iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Reposted by Iris van Rooij 💭

Abstract Tesseract @abstracttesseract.bsky.social · 24/10/2025

More and more I feel like I need to end these conversations by saying "it sounds like you've made up your mind to rationalize your choices despite knowing what the harms are, and that's very unfortunate because I thought you had better judgement than that"

02112

Reposted by Iris van Rooij 💭

Olivia Guest · Ολίβια Γκεστ @olivia.science · 21/10/2025

Sometimes I feel the discussion on AI use devolves into: A: I'm allowed to use copy-paste! You use it all the time, right? B: I don't use it to plagiarise, reproduce sexism, or pollute the environment. A: OK, but it's useful & fast for me! And um, that's really degraded thinking on A's part.

27312

Reposted by Iris van Rooij 💭

Olivia Guest · Ολίβια Γκεστ @olivia.science · 1h

That's why regulation is so good. If you do it okayly enough it works. AI and other regulation can work too if we preserve. > the passing of the Children Act 1989 caused most British schools to ban the practice and it is now obsolete in Britain.

2174

Reposted by Iris van Rooij 💭

Dr Keith Wilson 💭 @keithwilson.eu · 3h

There are no responsible uses of AI in evaluating research funding applications. Just calling it ‘responsible’ doesn’t make it so. #EthicsWashing #GenAI

0337

Reposted by Iris van Rooij 💭

Iris van Rooij 💭 @irisvanrooij.bsky.social · 10h

Also, in light of all of the above considerations and resources, I again present my below advice to the @erc.europa.eu, in line with the principles of scientific integrity mu.social/profile/iris...

1144

Reposted by Iris van Rooij 💭

Iris van Rooij 💭 @irisvanrooij.bsky.social · 11h

See, e.g., Section 4 in our position paper for an overview of how the principles can be applied to 'AI': 📝 @olivia.science , @marentierra.bsky.social et al. (2026). Against the Uncritical Adoption of 'AI' Technologies in Academia. Digital Culture & Education, 16(2), 85–118. doi.org/10.5281/zeno...

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 (this also follows
from Responsibility; see example from MIT Economics 2025, where perhaps too little too late was
done).

Scrupulousness demands, among other things, that scientists only use AI products whose functional-
ity is well-specified and validated for its specific scientific usage (cf. Kwisthout 2024; Kwisthout and
Renooij 2025). This includes terminological precision about what formalisms, models, and/or tech-
nologies are used (recall Figure 1) and rigorous argumentation to motivate why these technologies
are appropriate for the scientific purposes at hand.
Transparency requires that the AI technologies are open source and computationally reproducible.
Here we must recall the technology industry’s obfuscatory tactics: “the name of the current
producer of ChatGPT. ‘OpenAI’ sounds like it is engaged in open science, but as we have now
seen, ‘open’ never really means what you think it does.” (Mirowski 2023, p. 738; see also Dingemanse
2025; Hao 2025; Jackson 2024; Liesenfeld and Dingemanse 2024; Liesenfeld, Lopez, et al. 2023;
Maffulli 2023; Maris 2025; Nolan 2025; Solaiman 2023; Thorne 2009; Widder et al. 2024)
Independence means that scientists ensure that their research is unbiased by AI companies’ agendas,
and that any potential conflicts of interest are declared in publications and other public communi-
cations (this also follows from Honesty and Transparency; cf. Mohamed Abdalla and Moustafa
Abdalla 2021; Atkin 2025; Forbes and Guest 2025; Knoester et al. 2025).
Responsibility precludes scientists from using AI products whose use is irresponsible, e.g. harmful to
people, animals, and the environment, or otherwise in violation of legal guidelines (e.g. copyright,
data privacy, labour laws, Butterick 2025; Cole 2025; Rijo 2025; Tafani 2024a). Minimizing harm is
vital for both engin…

1253

Reposted by Iris van Rooij 💭

Antonio E. Porreca 🐳 @aeporreca.org · 13h

Anything about AI coming from the USA or UK is terrible, but in the EU we also suck!

