iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Reposted by Lorraine Hope

Andrea Howard @drandreahoward.bsky.social · 18/09/2026

New paper from me, out soon in Behavior Research Methods: I'm a lil bit obsessed with good online recruitment and the result is this side-quest paper that made use of data we had collected that recruited people online in three ways (met them on Zoom, validated their email, and Prolific). 🧵>>

35618

Reposted by Lorraine Hope

William Shakespeare @shakespeare.lol · 25/08/2026

[Exit Queen.]

2063894711015

Lorraine Hope @lorrainehope.bsky.social · 12/08/2026

The real world in stats package 😄 #JASP

030

Lorraine Hope @lorrainehope.bsky.social · 13/03/2026

Excited to have the opportunity to give this talk “High Stakes, Hidden Meanings: Culture, Memory, and Context in Investigative Interviewing” at #apls26 #apls2026 Looking forward to discussing the challenges and opportunities ahead!

0110

Lorraine Hope @lorrainehope.bsky.social · 08/03/2026

This is astonishingly brilliant! And basically a government information film 👏

000

Reposted by Lorraine Hope

Olivia Guest · Ολίβια Γκεστ @olivia.science · 06/09/2025

Finally! 🤩 Our position piece: Against the Uncritical Adoption of 'AI' Technologies in Academia: doi.org/10.5281/zeno... We unpick the tech industry’s marketing, hype, & harm; and we argue for safeguarding higher education, critical thinking, expertise, academic freedom, & scientific integrity. 1/n

Abstract: Under the banner of progress, products have been uncritically adopted or
even imposed on users — in past centuries with tobacco and combustion engines, and in
the 21st with social media. For these collective blunders, we now regret our involvement or
apathy as scientists, and society struggles to put the genie back in the bottle. Currently, we
are similarly entangled with artificial intelligence (AI) technology. For example, software updates are rolled out seamlessly and non-consensually, Microsoft Office is bundled with chatbots, and we, our students, and our employers have had no say, as it is not
considered a valid position to reject AI technologies in our teaching and research. This
is why in June 2025, we co-authored an Open Letter calling on our employers to reverse
and rethink their stance on uncritically adopting AI technologies. In this position piece,
we expound on why universities must take their role seriously toa) counter the technology
industry’s marketing, hype, and harm; and to b) safeguard higher education, critical
thinking, expertise, academic freedom, and scientific integrity. We include pointers to
relevant work to further inform our colleagues.

Figure 1. A cartoon set theoretic view on various terms (see Table 1) used when discussing the superset AI
(black outline, hatched background): LLMs are in orange; ANNs are in magenta; generative models are
in blue; and finally, chatbots are in green. Where these intersect, the colours reflect that, e.g. generative adversarial network (GAN) and Boltzmann machine (BM) models are in the purple subset because they are
both generative and ANNs. In the case of proprietary closed source models, e.g. OpenAI’s ChatGPT and
Apple’s Siri, we cannot verify their implementation and so academics can only make educated guesses (cf.
Dingemanse 2025). Undefined terms used above: BERT (Devlin et al. 2019); AlexNet (Krizhevsky et al.
2017); A.L.I.C.E. (Wallace 2009); ELIZA (Weizenbaum 1966); Jabberwacky (Twist 2003); linear discriminant analysis (LDA); quadratic discriminant analysis (QDA).

Table 1. Below some of the typical terminological disarray is untangled. Importantly, none of these terms
are orthogonal nor do they exclusively pick out the types of products we may wish to critique or proscribe.

Protecting the Ecosystem of Human Knowledge: Five Principles

11341472054

Reposted by Lorraine Hope

Sean Westwood @seanjwestwood.bsky.social · 18/11/2025

AI presents a fundamental threat to our ability to use polls to assess public opinion. Bad actors who are able to infiltrate panels can flip close election polls for less than the cost of a Starbucks coffee. Models will also infer and confirm hypotheses in experiments. Current quality checks fail

421297

Lorraine Hope @lorrainehope.bsky.social · 13/02/2026

Hard recommend for the Mystery AI Hype Theatre 3000 Podcast - although you will end up sitting with your head in your hands, maybe crying a bit…

073

Reposted by Lorraine Hope

Andrea Chittle MD MPH CCFP @andreachittle.medsky.social · 13/02/2026

Imagine believing that using text-generating machines to perform clinical assessments & replace expert advice from real, qualified humans could improve health care. Such machines will deskill experts & surely kill. And you can bet the machines & their makers won’t be held accountable.

