Join free with your email
Free. No spam, ever — we'll never share your email address and you can opt out at any time. Already a subscriber? Log in
Researcher with public evidence across AI research.
As people have predicted, there are quite a few open-source alternatives to Jev, including: - Laya, this was the original according to him: github.com/NandhaKishor... - on Apple Core ML / neural engine: github.com/mizorewww/la... - with Qwen: github.com/jaredpalmer/...
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…
As people have predicted, there are quite a few open-source alternatives to Jev, including: - Laya, this was the original according to him: github.com/NandhaKishor... - on Apple Core ML / neural engine: github.com/mizorewww/la... - with Qwen: github.com/jaredpalmer/...
proceedings.mlr.press/v267/wallach...
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...
As people have predicted, there are quite a few open-source alternatives to Jev, including: - Laya, this was the original according to him: github.com/NandhaKishor... - on Apple Core ML / neural engine: github.com/mizorewww/la... - with Qwen: github.com/jaredpalmer/...
I somehow missed this when it came out. But this is excellent, co-signed, and it's great to see the Jupyter team weigh in. www.nature.com/articles/d41...
I somehow missed this when it came out. But this is excellent, co-signed, and it's great to see the Jupyter team weigh in. www.nature.com/articles/d41...
I somehow missed this when it came out. But this is excellent, co-signed, and it's great to see the Jupyter team weigh in. www.nature.com/articles/d41...
I somehow missed this when it came out. But this is excellent, co-signed, and it's great to see the Jupyter team weigh in. www.nature.com/articles/d41...
I somehow missed this when it came out. But this is excellent, co-signed, and it's great to see the Jupyter team weigh in. www.nature.com/articles/d41...
arxiv.org/abs/2412.01934
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?
Treading lightly because I'm happy to see data annotation discussions happening anywhere. But I'm also incredibly frustrated that the AI/ML world seems to be happy ignoring literal *decades* of work on this topic. From a recently published paper in AAAI/ACM that has tipped me over into despair fr
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?
I've been teaching this class on Data/AI and Society for so long the primary readings I have always assigned were initially cutting edge, then established but timely, then borderline out of date, and now established history texts. So my class is now a history class. I'm choosing to embrace that.
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? 🙏
Someone on here has shared an image they use in class that shows the different foods different countries/cultures call a biscuit. Who made that image and where can I find it? And can I use it in class? (My Google search is just leading me to a bunch of AI-generated sloppity slop)
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
Center = Laura K. Nelson. Left = members they follow (green edges). Right = members who follow them (blue edges). Top = mutual follows (orange edges, slightly larger). Drag any node to reposition; click to open that profile.
Add the Who’s Who of AI badge to your site or bio. It links back to this profile.
Markdown: [](https://aiweekly.co/whos-who/person/lauraknelson-bsky-social)
