Et voici une traduction en français de la lettre (merci à @anouch.bsky.social et à @sven.blacksky.app pour leurs relectures et suggestions, je suis pas très bon en français formel 😊). Signez signez signez ! 📝 aeporreca.org/blog/lettre-...
I think it was @mattwall.bsky.social who said, “if you can’t be bothered to write it, I can’t be bothered to read it”👏🏽
Responses demonstrate the problem of our times -- principles and integrity are meaningless once one buys into the industry narrative
Love this clear-headed idea for ERC — @erc.europa.eu please take note. Innovative work requires independent minds. A policy like this would send the signal that the funder values clear thinking over automated thoughtlessness, quality over quantity, earnest novel work over mediocre rehashings.
See also bsky.app/profile/alti...
This mkt slogan from big tech on how their shitty products help disabled people is opportunistic and wrong. If they care so much about people why are they exploiting workers in the Majority World?
link.springer.com/book/10.1007...
Advice for @erc.europa.eu :
Prohibit the use of LLMs for grant writing. Let applicants sign a declaration that they have not used such systems and that the text is written by them and them alone.
Are you sharing first with french speakers or France based academics or all of us? 🩵
Also I guess this fits the bill, but maybe you've seen it?
bsky.app/profile/oliv...
Also @shengokai.blacksky.app have you seen:
Pangrazio, L. (2026). The (im)possibility of AI literacy. Learning, Media and Technology, 51(1), 1–7. doi.org/10.1080/1743...
?
See this extract bsky.app/profile/dier...
I'm committed to supervising / examining only students not using generative AI for any component of their thesis- or dissertation-writing. I'm a critical scholar of AI (this is an area of expertise), and I don't consider synthetic text generation to be demonstrative of any intellectual capacity or rigour and I believe it stands in contradiction to the goals of a higher education.
www.queensu.ca/filmandmedia...
The struggle I’m now having is with students who have a ‘disclosure of AI use’ in their dissertations, permitted by their dept/institutions…
> We have been here before, both with entanglements of AI and statistics with industry corrupting our academic processes, and with so-called AI summers: hype cycles that pivot from funding booms to complete busts and cessation of research
"Of course, we have to teach our students about AI technologies. Teaching about AI technologies
should be just like how we teach ‘no smoking’ or the causal links between lung cancer and cigarette
smoke; yet, we do not teach students how to roll cigarettes and smoke them." - I love it.
Nee. Is a trap.
Inclusion-washing of harmful tech.
bsky.app/profile/iris...
Nee. Is a trap.
Inclusion-washing of harmful tech.
bsky.app/profile/iris...
Besides, plagiarism is a huge tell anyway because LLMs literally cannot help themselves, and the way they do it is quite particular as well.
if 'too many submissions' is a problem, this simple intervention would filter out the subset of applications least deserving of peer reviewer time & public money — after all, why should reviewers bother to read (and why would ERC bother to fund) stuff that applicants didn't bother to write?
Honesty, ingenuity, precision, and self-dignity are core principles in research from the development of ideas to their implementation. Write your fucking own grant!
“HONESTY implies that we do not secretly use AI technologies without disclosure, and that one does not make unfounded claims about the presumed capabilities of AI technologies.”
zenodo.org/records/1706...
27/🧵
the 'how' is literally specified in OP: prohibit it and let applicants sign a declaration that they haven't used it
what does it say about you (or your opinions of llm users) that your first worry is about enforcement? should we lower our standards just because dishonesty is possible?
There is no science without honesty. No preregistration method can guarantee it and all and every procedure can be tricked. So stop wasting our resources and time. Do your work, check your theory, your assumptions, your method and be honest. This is the only way forward.
the code is at least partially written by a llm
i was really happy to learn about harper but it now includes slop code. LanguageTool is still good, but I really wish they'd modernise their code base
I really like this one from 1985 too!
"The culture of AI is imperialist and seeks to expand the kingdom of the machine. The AI community is well organized and well funded, and [t]he U.S. Department of Defense is behind it all the way."
— Solomonides & Levidow
Used it here: bsky.app/profile/oliv...
As a predominantly inattentive ADHDer, the only way that an LLM could 'help' me write is with cognitive offloading, which is actually a lie, and one that I do not trust.
For grammar checking, there is a great open source alternative to Grammarly which is entirely non-LLM called Harper.
A machine might solve problems in logic, since logic and mathematics are much the same thing. In fact some measures to that end are on foot in my university's depart- ment of philosophy. If the machine typewrites its answers, the cry may rise that it has learned to write, when in fact it would be doing no more than telegraphic systems do already. Nor must we overlook the limitations of the machines. They need very intelligent staffs to feed them with the right problems, and they will attempt the insoluble and continue at it until the current is switched off. Their great advan- tage is their speed compared with a human mind, and I have given reasons for that. But, it may be asked, is that so very much more marvellous than the crane that can lift so much more than can a man or than an automobile that can move so much quicker ?
> If the machine typewrites its answers, the cry may rise that it has learned to write, when in fact it would be doing no more than telegraphic systems do already. [I]s [their computing speed more impressive] than the crane that can lift [more than a human] or [a car] that can move so much quicker?
Conclusion I conclude, therefore, that although electronic apparatus can probably paralll! some of tne simpler activities of nerve and spinal cord, for we can already see the parallelism between mechanical feed-backs and Sherringtonian integra- tion, and mayv \et assist us. in understanding better the transmission of the special senses, it still does not take us over the blank wall that confronts us when we come to explore thinking, the ultimate in mind. Nor do I believe that it will do so. I am quite sure that the extreme variety, flexibility, and complexity of nervous mechanisms are greatly underestimated by the physicists, who naturally omit everything unfavourable to a point of view. What I fear is that a great many airy theories will arise in the attempt to persuade us against our better judgment. We have had a hard task to dissuade man from reading qualities of human mind into animals. I see a new and greater danger threatening-that of anthropomorphizing the machine. When we hear it said that wireless valves think, we may despair of language. As well say that the cells in the spinal cord below a transverse lesion "think," a heresy thlat Marshall Hall destroyed 100 years ago. 1 venture
to predict that the day will never dawn when the graciouLs premises of the Royal Society have to be turned into garages to house [he new Fellows. I end-by ranging myself with the humanist Shakespeare rather than the mechanists, recalling Hamlet's lines: "What a piece of work is a man How noble in reason how infinite in faculty; in form, in moving, how express and admirable ! in action, how like an angel ! in apprehension, how like a god ! the beauty of the world ! the paragon of animals ! " In that conclusion, if not always in my approach to it, I feel confident that I should have won the approval of that bold experimenter and noble character in whose remembrance this oration was foLunded.
If a guy named Geoffrey Jefferson can figure this out in 1949...
"The mind of mechanical man." British Medical Journal
doi.org/10.1136/bmj....