0148

Reposted by Lorraine Hope

Jay Van Bavel, PhD @jayvanbavel.bsky.social · 12/02/2026

Bureaucratic benchmarks are soul-crushing because they leave a big gap between what we care about and what can be measured. When we forget about the things we actually care about (like making interesting discoveries) and we write worse papers to get more publications, the metric eats the value.

0113

Reposted by Lorraine Hope

Emily M. Bender @emilymbender.bsky.social · 09/02/2026

If your study is framed as asking whether "AI" does X as well as humans do, it's fundamentally misguided and I'd argue not scientifically sound. A short 🧵>>

520154

Reposted by Lorraine Hope

Margot Finn @eicathomefinn.bsky.social · 03/02/2026

'to treat peer review as a throughput problem is to misunderstand what is at stake. Review is not simply a production stage in the research pipeline; it is one of the few remaining spaces where the scientific community talks to itself.' 1/3

timeshighereducation.com

AI is not a peer, so it can’t do peer review

If we still believe that science is a vocation grounded in argument, curiosity and care, we can’t delegate judgement to machines, says Akhil Bhardwaj

6359155

Reposted by Lorraine Hope

Damon Young @damonyoung.com.au · 30/01/2026

I hate this. I hate that scholars and teachers are supposed to be digital fraud experts. I hate that this part of their job description is becoming larger and larger. I hate the widening distrust. I hate a culture that aggressively devalues the curiosity and humility required for ongoing learning.

518174

Reposted by Lorraine Hope

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

Will do a brief thread with highlights: “Many of our contemporaries now want to combine the worst of these two worlds [i.e., Psychology and Artificial Intelligence]. What could possibly go wrong? Quite a lot.” 2/🧵

Title page with abstract:

The current AI hype cycle combined with Psychology’s various crises make for a perfect storm. Psychology, on the one hand, has a history of weak theoretical foundations, a neglect for computational and formal skills, and a hyperempiricist privileging of experimental tasks and testing for effects. Artificial Intelligence, on the other hand, has a history of conflating artifacts for theories of cognition, or even minds themselves, and its engineering offspring likes to move fast and break things. Many of our contemporaries now want to combine the worst of these two worlds. What could possibly go wrong? Quite a lot. Does this mean that Psychology and Artificial Intelligence can best part ways? Not at all. There are very fruitful ways in which the two disciplines can interact and theoretically contribute to Cognitive Science, for instance, by studying the scope and limits of computational models of human cognition. But to reap the fruits one needs to understand how to steer clear of potential traps.

28720

Reposted by Lorraine Hope

Sonja Drimmer @sonjadrimmer.bsky.social · 24/12/2025

It is EXHAUSTING not only being made responsible for coming up with new kinds of assignments for our students; it's also tedious reading op-eds that suggest the core problem is a crisis in teaching. But, as Chris and I lay out here, this isn't a crisis in teaching; it's an attack on learning.

131661502

Lorraine Hope @lorrainehope.bsky.social · 18/12/2025

The latest QRP (although it goes well beyond ‘questionable’ and straight into the realm of junk data fraud IMHO): LLM-hacking

000

Reposted by Lorraine Hope

Joachim Baumann @joachimbaumann.bsky.social · 16/12/2025

Good luck drawing reliable conclusions from the answers that Qualtrics' AI model provides to your survey questions... bsky.app/profile/joac...