273

Reposted by Iris van Rooij 💭

RadiantHostility (he/him) @radianthostility.bsky.social · 7h

We agreed a long time ago that plagiarism and falsifying results are bad nothing has changed.

042

Reposted by Iris van Rooij 💭

Iris van Rooij 💭 @irisvanrooij.bsky.social · 19/04/2026

I will in any case not be reviewing applications unless they are LLM-free texts bsky.app/profile/iris...

4548

Reposted by Iris van Rooij 💭

Iris van Rooij 💭 @irisvanrooij.bsky.social · 10h

"we show that contemporary AI can comprise research misconduct and demonstrate how critical literacy can protect us from this." -- @olivia.science & @irisvanrooij.bsky.social 📝 Guest, O. & van Rooij, I. (2025). Critical Artificial Intelligence Literacy for Psychologists. doi.org/10.31234/osf...

Table 1
Core reasoning issues (first column), which we name after the relevant numbered section, are characterised using a plausible quote. In the
second column are responses per row; also see the named section for further reading, context, and explanations.

110

Reposted by Iris van Rooij 💭

Iris van Rooij 💭 @irisvanrooij.bsky.social · 10h

When we center values, it is crucial to avoid 'critical washing', which comes in many different guises. mu.social/profile/iris...

1111

Reposted by Iris van Rooij 💭

Iris van Rooij 💭 @irisvanrooij.bsky.social · 11h

Dear @erc.europa.eu , we DO already have common standards & frameworks. 'AI' likes to pose itself as 'special' but we do not need to reinvent the wheel. We already have established codes of conduct for research integrity. We just need to apply them. See below + more resources in thread🧵

Protecting the Ecosystem of Human Knowledge: Five Principles
We must protect and cultivate the ecosystem of human knowledge. AI models can mimic
the appearance of scholarly work, but they are (by construction) unconcerned with truth
— the result is a torrential outpouring of unchecked but convincing-sounding “informa-
tion”. At best, such output is accidentally true, but generally citationless, divorced from
human reasoning and the web of scholarship that it steals from. At worst, it is confidently
wrong. Both outcomes are dangerous to the ecosystem.
Olivia Guest, Iris van Rooij, Marcela Suarez, et al. (2025, n.p.)
Knowledge production is supposed to be safeguarded by (inter)national codes of conduct for research
integrity (ALLEA 2023; KNAW et al. 2018). Such codes forbid, for instance, fabrication of data,
falsification of results, plagiarism, and, generally, distortion of the scientific record. Many argue that
new rules are required to regulate academic AI use, but pre-existing guidelines fit the bill (cf. Tafani

214559

Reposted by Iris van Rooij 💭

Olivia Guest · Ολίβια Γκεστ @olivia.science · 3h

Thanks to @mads100tist.bsky.social for showing the original thread to me. It's really disappointing the EU might go the way of UKRI.

161

Reposted by Iris van Rooij 💭

MadScientist @mads100tist.bsky.social · 13h

Well, there it is. The EU is also going to use slop algorithms to put an artificial number on proposals. This is how we lose. This is a disaster 🧪

42910

Reposted by Iris van Rooij 💭

paveltomancak.bsky.social @paveltomancak.bsky.social · 12h

No true scientist will outsource the fun of the creative process to a machine. We must focus on finding and eradicating the science operators who will stop at nothing to get more recognition & power. The impostors can be identified. We need to rely more on the good old human interactions.

