🤮
26.02.2026 19:54
👍 1
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
🤮
SHE'S ALIVE!!
good morning! here's a new preprint led by @matthewmatix.bsky.social on a fascinating idea about sincere responding on #conspiracybelief studies. together a bunch of us (it's all Matt) take a look at whether we can identify sincerity and whether it distorts known effect sizes
osf.io/preprints/ps...
The absolute state of academic spam
A new study from Anthropic finds that gains in coding efficiency when relying on AI assistance did did not meet statistical significance; AI use noticeably degraded programmers’ understanding of what they were doing. Incredible.
I found out I'm a British citizen last week. Happy to turn it over to someone with a nice paddock and a shiny bowl
I think you have the wrong Matt I'm afraid, I've never been on that show!
I am very proud to have published my second file-drawer report at my favourite journal Meta-Psychology together with Lisa Incerti, @tobiasrebholz.bsky.social, Christian Seida, and Frank Papenmeier. It includes four failed attempts to confirm a new hypothesis on #anchoringeffects.
COPE guidelines endorse this! Specifically, they say you should give the author a chance to explain, but if the explanation is not satisfactory then contact institution
publicationethics.org/guidance/flo...
1. Aotearoa New Zealand friends and colleagues 🇳🇿,
Logistics for my February trip are coming together. I'd love to meet more of you and/or talk with groups of interested colleagues about AI course and teaching in a ChatGPT world (thebullshitmachines.com).
Right now, my schedule is as follows:
I think it's possible but would be a very hard thing to test empirically. It's a causal question about a thing that's difficult to manipulate experimentally, with a messy society-level outcome. Any paper that might give you a confident answer on this would be probably be bullshitting a tad!
Good to see that Gauhar (2016) is now retracted, with a pretty frank editorial note.
spj.science.org/doi/epdf/10....
Some people bring up (1) the cost of criticism and (2) that a lot of criticism has already been voiced but ignored. Both points are valid, so here are some suggestion for (1) reducing backlash and (2) increasing impact (from this talk of mine: juliarohrer.com/wp-content/u...
A neat APS Observer piece in which I am proudly nonsignificant
Abstract Research seeking to explain why people believe conspira- cies has largely focused on intrapsychic factors, but there is growing research examining structural-level elements of dis- advantage. The socio-functional model of conspiracy belief (Adam-Troian et al., 2023, British Journal of Social Psycholog y, 62, 136) posits that subjective feelings of permanent inse- curity arising from objective material strain (i.e., precarity) cause conspiracy belief directly or indirectly through insti- tutional distrust. Across three preregistered studies using observational longitudinal designs over 3 (n = 637) and 11 months (n = 832), and a between-group experimental de- sign (n = 285), we use various methods to estimate causal ef- fects for this proposition during the current cost-of-living crisis. In Studies 1 and 2 using random intercept cross- lagged panel models, we find no evidence that increases in precarity temporally precede increases in conspiracy belief (or vice versa) but find stable between-persons effects over time. In Study 3, despite successfully manipulating precarity using a self-imagine paradigm, we find no direct or indirect effect on conspiracy belief through decreased government trust. We discuss the importance of using methods that per- mit credible causal inferences and key directions for future studies investigating the socio-functional model.
Testing the socio-functional model: Does precarity
cause conspiracy belief?
TLDR; probably not
huge thx: Antipodean Misinformation and Conspiracies Club @matthewmatix.bsky.social @lingtax.bsky.social @scicomguy.bsky.social @srhastraea.bsky.social @eddieclarke.bsky.social & students osf.io/nq3y7/
screenshot from the paper, stating that no causal claims (like they did in the title) should be made.
paper title
Doing non-causal inference (and being explicit about it), yet using a causal word as second word in the title.
If you pay Nature € 10.690, they will publish this in Nature Ageing.
I can tell you what I think of that for free.
www.nature.com/articles/s43...
Yikes. Even if they do realise, and describe it as such.... how many editors saying "wtf no" would it take before the data source named in the manuscript switches from AI to undergrad students or Prolific workers?
Congratulations John!! This is awesome news. Very well deserved!!
The motivation for calculations like these isn't to get p values for their own sake. It's to identify p values in journal articles that are inconsistent with other info provided in the articles. That in turn can signal mistakes in the analysis or writing, or fraud.
years ago I took some interest in the notion of precarity–the subjective experience of permanent insecurity rising from objective material strain–causing conspiracy belief. along with my undergraduate students (over 2 yrs), and my antipodean collaborators we tested this theory
osf.io/preprints/ps...
Come join an absolutely amazing researcher here in stunning Christchurch ! 📓
REFERENCES Brown, L., & Taylor, M. (2021). Artificial companionship and social withdrawal: Psychological implications of AI interaction. Journal of Social Psychology, 58(3), 245-267. Chen, R., & Zhou, H. (2023). AI companionship and emotional reciprocity: The illusion of meaningful relationships. AI & Society, 38(2), 112-130. Harris, J. (2022). The ethics of AI companionship: Emotional support or social isolation? Ethics and Technology Review, 45(4), 310-328. Johnson, P., & Miller, D. (2023). Digital isolation and AI-driven interactions: Understanding the long-term impact on human relationships. Journal of Digital Psychology, 67(1), 78-95. Jones, T., Smith, R., & Kim, S. (2023). The social presence of AI: Examining human responses to artificial companions. Human-Computer Interaction Journal, 29(1), 1-22. Kim, Y., & Park, S. (2021). AI mental health chatbots: A supportive tool or a replacement for human therapy? Psychological Technology Journal, 19(2), 134-152. Nguyen, L., Patel, A., & Wong, C. (2022). AI and social interaction: Bridging or widening the gap? Digital Communication Studies, 52(5), 267-285. Smith, A., & Lee, B. (2022). AI companionship: Comforting presence or psychological risk? Journal of Human-AI Interaction, 36(2), 200-222. Williams, D., Carter, E., & Green, P. (2020). Maslow’s hierarchy and AI: Can artificial companionship fulfill human social needs? Journal of Psychological Studies, 48(3), 145-162.
Did you guess "that paper does not actually exist"?
Did you also guess that NOT A SINGLE PAPER IN THEIR REFERENCES APPEARS TO EXIST? (Though I confess I only thoroughly checked for half of them, including databases for the journals.)
When your country's collective ability to bullshit on the internet is extensive enough to shape AI slop.
I haven't so far, but it's a good idea. I'll look into it!
We might be at a stage where systematic reviews without checks of trustworthiness become a problem in itself - even a danger to patients, as these reviews are considered as highest level of evidence and the foundation of guidelines and clinical practice
100%. As an editor I've seen some eye-watering examples lately. And if you ask for open data before considering the paper further, the authors pull the 'Homer disappearing into the hedge' trick...
Do you find the peer review at Frontiers too demanding? The standards too rigorous? The frontiers too... plural? Introducing: Frontier in Medical and Health Research!
7. the kinda appealing, but substantively indefensible, idea that somehow AI is different to other technology, like calculators, in a pedagogical context — but we totally ban a great deal of technology in the classroom.
(Section 3.7 here doi.org/10.5281/zeno...)
9/n
Stop submitting AI slop to journals and preprint servers
This is anti-social behavior. It is making life harder for everyone involved except for the person submitting the slop
Thank you for your excellent work as editor, David. AMPPS is such a great asset for the field.