//
sign in
Profile
by @danabra.mov
Profile
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
Profile
by @jimpick.com
AviHandle
by @danabra.mov
AviHandle
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
AviHandle
by @katherine.computer
EventsList
by @katherine.computer
ProfileHeader
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
ProfileHeader
by @danabra.mov
ProfileMedia
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePlays
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePosts
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePosts
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
ProfileReplies
by @danabra.mov
Record
by @atsui.org
Skircle
by @danabra.mov
StreamPlacePlaylist
by @katherine.computer
+ new component
ProfilePosts
Loading...
one anecdote: I was searching for a link to one of my old papers on Google, and the automated Gemini summary attributed all of my lab's work to my husband
1d
BECAUSE SCIENCE, MF’ERS
Man Watching World Cup Thought He Would’ve Seen More Bicycle Kicks By Now https://theonion.com/man-watching-world-cup-thought-he-would-ve-seen-more-bi-1819576639/
Here preorder @snarkbat.bsky.social and fuck JD Vance also subscribe to Maris' newsletter below because it's on the nonprofit platform Ghost, like mine (also: subscribe to mine) and not on the nazi-enrichers over at Substack
21h
1d
1d
Coleen Murphy
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.