Post

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.