Who could possibly have predicted that a company whose slogan is "cheat on everything" would cheat?
techcrunch.com/2026/03/05/c...
06.03.2026 19:21
👍 3965
🔁 1040
💬 154
📌 71
Who could possibly have predicted that a company whose slogan is "cheat on everything" would cheat?
techcrunch.com/2026/03/05/c...
The state of the world really has me working on a conference proposal where I argue that we should ask whether the Housewives and not AI is the technology of our era.
How is this real??? Like it’s but also it’s nuts.
There is a Dr. Teals with Melatonin
I loved it! It came out around the same time and as a part of the same series as the Alanis one. It’s all about what we count as art as told through Kenny G’s music and cultural relevance.
Have you seen the one on Kenny G???
Hoping you all have a time for rest and recovery soon.
Some children in Dilley were so distraught they cut themselves or talked about suicide, parents told ProPublica.
They said kids lost their appetites after finding worms and mold on their food, had trouble sleeping, and were constantly sick.
Someone used image generators to make (and monetize) a fake OnlyFans account of this feminist content creator, and they’ll likely never see any consequences.
“Many of the people messaging her about the fake OnlyFans account were men trying to get access to it”
www.404media.co/grok-nudify-...
“Safety experts and tech critics have long condemned the Ring devices for security risks and privacy violations, not to mention their role in building the largest civilian surveillance network in US history.”
Yes and yes!!!
Black Doves
Grades are in which I think means I’m officially on sabbatical!!!
Is it just me or is grading final projects before sabbatical the worst???
Currently the only algorithms I’m cool with right now is the YouTube one that new my first time opening the app in months was to watch the Skarsgård on Skarsgård Variety actors on actors.
“In a time of purported crisis, the AI chatbots needlessly introduced friction at a moment experts say it is most dangerous to do so.”
NEVER CHANGE, ETHAN HAWKE
I thought the trailer was terrible but the show I ended up really enjoying the simulacrum of old VPR stories with new people.
I love Quentin Tarantino's movies, they're a vital part of my career and my life, and every time he does a podcast or gives in an interview it's a sharp reminder of the genuine intellectual danger of spending 30 years of your life with everyone around you treating you like a genius at all times
I’ve been thinking about the intellectual and affective labor involved in reading AI Generated student papers. I’m forecasting a little of the proposal that @cnygren.bsky.social and I advance in a piece that’ll be out soon but here’s where I’ve personally landed (o speak for myself not for us both):
I co-edited an OA book on everyday misinformation and how we can use a governance framework to understand it better. The case studies are really fun and look at a wide variety of online and a few offline spaces. doi.org/10.1017/9781...
Additionally, OpenAI argues its not liable because Raine, by using ChatGPT for self-harm, broke its terms of service
Going to start asking men who claim that “ai is the defining technology of our age” how do we know it’s not the Real Housewives.
I LOVED Death by Lightning and it made me want more shows about long dead presidents and political figures I have never thought about.
A table showing profit margins of major publishers. A snippet of text related to this table is below. 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year.
A figure detailing the drain on researcher time. 1. The four-fold drain 1.2 Time The number of papers published each year is growing faster than the scientific workforce, with the number of papers per researcher almost doubling between 1996 and 2022 (Figure 1A). This reflects the fact that publishers’ commercial desire to publish (sell) more material has aligned well with the competitive prestige culture in which publications help secure jobs, grants, promotions, and awards. To the extent that this growth is driven by a pressure for profit, rather than scholarly imperatives, it distorts the way researchers spend their time. The publishing system depends on unpaid reviewer labour, estimated to be over 130 million unpaid hours annually in 2020 alone (9). Researchers have complained about the demands of peer-review for decades, but the scale of the problem is now worse, with editors reporting widespread difficulties recruiting reviewers. The growth in publications involves not only the authors’ time, but that of academic editors and reviewers who are dealing with so many review demands. Even more seriously, the imperative to produce ever more articles reshapes the nature of scientific inquiry. Evidence across multiple fields shows that more papers result in ‘ossification’, not new ideas (10). It may seem paradoxical that more papers can slow progress until one considers how it affects researchers’ time. While rewards remain tied to volume, prestige, and impact of publications, researchers will be nudged away from riskier, local, interdisciplinary, and long-term work. The result is a treadmill of constant activity with limited progress whereas core scholarly practices – such as reading, reflecting and engaging with others’ contributions – is de-prioritized. What looks like productivity often masks intellectual exhaustion built on a demoralizing, narrowing scientific vision.
A table of profit margins across industries. The section of text related to this table is below: 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year.
The costs of inaction are plain: wasted public funds, lost researcher time, compromised scientific integrity and eroded public trust. Today, the system rewards commercial publishers first, and science second. Without bold action from the funders we risk continuing to pour resources into a system that prioritizes profit over the advancement of scientific knowledge.
We wrote the Strain on scientific publishing to highlight the problems of time & trust. With a fantastic group of co-authors, we present The Drain of Scientific Publishing:
a 🧵 1/n
Drain: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
Strain: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
Oligopoly: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
We (Wesleyan University) are hiring a Social Sciences Librarian, with an emphasis on economics, philosophy, religion, the Allbritton Center for the Study of Public Life, and the Center for Prison Education. More info here: wesleyan.wd5.myworkdayjobs.com/en-US/career... #LibJobs #LISJobs
I’ve been rewatching The Leftovers and I think you all should join me for two reasons 1) this is some great art that AI could never and 2) watching beautifully drawn characters deal with a world that doesn’t make sense feels very cathartic right now
What are conferences doing to weed out AI slop???
I can’t imagine why peer review is collapsing when every time I review for major conferences in my field the papers read like they were barely read by a human much less written by one.