0277

Reposted by Lorraine Hope

Dr Abeba Birhane @abeba.blacksky.app · 16/12/2025

I wrote this brief talk on why “augmenting diversity” with LLMs is empirically unsubstantiable, conceptually flawed, and epistemically harmful and a nice surprise to see the organisers have made it public synthetic-data-workshop.github.io/papers/13.pdf

title: Cheap science, real harm: the cost of replacing human
participation with synthetic data

author: Abeba Birhane

abstract: Driven by the goals of augmenting diversity, increasing speed, reducing cost, the
use of synthetic data as a replacement for human participants is gaining traction
in AI research and product development. This talk critically examines the claim
that synthetic data can “augment diversity,” arguing that this notion is empirically
unsubstantiated, conceptually flawed, and epistemically harmful. While speed and
cost-efficiency may be achievable, they often come at the expense of rigour, insight,
and robust science. Drawing on research from dataset audits, model evaluations,
Black feminist scholarship, and complexity science, I argue that replacing human
participants with synthetic data risks producing both real-world and epistemic
harms at worst and superficial knowledge and cheap science at best

20849267

Reposted by Lorraine Hope

Rolf Zwaan @rolfzwaan.eurosky.social · 18/12/2025

Delighted to that my grant proposal with Anita Eerland, Verbs and Eyewitness Testimony: A Multilab Registered Replication Report, has been funded by @NWO (Dutch Research Council) through OpenScience.nl. Excited to get started on the project I describe here. rolfzwaan.substack.com/p/memory-mis...

rolfzwaan.substack.com

Memory, Misinformation, and the Need to Replicate

Suppose you and a friend witness a car crash.

0135

Reposted by Lorraine Hope

Gordon Pennycook @gordpennycook.bsky.social · 17/12/2025

🚨 Now out in Psych Science 🚨 We report an adversarial collaboration (with @donandrewmoore.bsky.social) testing whether overconfidence is genuinely a trait The paper was led by Jabin Binnendyk & Sophia Li (who is fantastic and on the job market!) Free copy here: journals.sagepub.com/eprint/7JIYS...

812841

Reposted by Lorraine Hope

Dr Ian McCormick @wokestudies.bsky.social · 13/12/2025

"an ever-widening gap between those who do the work and those who administer it. And an even larger gap exists between those tasked with most of the teaching and those who do most of the budgeting." www.aaup.org/underclass-s... #Highered #PhDchat #research #teaching #academicsky

aaup.org

The Underclass Is in Session

What do we see when we view the structure of academic labor as it is, not as we wish it to be?

0195

Reposted by Lorraine Hope

Darren Dahly @statsepi.bsky.social · 30/09/2024

We know the drivers of research waste in academia are ⚠️Pressure to maximize papers and PhD students ⚠️Endless demands on time due to poor management ⚠️Stakeholders don't insist on robust quality systems to underpin mission critical work Solutions that don't address these are pointless.

25824

Reposted by Lorraine Hope

Kathleen Bachynski @bachynski.bsky.social · 30/11/2025

“Berg's point is that AI doesn't merely automate tasks — it automates the very processes through which people develop their skills.”

18528

Reposted by Lorraine Hope

Katie Mack @astrokatie.com · 30/11/2025

The most precious commodity you have is your attention. You don’t have to waste it on poor-faith debates or arguments with strangers if you don’t think they’ll be productive. You can prioritize the things that matter to you and make your life richer.

125117242966

Reposted by Lorraine Hope

RedScharlach @redscharlach.bsky.social · 26/11/2025

I feel you, ancient Mongolian ceramic hedgehog. I feel you.

A small cartoon version of the ceramic Mongolian hedgehog shown in the quoted post. Behind him is the word AHHH in very large lettering. The caption under him says "just keep screaming".

182298932

Reposted by Lorraine Hope

Katie Mack @astrokatie.com · 21/11/2025

It’s widely known (and, I think, pretty uncontroversial) that learning requires effort — specifically, if you don’t have to work at getting the knowledge, it won’t stick. Even if an LLM could be trusted to give you correct information 100% of the time, it would be an inferior method of learning it.

8755861573

Lorraine Hope @lorrainehope.bsky.social · 20/11/2025

Absolutely this…there are still many predators evading their comeuppance, including in my own field.