4439

Reposted by Iris van Rooij 💭

Hannah Vardit @hannahvardit.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

i worry that men think being A Good Guy is dramatically and heroically intervening on behalf of an endangered woman and then being publicly rewarded on a grand scale when actually being A Good Guy is just usually saying, “hey man that’s not funny” or “wow that’s fucked up” and there is no reward

11119803301

Reposted by Iris van Rooij 💭

Olivia Guest · Ολίβια Γκεστ @olivia.science · 13h

> Capitalist elites hate workers and despise worker expertise. [I] have decades of experience, sitting in rooms with (mostly) men who [...] hated that a wage servant possessed technical expertise they needed, but were too lazy, arrogant or stupid to grasp. — @cloudquistador.eurosky.social

monroelab.com

The Tech Industry: An Autopsy

The tech Industry, and the fields that grew from it, are dead. The Industry, which, as Yasha Levine details in his book, ‘Surveillance Valley’, was always a tool of oppression, and never &#82…

58737

Reposted by Iris van Rooij 💭

Olivia Guest · Ολίβια Γκεστ @olivia.science · 18/09/2026

This is such an important point: > AI boomers vs. doomers: A false dichotomy It's exhausting within academia too with people who claim that the technology has good purposes we're ignoring, when everybody sensible knows so-called desirable properties are a function of the labour and days theft.

110522

Reposted by Iris van Rooij 💭

Adolfo Neto @adolfoneto.elixiremfoco.com · 10h

Listen to Iris

1136

Reposted by Iris van Rooij 💭

Ajuna Soerjadi 🌸 @ethicsofai.bsky.social · 11/07/2026

There is no way to use ChatGPT responsibly.

10357107

Reposted by Iris van Rooij 💭

Wil Weston @wilweston.bsky.social · 10h

Yep. 🎯 This… all this! Sure, the magical cheating technology is nifty, I suppose, but you’re still just doing plain ole old timey cheating if you don’t show your work, plagiarize, or make up data — even when your pet robot does it for you.

0228

Iris van Rooij 💭 @irisvanrooij.bsky.social · 11h

214559

Reposted by Iris van Rooij 💭

Thiago @csthiago.bsky.social · 26/09/2026

📝 Signed! Please sign if you can as well!

011

Reposted by Iris van Rooij 💭

Olivia Guest · Ολίβια Γκεστ @olivia.science · 26/09/2026

Please sign if you can! OPEN LETTER: PAUSE THE NATIONAL ROLLOUT OF AI-MEDIATED TUTORING IN ENGLAND'S SCHOOLS > Children should not be exposed to a technology whose future, effectiveness, and safety we cannot predict, and for which the evidence is mostly negative.

docs.google.com

OPEN LETTER: PAUSE THE NATIONAL ROLLOUT OF AI-MEDIATED TUTORING IN ENGLAND'S SCHOOLS

OPEN LETTER To the Rt Hon Andy Burnham MP, Prime Minister, and the Rt Hon Lucy Powell MP, Secretary of State for Education The Department for Education has announced plans to develop, what it calls, “...

39564

Reposted by Iris van Rooij 💭

Esther Mondragón @e-mondragon.bsky.social · 16h

Done! Please consider signing this petition. It is important. It is the future for many.

051

Reposted by Iris van Rooij 💭

zeno @egrettt.bsky.social · 16h

"Unrestricted use can encourage cognitive off-loading and over-reliance, weakening the cognitive work through which independent thinking develops and leaving students less able to perform when the technology is removed. AI-mediated tutors can impair conceptual understanding..."

132

Iris van Rooij 💭 @irisvanrooij.bsky.social · 28/09/2026

So proud of this and fond memories of Olivia and me cooking these 'function' ideas 👩‍🍳✨

282

Reposted by Iris van Rooij 💭

Esther Mondragón @e-mondragon.bsky.social · 28/09/2026

Surerly worth reading, not asking for a machine summary, you fools!

183

Reposted by Iris van Rooij 💭

Olivia Guest · Ολίβια Γκεστ @olivia.science · 28/09/2026

Especially women being misogynist! Have some solidarity. Stop with the patriarchal compromises.

0162

Reposted by Iris van Rooij 💭

Olivia Guest · Ολίβια Γκεστ @olivia.science · 28/09/2026

The frequency of this being the case is also bloody nightmare inducing. Please treat others and their labour like you want yourself and yours to be treated.

