Against the Uncritical Adoption of 'AI' Technologies in Academia
1–10 of 27 posts
Re: Against the Uncritical Adoption of 'AI' Technologies in Academia
#2> And like the communists of old, AI scientists believe in their
revolution; the old myths of tragic hubris don’t trouble them at all.
What an utterly bullsh*t way to say I don't know anything about history nor how world works.
Re: Against the Uncritical Adoption of 'AI' Technologies in Academia
#3Being against the "uncritical adoption" of just about anything seems like pretty much common sense, which is admittedly often not common.
Re: Against the Uncritical Adoption of 'AI' Technologies in Academia
#4> And like the communists of old, AI scientists believe in their revolution; the old myths of tragic hubris don’t trouble them at all. What an utterly bullsh*t way to say I don't know anything about history nor how world works.
The one line you've pulled out is a quote from someone else and not the words of the authors of this paper, to be clear.
Here's the full context:
1 Overview
The culture of AI is imperialist and seeks to expand the kingdom of the machine. The AI community is well organized and well funded, and its culture fits its dreams: it has high priests, its greedy businessmen, its canny politicians. The U.S. Department of Defense is behind it all the way. And like the communists of old, AI scientists believe in their revolution; the old myths of tragic hubris don’t trouble them at all.
Tony Solomonides and Les Levidow (1985, pp. 13–14)
This paper sets out our expert position on artificial intelligence (AI) technologies permeating the higher education sector, demonstrating how this directly erodes our ability to function (see also our Open Letter, Guest, van Rooij, et al. 2025).
(the rest elided)
Re: Against the Uncritical Adoption of 'AI' Technologies in Academia
#5> And like the communists of old, AI scientists believe in their revolution; the old myths of tragic hubris don’t trouble them at all. What an utterly bullsh*t way to say I don't know anything about history nor how world works.
The one line you've pulled out is a quote from someone else and not the words of the authors of this paper, to be clear. Here's the full context: 1 Overview The culture of AI is imperialist and seeks to expand the kingdom of the machine. The AI community is well organized and well funded, and its culture fits its dreams: it has high priests, its greedy businessmen, its canny politicians. The U.S. Department of Defens…
maybe the person you're responding to used chatgpt to extract a section of text to be critical of it? lol
Re: Against the Uncritical Adoption of 'AI' Technologies in Academia
#6> And like the communists of old, AI scientists believe in their revolution; the old myths of tragic hubris don’t trouble them at all. What an utterly bullsh*t way to say I don't know anything about history nor how world works.
The one line you've pulled out is a quote from someone else and not the words of the authors of this paper, to be clear. Here's the full context: 1 Overview The culture of AI is imperialist and seeks to expand the kingdom of the machine. The AI community is well organized and well funded, and its culture fits its dreams: it has high priests, its greedy businessmen, its canny politicians. The U.S. Department of Defens…
If you aren’t familiar with the term, you might want to consider reading about the “AI winter”. To me, it’s not surprising at all that the quote would come from 1985.
Re: Against the Uncritical Adoption of 'AI' Technologies in Academia
#7Hard to take seriously a paper that begins with a statement that the “uncritical adoption” of combustion engines was a “blunder” by scientists.
Re: Against the Uncritical Adoption of 'AI' Technologies in Academia
#8Hard to take seriously a paper that begins with a statement that the “uncritical adoption” of combustion engines was a “blunder” by scientists.
[deleted]
Re: Against the Uncritical Adoption of 'AI' Technologies in Academia
#9Hard to take seriously a paper that begins with a statement that the “uncritical adoption” of combustion engines was a “blunder” by scientists.
The uncritical adoption - and continued dependence on - combustion engines could end up resulting in the collapse of civilization as we know it, and that’s not even the worst case.
If we had been capable of less uncritical adoption - including taking stronger measures to limit CO2 output - we would be in a better position today. So that was a blunder by society as a whole, with scientists playing an important role in that.
The first paper describing anthropogenic CO2-driven global warming was published in 1896. But as a whole, most scientists completely ignored that for nearly a century - plenty of time to have taken corrective action of all kinds. That was a blunder.
Re: Against the Uncritical Adoption of 'AI' Technologies in Academia
#10Hard to take seriously a paper that begins with a statement that the “uncritical adoption” of combustion engines was a “blunder” by scientists.
The uncritical adoption - and continued dependence on - combustion engines could end up resulting in the collapse of civilization as we know it, and that’s not even the worst case. If we had been capable of less uncritical adoption - including taking stronger measures to limit CO2 output - we would be in a better position today. So that was a blunder by society as a whole, with scientists playing an important role in…
[deleted]