iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Iris van Rooij 💭 @irisvanrooij.bsky.social · 2h

"I can't believe they engaged with a philosopher's ideas"

030

Reposted by Olivia Guest · Ολίβια Γκεστ

Ah, I remember this episode now. Thank you! mu.social/profile/iris...

181

There used to be this Twitter obsession with telling marginalised scholars that they're privileged because their follower count is high. People really hate material reality where your salary and how people treat you at work has nothing to do if people follow you on the bad website as an academic.

190

It's like the opposite mistake my dad makes because he thinks if a PhD candidate is older than the supervisor they cannot be abused. People don't get stuff anymore. No contexts exists.

180

Oh, psychologia delenda est? Delendilicious. I'm happy we're destroying fields before the AI can get to them.

020

What seems to happen is they think the work / field hierarchy applies online to people at different universities in different fields. Weird context collapse. But notice always in the direction that benefits them because you have no expertise either!

170

That's a common social media one. Usually said to women.

161

Interesting! So like they seem personally offended by people (in their view) disagreeing with a person in their field, or not that part? Just the immense inability to engage in good faith? Name calling? Okay, I'm realising there's a lot to unpack here.

120

I was in a meeting a couple of months ago and somebody said some stuff really similar to this situation and I didn't say anything but it's making me realise how less hierarchical cogsci is because we don't have any equivalent to this pattern

240

Tim Verstynen @tdverstynen.bsky.social · 2h

philosophia delenda est 🏺🍇🙂‍↔️

270

Reposted by Olivia Guest · Ολίβια Γκεστ

I love how the thread starts by criticizing Bender, cites your paper as if she coauthored it, then treats your posts as if you’re Bender (all female AI critics are interchangeable, right?) before nitpicking your definitions of sets & distributions that have nothing to do with the main conclusions.

3182

I really hope she sees it because it's so funny.

040

It's a cheeky lil green roughage indeed 💚 🍀 🌿

030

If they are in philosophy, they probably don't realise? Who knows! Bizarre.

020

I dunno if Emily will laugh to know about this. But if her notifications are working... @emilymbender.bsky.social We're reaching some kind of all the full profs who are women look the same to bros transatlantic singularity. I think you're merging in the bromagination with Iris.

190

Did you see the use of IvR/EB? 😂 These people are one hair's breath away from claiming there's a paper you're both on. True hallucinations happening. No LLM needed.

240

Sorry for noticing things. It's not fun. 🥲

3170

These people are a little bit whacky now if they can't read affiliations, journal details, etc

050

Reposted by Olivia Guest · Ολίβια Γκεστ

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.

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.

1409

Reposted by Olivia Guest · Ολίβια Γκεστ

Iris van Rooij 💭 @irisvanrooij.bsky.social · 4h

“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.” 📝 journals.sagepub.com/doi/epub/10.... cc @olivia.science

Combining Psychology With Artificial Intelligence: What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

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.

Keywords
theoretical psychology, artificial intelligence, cognitive science, computationalism, epistemology

1162

Reposted by Olivia Guest · Ολίβια Γκεστ

Last author is btw a philosopher. I have no idea why the person in QT speaks about me in that way. They even follow me 🤷‍♀️ mu.social/profile/iris...

2251

Reposted by Olivia Guest · Ολίβια Γκεστ

Iris van Rooij 💭 @irisvanrooij.bsky.social · 4h

Why are you spreading misinformation? Two of my co-authors are theoretical computer scientists and computational complexity theorists, and my own PhD thesis was on computational complexity theory (see here: mu.social/profile/iris...). No idea what you are on about 🤔

68310

That person if they are reading: you rock for being so patient!

020

Reposted by Olivia Guest · Ολίβια Γκεστ

✨ Published version ✨ Iris van Rooij & Olivia Guest (2026). Combining Psychology with Artificial Intelligence: What Could Possibly Go Wrong? journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/... @olivia.science Thread with highlights 🧵

Figure 1
Illustration of why AI systems cannot realistically scale to human cognition within the foreseeable future: (b) Human cognitive capacities (such as reasoning, communication, problem solving, learning, concept formation, planning etc.) can handle unbounded situations across many domains, ranging from simple to complex. (a) Engineers create AI systems using machine learning from human data. (d) In an attempt to approximate human cognition a lot of data is consumed. (c) Making AI systems that approximate human cognition is intractable (van Rooij, Guest, et al., 2024), i.e., the required resources (e.g. time, data) grows prohibitively fast as input domains get more complex, leading to diminishing returns. (a) Any existing AI system is
created in limited time (hours, months or years, not millennia or eons). Therefore, existing AI systems cannot realistically have the domain-general cognitive capacities that humans have. [Made with elements from freepik.com.]

11910

I saw one like that too and somebody posted a screenshot of my work saying the opposite of what they claimed I said. Literally!

230

We've broken their brains and they don't even know it.

280

Reposted by Olivia Guest · Ολίβια Γκεστ