020

Reposted by Lorraine Hope

Josh McCrain @joshmccrain.bsky.social · 18/11/2025

new paper by Sean Westwood: With current technology, it is impossible to tell whether survey respondents are real or bots. Among other things, makes it easy for bad actors to manipulate outcomes. No good news here for the future of online-based survey research

38770390

Reposted by Lorraine Hope

Andrew D Wilson @adw.bsky.social · 18/11/2025

This seems bad on like 15 different fronts

182

Reposted by Lorraine Hope

Ullrich Ecker @ulliecker.bsky.social · 17/11/2025

New paper by @emilyspearing.bsky.social et al. out now in the Journal of Environmental Psychology Black Summer Arson: Examining the Impact of Climate Misinformation and Corrections on Reasoning doi.org/10.1016/j.je...

doi.org

Redirecting

122

Reposted by Lorraine Hope

Iris van Rooij 💭 @irisvanrooij.bsky.social · 24/05/2025

“Many of our contemporaries now want to combine the worst of these two worlds. What could possibly go wrong? Quite a lot.”

14917

Reposted by Lorraine Hope

ana valdivia @anavaldi.bsky.social · 22/10/2025

After submitting a FOIA request UKRI, I obtained success rates by three grant call scheme and I can only say that I am disheartened by the results: - AHRC Responsive Mode 2025: 2% - ESRC New Investigator Grant 2025: 1% - ESRC Research Grant Round 2025: 1%

24248167

Reposted by Lorraine Hope

M.J. Crockett @mjcrockett.bsky.social · 21/10/2025

Can AI simulations of human research participants advance cognitive science? In @cp-trendscognsci.bsky.social, @lmesseri.bsky.social & I analyze this vision. We show how “AI Surrogates” entrench practices that limit the generalizability of cognitive science while aspiring to do the opposite. 1/

sciencedirect.com

AI Surrogates and illusions of generalizability in cognitive science

Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) have generated enthusiasm for using AI simulations of human research participants to generate new know…

9288119

Reposted by Lorraine Hope

Bex @beccastevens.bsky.social · 20/10/2025

The anthropomorphic language that the AI industry uses to talk about its tech is a large part of the reason why people do not understand how it actually works.

0196

Lorraine Hope @lorrainehope.bsky.social · 16/10/2025

Yes - and you particularly don’t have to do this if they are predatory manipulators (esp. of young female researchers) and request lists of self-citations when reviewing…. Of their crappy, derivative, methodologically unsound work. Oh and when they invite themselves to give keynotes, just say no.

031

Reposted by Lorraine Hope

Research Culture Leeds @researchcultureuol.bsky.social · 08/10/2025

Day 2 of ##Hiddenref2025 and a reminder that people are as important as outputs.

1136

Lorraine Hope @lorrainehope.bsky.social · 04/10/2025

Hard agree - this is insane; pretending it’s viable/OK is actually corrupt. What do advocates think they might ‘learn’ from it? Seeing the vagaries of human performance is part of the fun of research but importantly prompts further questions. This kind of data fabrication is just output grifting…

000

Reposted by Lorraine Hope

Jeremy Noel-Tod @jntod.bsky.social · 02/10/2025

On National Poetry Day, the greatest poem I have ever read

A printed poem which reads:

I hav for breakfast Weetabix

I hav for lunch some meat

I have for tea 2 sosajis and thats enuf to eat

Peter Hazel, 5

663695974

Lorraine Hope @lorrainehope.bsky.social · 02/10/2025

The most depressing but plausible article I have ever read. Onwards into the “moronic inferno”…

020

Reposted by Lorraine Hope

Julia M. Rohrer @dingdingpeng.the100.ci · 01/10/2025

A lot of psych is already conducted with online convenience samples & ppl are probably excited about silicon samples bc it would allow them to crank out more studies for even less 💸 How about we reconsider the idea that sciencey science involves collecting own data. www.science.org/content/arti...

science.org

AI-generated ‘participants’ can lead social science experiments astray, study finds

Data produced by “silicon samples” depends on researchers’ exact choice of models, prompts, and settings

1423473

Reposted by Lorraine Hope

John Towse @jntowse.bsky.social · 01/10/2025

The Network Plus for Analytical Behavioural Science for Security and Defence (NABS+) has a call for Visiting Fellowships. Part of our commitment to develop the next generation of behavioural science for security & defence through x-fertilisation of knowledge & skills. Submission deadline: 20/10/25

crestresearch.ac.uk

NABS+ Visiting Fellowships

Guidance on applying for the NABS+ Visiting Fellowship, including eligibility, required documents, assessment criteria, key dates, and funding conditions.

002