Mel Andrews

existing work that demonstrates some of this can be found here: arxiv.org/abs/2508.02740

Who Gets Cited? Gender- and Majority-Bias in LLM-Driven Reference Selection arxiv.org

As philosophy rushes to claim expertise on AI, AI companies rush to control the philosophical narrative. Unlike other disciplines, philosophy has no standards for reporting conflicts of interest. This petition endeavors to change that: docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1F...

Open Letter about Industry Funding and Disclosure in Philosophy docs.google.com

If you are producing scholarship with AI and your work could plausibly be accessed in the EU, you are now legally compelled to disclose the nature and extent of your AI use. A tremendous win for scholarly integrity. www.lexacademic.com/blog/the-sta...

The Stamp of Shame: What Claude’s New Legal Watermark Means for your Research - Lex Academic® lexacademic.com

I do believe that any scientific publisher residing anywhere may be legally exposed under these amendments unless they can guarantee that their editorial and peer reviewing processes were carried out by humans—not LLMs. www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/eu...

jdsupra.com

My contribution to the Diverse Intelligences Workshops at Princeton can be viewed here. I talk about objectivity, induction, AI for science, and the theory-free ideal youtu.be/JXZ4IOekPxI

Mel Andrews - Perspectives on scientific objectivity youtu.be

When utilized in literature review, LLMs consistently 1. fail to mention female authors in female-led literatures, 2. insist that men are more influential or more heavily cited when this is contradicted by objective citation counts, and 3. attribute women’s work to hallucinated male scholars.

The export control directive banning state of the art language models from Anthropic is only counterproductive to the US AI industry if you don’t view it as yet another act in the current production of AI safety theatrics.

I, too, have been experiencing a sense of alienation from my discipline. Not because I don’t believe that philosophy strives for truth and objectivity, but because believing that the sort of pseudo-reasoning LLMs engage in can achieve these epistemic goods requires having a bad epistemology.

Something I have noticed about attempting lit review with LLMs: Frontier models still hallucinate heavily when asked to produce citations to works in women-led literatures. When constrained to works that can be linked to, they simply re-attribute papers written by women to imaginary men.

Welcome new followers. I am a scholar thinking about how AI/ML tools work in knowledge production. Please let me know if 1. you are in Philadelphia and you would like to be friends, 2. you run a philosophy or STS department and would like to make me permanently your colleague, or 3. you are a

The unprecedented leap in advancement of Anthropic’s frontier models is one of the number one global news item this week. No technical demonstration was necessary to achieve this effect. That there is successful marketing.

​Now is the correct time for institutions of higher education to invest in cross-disciplinary centres, institutions, initiatives, and curricula focussed on ethics and artificial intelligence, data and society, humanity and emerging technologies, etc.

The irony of using an LLM-powered bot with a female-coded screen name to respond to an observation about gender bias in LLMs is not lost on me.

Excited to be holding a symposium on AI/ML in science evaluation at PSA 2026. Who here is going to San Diego? @philsci.bsky.social

Substack: do you want to use an AI tool for writing to check your writings about not writing with AI for AI-written writing?