It's interesting how quick we are to assume science is aligned by default. There's an idea that good science doesn't require human involvement, it's about the "Truth" which can be discovered & verified independent of our judgment. In doing so we ignore most of the history of science.
Lots of people with strong opinions about use of AI detectors to filter what papers we review (or what stories we consider for awards).
I wrote up a toy model of using AI detection to infer author type to get at some implict assumptions we make when we argue that AI detection is or is not useful
Thoughts on metascientific consequences of AI-generated slides & ideas diluting the impression that speakers are commited to what they present. Science runs on personal attachment more than we admit. If it were a cake mix, how wouldn we add back an egg?
statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2026/05/28/w...
The influx of first-time, single author, AI-assisted work suggests that these new entrants to the field would benefit from some mentoring about what constitutes a research contribution in AI/ML. How should the community help them get this mentoring? end/
At @arxiv.bsky.social, we are receiving a new type of paper that I call an "I did this experiment" paper. These papers typically report some experiment with an LLM or LLM "agentic" workflow. They are the kind of experiments an "insider" engineer would run to optimize a system. 1/
Some thoughts on the blog today on "humans are unreliable narrators too" as a common defense of AI mental-state language, and what I think it misses about the nature of reasoning or thinking or belief or intention as we understand these terms
statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2026/05/23/t...
ArXiv affirming human responsibility without telling you what tools to use — and it being largely uncontroversial — is where you can start to feel what modus vivendi will look like.
