Moritz Kriegleder

awesome, will use that for a new draft on indeterminism in LLMs!

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!

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/

but I was asking for other approaches that use POMDPs

Mazviita chirimuuta in an interview on her book the brain abstracted outsidecolour.net/wp-content/u...

"The more important issue [...] is not that physics is more ‘mature’ but that it deals with inherently
simpler objects. [...] the brain and nervous system are exquisitely sensitive to surroundings – as they must be, for without this we could not perceive and respond to the world around us."

i love reading open peer review of papers. its like getting a deep dive into methodological issues in the format of academia gossip.

how is that connected to my question?

Closing the loop: how semantic closure enables open-ended evolution? Abstract. This study explores the evolutionary emergence of semantic closure—the self-referential mechanism through which symbols actively construct and in

Happy to share my new paper w/ @cgershen.bsky.social, just published at @royalsocietypublishing.org Interface!

Open Access🔓: royalsocietypublishing.org/rsif/article...

Instead of proposing a new theory, we offer a synthesis in theoretical biology. Want to know more? Read the full thread./1 👇🧵

super interesting stuff, you should discuss it with @yoginho.spore.social.ap.brid.gy !

you can check out the full comment and the target article here:
authors.elsevier.com/a/1mDV85bD-s...

new commentary on embodiment in information systems with Tom Froese! we discuss Pitti et al.'s framework to formalise the embodied mind with information theory and sketch a way to cover the complementary perspective of the lived body and subjective experience as well

i know a couple of people working on AI coding interview data. do you think this could help with the criticism of interviewer bias? i am bit afraid that this will just introduce unexplainable LLM bias

could point me to some intro to neuroanthropology? sounds interesting!

yes, the seizure studies also got me interested in the methods at first. I think its a good motivation and I don't think we should adapt it to neuroscience, but a methodological pluralism can only be productive when there is some cross-perspectival assessment.

I think a way to get them to move beyond simple questionnaires would be a clear example of how it could be useful to them. do you have any favorite studies that used micropheno that could convince them to do the work?

i am very interested in experimental phenomenological methods but i am not sure what it takes to convince neuroscientists to pick it up. most neuroscientists i talked to seem to be strong reductionists that stick to exclusively third person methods

yeah but since varelas proposal 30 years ago not many neuroscientists have picked them up

great intersection, a while ago I shared a plot of how interest in phenomenology soared over the last two decades. we finally need that convergence of neuro and pheno methods!

you had good intuition as well ;)

Map — State of Neuroscience 2025: Trends & Breakthroughs | The Transmitter A comprehensive look at major trends shaping the neuroscience landscape in 2025

from the amazing neuroscience database of @thetransmitter.bsky.social
stateofneuroscience.thetransmitter.org/map/

I started my PhD on the philosophy and neuroscience of consciousness in 2022. Even though people advised against it, I think it was good timing.

imagine there would be a way to experimentally study subjective qualities 🤔

important point! that criticism applies to a lot of neuroscience of consciousness, most of the theories are more bundles of untested hypotheses

oh awesome, I have enough caffeinated drinks to keep me awake so please ask a question!

its about integrating incompatible models in climate science and consciousness research in case you want something fun in the night!

giving a talk at 2 am my time at the @philsci.bsky.social around the world online conference. japan time is the best...

paper: sensitivity to visual features in inattentional blindness

new evidence for phenomenal consciousness just dropped!
very interesting study by Makaela Natker, @chazfirestone.bsky.social, Howard Egeth, @ianbphillips.bsky.social

amazing study! would you interpret your findings as evidence for conscious awareness without access?

not bad! what did you think of the questions?

test yourself here: cf-debate.com/quiz/