The ancient amphitheatre was our destination; we had been walking toward it excitedly, with greater and greater speed.
The post My Glamorous Life: Roman Holiday appeared first on Zeldman on Web and Interaction Design.
Publishing
“Led” is the past tense of “lead.” L.E.D. Not L.E.A.D. Example: “Fran, who leads the group, led the meeting.” When professional publications get the small stuff wrong, it makes us less trusting about the big stuff. Trust in media is already at an all-time low. Don’t alienate liberal arts majors and obsessive compulsives. We may […]
The post Get it right. appeared first on Zeldman on Web and Interaction Design.
Ever since an infantile fascist billionaire (hereafter, the IFB) decided to turn Twitter over to the racially hostile anti-science set, folks who previously used that network daily to discuss and amplify topics they cared about have either given up on the very premise of a shared digital commons, continued to post to Twitter while holding […]
The post In search of a digital town square appeared first on Zeldman on Web and Interaction Design.
Geopolitics of knowledge is a fact. Only few (conservative) colleagues would contend otherwise. Ingrid Robeyns wrote an entry for this blog dealing with this problem. There, Ingrid dealt mostly with the absence of non-Anglophone colleagues in political philosophy books and journals from the Anglophone centre. I want to stress that this is not a problem […]
Examining last week’s Verge-vs-Sullivan “Google ruined the web” debate, author Elizabeth Tai writes: I don’t know any class of user more abused by SEO and Google search than the writer. Whether they’re working for their bread [and] butter or are just writing for fun, writers have to write the way Google wants them to just […]
The post Algorithm & Blues appeared first on Zeldman on Web and Interaction Design.
I did something both awesome and ill-timed. Well, first I should back up and remind you of something I told you before at some nebulous time in the past, and that is that I am an immersive daydreamer. I said that I was a maladaptive daydreamer but I didn’t even think that was right, because […]
Editors of academic philosophy journals whose content is largely behind paywalls may be interested in applying to a new program from MIT Press that will “cover the expenses of transitioning a journal to open access model for a three-year term, provide the Press’s full suite of publishing services, and support the development of a sustainable funding model for the future.” Dubbed “shift+Open”, the program is intended for journals that have been publishing for at least three years using a subscription model. There are no other restrictions on eligibility, so the fact that your journal is currently produced by another publisher is not an obstacle to applying, and journals based anywhere in the world are welcome to apply. The aim is to convert journals to “diamond”-level open access, that is, no fees for authors to submit or publish their work and no fees for readers to access content. They note: “we anticipate publishing only in a digital format but will consider submissions that have a print component.” The project is funded by the Arcadia Fund. You can learn more about shift+Open here.
What should our norms be regarding the publishing of philosophical work created with the help of large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT or other forms of artificial intelligence? In a recent article, the editors of Nature put forward their position, which they think is likely to be adopted by other journals: First, no LLM tool will be accepted as a credited author on a research paper. That is because any attribution of authorship carries with it accountability for the work, and AI tools cannot take such responsibility. Second, researchers using LLM tools should document this use in the methods or acknowledgements sections. If a paper does not include these sections, the introduction or another appropriate section can be used to document the use of the LLM. A few comments about these: a. It makes sense to not ban use of the technology. Doing so would be ineffective, would incentivize hiding its use, and would stand in opposition to the development of new effective and ethical uses of the technology in research. b. The requirement to document how the LLMs were used in the research and writing is reasonable but vague.
I recently listened to the new book by Anand Giridharadas, who is well-known for his previous book Winner Takes All. That book was about how (some of) the superrich are happy trying to contribute to some of the world’s problems, but never ask any questions related to why the world is so unequal as it […]