The schedule and RSVP link for the CAIC launch event is now live on our website 🚀 Check the schedule and RSVP to attend ✏️ caic.centers.purdue.edu
06.03.2026 02:54
👍 4
🔁 3
💬 0
📌 1
The schedule and RSVP link for the CAIC launch event is now live on our website 🚀 Check the schedule and RSVP to attend ✏️ caic.centers.purdue.edu
Cool postdoc: hiring someone with training in philosophy + computational methods to study how AI is transforming epistemic norms & practices across academic fields of knowledge. Can vouch the PI is both a fantastic advisor & person. Great academic network too: Purdue to CMU to Chicago to Princeton.
New paper on Why Slop Matters w/ great group of co authors (@hoytlong.bsky.social @eduede.bsky.social @ari-holtzman.bsky.social + others not on Bluesky) from ACM AI Letters. We try to move the debate re: AI Slop past normative, neg claims & towards parsing its social uses. dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/...
Excited to recruit a 🚨 postdoc 🚨 for projects on #AI and evolving scientific practice, norms, and impact! Interdisciplinary work across science of science, philosophy of science, math with creative Purdue/Argonne/CMU/Chicago/Princeton collaborators! *pls repost*! careers.purdue.edu/job/Postdoc-...
New on the Archive:
Avigad, Jeremy (2026) Mathematical Understanding. [Preprint]
https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/27708/
New on the Archive:
Duede, Eamon and Friedman, Daniel (2025) Epistemic Gaps and the Attribution of (AI) Discovery. [Preprint]
https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/27719/
Excited this piece is finally out in Philosophy of Science. We argue that, paradoxically, we can have certainty about theorems in math, the proofs of which we can never understand. That's weird and tells us something important about why we do math in the first place #philsky tinyurl.com/3dxxb98a
Reviewer 2 may have used the autopen during the final days of the Biden administration
Philosophy paper pitchbot
Factor Fexcectorn
I've long felt that there's something about working through logic (particularly mathematical logic) that is clarifying for thought in ways that turning the formal crank more generally isn't... like having to prove out an actual argument form using only syntactic rules is forceful learning
Can AI simulations of human research participants advance cognitive science? In @cp-trendscognsci.bsky.social, @lmesseri.bsky.social & I analyze this vision. We show how “AI Surrogates” entrench practices that limit the generalizability of cognitive science while aspiring to do the opposite. 1/
Tell us about the singer songwriters who hurt you, Jonathan
Three schematic diagrams. The first illustrates selective publishing of internal resection, the second selective causal focus, and the third selective access and funding for researchers.
1. We ( @jbakcoleman.bsky.social, @cailinmeister.bsky.social, @jevinwest.bsky.social, and I) have a new preprint up on the arXiv.
There we explore how social media companies and other online information technology firms are able to manipulate scientific research about the effects of their products.
New piece w/ James Evans in Science explores what we call 'science after science', an era where our ability to control nature may exceed our ability to understand it; a new struggle to sustain curiosity & understanding under AI's predictive dominance. #ai #science
www.science.org/doi/10.1126/...
Twin cities friends: I'll be speaking tomorrow at the Minnesota Center for Philosophy of Science on how AI disrupts the sometimes precarious balance of scientific incentives.
One of the best #philsci conferences in one of the best cities: the 2026 BSPS Annual Conference is taking place in Leeds 21–23 July.
Keynotes by Robin Hendry, Tarja Knuuttila & Eleanor Knox.
More info: www.thebsps.org/news/bsps-an...
#philsky
it’s crazy because no one knows what the aim of science is
"Coming back to life" is also surprising because it's nothing like them and also great
Most underrated Floyd album
thank you for your careful engagement with the arguments of the paper...
In 1977 computers proved the 4Color Theorem. Human's can't check that proof, but trust it because they understand it. Now #AI can generate proofs we'll never understand. Can we trust those? In a new paper out in PhilSci @philscijournal.bsky.social, we argue yes! with a catch: tinyurl.com/yhmnrx5m
I'm seeing this, too!
AI use & coverage are growing quickly & recently across academic fields
arxiv.org/pdf/2405.15828
1. The philosophy of science sometimes gets an unearned reputation as a purely academic exercise that offers little by way of concrete tools for advancing research.
This is wrong.
And today, as we grapple with how AI is changing the nature of scientific activity, it's desperately wrong.
"the bar is on the floor and, if you're going to make it in the hard tech era, you can no longer ooze under it"
Applications are open for SFI's 2026 Complexity Postdoctoral Fellowships
If you’ve recently earned a Ph.D. in any scientific field and want to pursue independent, transdisciplinary research, consider applying.
Deadline: October 1, 2025
Apply here: santafe.edu/sfifellowship
Can we talk about how fantastic that grounds crew is? Look at that cut!
Tennis one point, no difference. Chess a pawn, game over. White moves twice initially, game over. Black gets two moves after white's first move... I thought I could just set that up on the computer but it occurred to me that if black knows they'd get to move twice, then they might find a novel first