1318

Reposted by Iris van Rooij 💭

Iris van Rooij 💭 @irisvanrooij.bsky.social · 06/01/2026

We present a typology of traps to avoid: 1. Believing that AI systems are minds 2. Believing that AI systems are theories 3. Believing that cognitive science can be automated. Learn to recognise and avoid these traps. Failure to avoid leads to numerous problems. 3/🧵

Table 1: Typology of traps, what goes wrong if not avoided, and how the traps can be avoided. Note that all traps in a sense constitute category errors (Ryle & Tanney, 2009) and the success-to-truth inference (Guest & Martin, 2023) is an important driver in most, if not all, of the traps.

928683

Reposted by Iris van Rooij 💭

Iris van Rooij 💭 @irisvanrooij.bsky.social · 28/09/2026

Sometimes 'reclaiming' is not ceding ground that need not be ceded.

1345

Reposted by Iris van Rooij 💭

Olivia Guest · Ολίβια Γκεστ @olivia.science · 28/09/2026

see table 2's row with same name

051

Reposted by Iris van Rooij 💭

Olivia Guest · Ολίβια Γκεστ @olivia.science · 28/09/2026

yes, good point! the 4th one applies (or can be made to apply) to all engineered objects and to all concepts basically

132

Reposted by Iris van Rooij 💭

Neil Turkewitz @neilturkewitz.bsky.social · 28/09/2026

And @irisvanrooij.bsky.social captured this perfectly…

053

Reposted by Iris van Rooij 💭

Shannon Vallor @shannonvallor.bsky.social · 28/09/2026

This thread is so important because it gets at the AI industry’s central failure of imagination. While I’ve met exceptions to the rule in Silicon Valley, most human beings do not reduce their sense of being alive to a stream of successive task completions, and find it a truly alienating vision.

28632

Reposted by Iris van Rooij 💭

Olivia Guest · Ολίβια Γκεστ @olivia.science · 28/09/2026

ultimately: what is a scientific theory? olivia.science/theory/#what

what's a
theory?

Each person might have their own idea of what a theory is, but for this context and to help understand where I am coming from, here's a definition from Guest and Martin (2021, p. 794):

A theory is a scientific proposition — described by a collection of natural‐language sentences, mathematics, logic, and figures — that introduces causal relations with the aim of describing, explaining, and/or predicting a set of phenomena.

You will have to look at Guest and Martin (2021) to fully grasp how I separate theory from other scientific concepts, especially if you cannot yet disentangle it from hypothesis, a different beast altogether.

Guest, O. & Martin, A. E. (2021). How Computational Modeling Can Force Theory Building in Psychological Science. Perspectives on Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620970585

2134

Reposted by Iris van Rooij 💭

Olivia Guest · Ολίβια Γκεστ @olivia.science · 28/09/2026

and/or compare the first two rows in this table, so "cognitive model" vs "statistical model"

262

Iris van Rooij 💭 @irisvanrooij.bsky.social · 28/09/2026

Sometimes it feels as if we live in a timeline where psychologists have forgotten the subject matter of their own field.

2396

Reposted by Iris van Rooij 💭

Olivia Guest · Ολίβια Γκεστ @olivia.science · 28/09/2026

see e.g. 6 here in Table 1

194

Reposted by Iris van Rooij 💭

Olivia Guest · Ολίβια Γκεστ @olivia.science · 28/09/2026

In the logic of the people who think, e.g. that LLMs can factually think, they have the logic backwards: they have already decided they can think. So it's like already deciding the pyramids were built by aliens... you will under such a frame find things that seem to you to be "evidence".

32511

Reposted by Iris van Rooij 💭

Olivia Guest · Ολίβια Γκεστ @olivia.science · 28/09/2026

likely you will struggle to find a goal tho with LLMs from the scientific perspective in the context you are in, I think?

182

Reposted by Iris van Rooij 💭

Anthony Moser @anthonymoser.com · 28/09/2026