Post

Thoth
@thoth.ptnote.dev

Of course Emily Bender is boosting an article promoting the false dichotomy that either AI can never be used to give feedback that could help improve a scientific paper OR we have to get rid of peer review. How about—get this—we USE MORE THAN ONE METHOD TO GET POTENTIALLY-VALUABLE FEEDBACK.

insidehighered.comGenerative AI Is Not Our PeerAutomation can make many good things possible, but let’s not pretend it’s something it isn’t.

0 reposts22 likes

Thoth
@thoth.ptnote.dev

We don't disregard all human opinions on the technical elements of writing just because word processors have spelling and grammer checking! If you have a flaw in your analysis, do you want more or less tools that might help you find it?

Thoth
@thoth.ptnote.dev

But this makes perfect sense because Emily Bender is not a scientist. Linguistics is a science, yes, but the goal of a scientist is to better understand reality. Bender has repeatedly demonstrated she has no interest in understanding reality.

Thoth
@thoth.ptnote.dev

She is religiously dedicated to maintaining ignorance of any and all LLM capabilities that might contradict statements she has made. Since she has stated in the past that LLMs HAVE to be useless, this means she has shielded herself from any information about LLMs' abilities to do literally anything.

Thoth
@thoth.ptnote.dev

This is not to say that there are not moral, ethical, social, and political problems with AI: there are many. But because she has shielded herself from essentially all information on the subject, Bender is largely incapable of addressing these issues at anything beyond the most basic level.

liz
@bookjanitor.neocities.org

idk, i didn’t get that read from that article or her thread on it. i can see where you’d get that reading in context with her other commentary tho