as snappy as "replicated" for like "re-observed"?

I generally don’t know what to make of the AI field but I definitely find the technology, especially image and video generation, very surprising. If someone where to describe the technical details beforehand and ask me guess whether it would work I would have said ”no way”.

Notably this problem is also solved 100% without any AI and instead, at zero cost, by journals adopting format-agnostic initial submissions (as many journals have already done)

My friend @mkgood.bsky.social did so in the supplemental materials for one of his papers. That was the last time I saw it.

You know I think you should have the decency to be a bit uncomfortable with the moral conundrums we face in life, that’s all.

What do you mean?

Though to be a bit more humble I guess that reaction is itself "not engaging deeply in the literature".

We sometimes complain about the lack of ambitious theory building but on the other hand when I come across it I often get a feeling that the authors are moving too fast, not deeply engaging in the nuances of the literature, prematurely leaping ahead.