Laura K. Nelson

Genuine question: Do we think this linked framing holds up after the explosion of AI agents? "Like catalogs and the internet, large models are part of a long history of cultural and social technologies." Are LLMs (now) really in the same category as card catalogues? www.scienc…

science.org

My spicy ghost pepper hot, but 100% genuine take: scholars in my specific subfield (sociology of culture) have been using generative AI responsibly in research since at least 2013. I'll even put a date on it: Mohr and Bogdanov, 2013. + www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...

sciencedirect.com

I'm really vibing with this collection of essays on the Future of Quantitative Social Science. It flat out has me buzzing. As Kevin Munger says in Chapter 14: "But AI will soon make it impossible for us to ignore the absurdity of the status quo..." rohanalexander.github.io/not…

Notes on the Future of Quantitative Social Science rohanalexander.github.io

For example: www.lauraknelson.com/publication/... And www.lauraknelson.com/publication/...

lauraknelson.com

More signals pointing in the same direction, from a Lean In survey so still not independent academics: www.forbes.com/sites/kimels...

The Gender Gap In AI—And What’s Driving It, According To Lean In Survey forbes.com

Ok and another one 👀 @asanews.bsky.social : Where's our Task Force? We're behind the times* on this one. (*MLA. We're behind MLA) www.mla.org/About-Us/Gov...

mla.org

I'm once again begging everyone to update their priors. "ChatGPT is not a search engine." Yes, yes it is. It actively searches the web based on your prompt, and returns active links relevant to your search/prompt. It's a search engine. It is. (Obvs don't use it that way if that's not your thing)

Fascinating thread. Post after post of students describing how, pre-AI, they got As on book reports and courses without reading a single book. Either this is all a bit I don't understand (very possible, I don't get social media) or we* need to really sit with how students move through HS. *Just me?

There's a genre of LLM criticism that I find so destructively unhelpful: using a single vague prompt to "analyze" data, e.g. "summarize the themes across this collection of texts," to claim "see! LLMs don't work." & it's getting published! Reviewers this is not good work pls reject it if you see it.

It's mid-August. What is everyone putting on their syllabus as their AI policy for undergraduate courses this year? My instinct: I'm designing my course such that for things I think you should learn without AI, assessment is in-class. Otherwise, do your thing? So basically, no policy this year?

A frustrating pattern in news coverage of AI (etc.) in soc sci & humanities: articles that focus on those critical of AI often quote women (and they should! it's great work!), but when it's about AI as a (serious) method, no/few women quoted. Maybe don't repeat patterns of the past this time? 🙏

So I just added a citation to Zotero using the ISBN copied directly from the publisher's website and the title, date, and publisher were correct but the author was completely hallucinated? Utterly the wrong author. How did that happen? I feel like I'm losing my mind. Paging my librarian mutuals here