moin syed

Interesting. My session was unfortunately at the same time. I was interested to hear the quality of the arguments, but this suggests I didn't miss much...

Zotero always comes through.

2(Simine is not sure that she ever said this but agrees that it sounds like something she would have said; personal communication Dec 14, 2021)

I searched my zotero library for 'personal communication', because these tend to be interesting and can illustrate how science really works. I was not disappointed, the most recent one in my library was this from @syeducation.bsky.social. More of this! doi.org/10.36850/mr11

A conference session notice that reads, "CANCELLED: ChatGPT Ate My Study: AI and the Future of Data"

This is a bit too on the nose #SPSP2026

Great piece!

You all are so wrong about all of this that Bluesky stopped notifying me of your responses.

Thanks! And yeah, my post definitely covers a lot of similar ground as your article. As I tried to describe, I do think it is difficult, perhaps even futile, to make objective claims about utility due to how we differentially assign value to various aspects of research.

Thanks!!

Oh yeah, fully agree. There is certainly more at play than what I described!

😂

You liked that I cited you so much that you said it twice! Anyway, glad you liked it (beyond the citation).

This is a very useful post, in my opinion! I enjoyed the process of reading it, and the product of that will be me referencing it frequently in conversations and having it inform my thinking.

Let me explain why I like it...

1/5

Lots of you DO it, none of you LIKE it, despite what you claim....I learned in my psychology classes that self report is not reliable.

Do you really "like it" or are you perhaps just a prisoner to your antiquated ways?

Valuing the Process vs. the Product in Research On reasonable resistance to using GenAI in research

I cover similar ground in my nice, new, fresh, blog post. Hey, I even cite you! getsyeducated.substack.com/p/valuing-th...

Great post elaborating on how (not) to use AI (and technology) in scientific research!

A nice, level-headed post about the motivations and outcomes of using technology (including LLMs) in research that you care about.

Thanks, Moin -- A lot of my thinking about AI use is a jumbled, grumpy mess, so your process/product distinction is super clarifying. BTW I'm one of those references-by-hand sadists (it helps me better memorize specific publications for future offhand reference)

That you freely admit this is a true sign of our crumbling society. (regardless, I'm glad that you found the post useful!)

Interesting post!

Valuing the Process vs. the Product in Research On reasonable resistance to using GenAI in research

New post! "Valuing the Process vs. the Product in Research," in which I try to describe some of the tensions around using GenAI/LLMs in scientific research, and why it can be so difficult to have productive conversations on the topic. getsyeducated.substack.com/p/valuing-th...

‘Twas Hubris Led Me Here,’ Thinks Naked Woman Sitting On Public Toilet With Romper Around Her Ankles PROVIDENCE, RI—Realizing the depths of her mistake far too late, local woman Alicia Cohen quietly admitted to herself, “Twas hubris led me here,” as she sat naked on a public toilet with her romper ar...

theonion.com/twas-hubris-...

Submit it to PCI Psychology today! psych.peercommunityin.org

Screenshot of job ad for postdoc. Follow link for details.

T32 Postdoc position in developmental psychopathology at UMN Institute of Child Development! There are many excellent primary mentors available, as well as an even better set of secondary mentors to choose from (including me). See link for details, due April 1. drive.google.com/file/d/18SoO...

Indeed you are! I figured you were just having a bit of fun.

Everything you need to know to understand the situation is evident in Susan Fiske's 2016 APS Observer column. When you enjoy power and dominance, any changes to the rules that you did not initiate are seen as a threat. I use it, and Gelman's analysis, in nearly every class I teach.

They exist all around me. The US is a *very* different context re: attitudes towards data sharing (and any other open science practice) compared to NL and much of Europe.

If you want to recognize these bad faith actors, a clear giveaway is talking about Open Scientists or Metascientists as if they all think the same way, ignoring the huge diversity among people in this community. A paper that analyze this bad faith criticism: journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/...

Just had this exact experiences with a research group I was talking to. They were all taking principled stances against data sharing, but then one of them pointed out that the funder requires it and the conversation shifted.

i got you, emailing it now.