actually fearing for the moment when I notice this happening 🫣

Photo of the painting "Narcissus" by Caravaggio

maybe we need a new name for social scientists using "silicon samples", perhaps "mirror researchers"

calls into question what exactly they think 'research' is in the human sciences

all the perverse incentives of the contemporary research environment conspire to encourage the production of this kind of built-on-sand 'synthetic research'

Sensing Life: The Social Organisation of the Senses in Interaction This book showcases the critical contribution that scholarship in the field of social interaction can make to the study of the senses. Centred on an understanding of the senses as interactionally conf...

Out today! A great collection of studies of the organisation of the senses in interaction. Our chapter looks at visual and haptic aspect shifts in an orienteering race. Plenty of other settings and sensings to be found within!
#emca #interactionism #sociology

www.routledge.com/Sensing-Life...

it could have been so much worse though

I mean aren't IKEA instructions pretty much the Lego instructions of the furniture world?

beginning to wonder if we should start some kind of collective representation from ACM authors

ACM #chi2026 authors: ACM is doing slopcasts for your papers. Just because they don't offer an opt-out doesn't mean you shouldn't protest this surrender to wasteful mediocrity. Feel free to repurpose what I wrote about the slop 'summaries' codeberg.org/mdingemanse/...

>

Landing page for the AI-generated summary podcast for the "Identity, Culture, and Games for Social Impact" session at CHI. The top menu bar displays that this is the "Premium Edition" of the ACM digital library

Same landing page for the "basic edition" of the ACM digital library. The basic edition is free, but also offers no access to the AI-generated podcast summaries.

Not into the AI-generated podcast summaries of #chi2026 paper sessions – that authors *cannot* opt out of. But was thinking that perhaps this could make papers more accessible to the general public.

Turns out the AI-podcasts are only available to ACM premium members... wtf...

Just noticed this today. Why would I want people to listen to an unverified AI generated podcast (mis)representing my work? Why spend the time to write a paper if ACM encourages people to listen to an AI generated podcast instead? Is there any way to even contest the content if there is an error??

Do #CHI2026 authors that had an AI podcast made of their paper on the ACM Digital Library have any way to have it removed? Are they aware their work has been used in this way?

I was hoping for an imitation done by the CHI conference committee

and a follow-up question: exactly where are you in the pyramid, O #chi2026 researcher?

am I saying the CHI community is like a human pyramid? not sure, maybe

had to sit on my hands to avoid snarky posting about the hierarchy of #chi2026 here

there is even more here - there are separate machinic senses of 'interpret' (i.e., formal parsing) at play also - I quite like the fact that we can do this, however the distinctions (and that we can use the same words to mean different things) is a double edged sword for us (cf. AI grifters)

while I would be cautious about my use of 'deception' between cases there are definitely some resonances to explore

as you said elsewhere about 'engineering the prompter' there is a sense of self-deception, however I wonder how much of this is more 'post-hoc accounts of action' than 'the action'

this, filtered through ethnomethodology, would suggest that interpretation is just one amongst many kinds of activity - 'interpretation' in religious or spiritual practice is hence very different to 'interpretation' of machine outputs, however we could reasonably claim illustrative analogy only

well - I would take a Wittgensteinian / PI line: "Hence there is an inclination to say: every action according to the rule is an interpretation. But we ought to restrict the term 'interpretation' to the substitution of one expression of the rule for another." (§201, PI)

btw I think there are some issues regarding how we treat 'interpret' w.r.t. to the many difference senses it may have, and also seeing 'interpretation' as in itself a distinct activity set alongside various other ones

something you could consider is Lenny

telecom-paris.hal.science/hal-04680747v1

Lenny is a purposeful deception which eventually collapses and cannot be repaired

the concept of "human-in-the-loop" is based in misunderstanding

the Claude Code leak demonstrates that we are actually living in the Warhammer 40k universe and that software developers are Adeptus Mechanicus tech-priests praying to the Machine God

that's the one - thanks for sharing!

Gender attribution trouble in interaction about a gender ambiguous robot Gender attribution is related to the linguistic system of many languages, for instance in person reference. However, gender may also become relevant t…

related www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...

the position we came to in a recent paper on 'human-robot collaboration' was generally a) 'collaboration' and its many senses are legion and b) 'collaboration' can just be a gloss for avoiding the further description of practices for what they are

there was the start of a similar discussion with @edward-reynolds.bsky.social and I sidestepped out of it for reasons of tippy-tappy time but I think there is a useful EM discussion here on stuff like intention, ascription, and obviously some clever things about language

call me old fashioned but I don't think you should be claiming "human-AI collaboration" if you've never actually studied collaborative practices

sorry, by that I meant "this is a really interesting discussion but I don't have the fingers for it right now"

this is a long conversation that is not fit for bsky!