M.J. Crockett
@mjcrockett.bsky.social
Professor of Psychology & Human Values at Princeton | Cognitive scientist curious about technology, narratives, & epistemic (in)justice | They/She 🏳️🌈
www.crockettlab.org
www.crockettlab.org
Reposted by M.J. Crockett
Finegold's "The Engineer's Apprentice"
December 3, 2025 at 2:35 PM
Finegold's "The Engineer's Apprentice"
Reposted by M.J. Crockett
Also @ruthmalan.bsky.social has a good thread of examples over on the elephant website
mastodon.social/@RuthMalan/1...
mastodon.social/@RuthMalan/1...
Ruth — of systems & em dashes (@[email protected])
“The designer's view of the human operator may be that the operator is unreliable and inefficient, so should be eliminated from the system. There are two ironies of this attitude. One is that designer...
mastodon.social
December 3, 2025 at 2:36 PM
Also @ruthmalan.bsky.social has a good thread of examples over on the elephant website
mastodon.social/@RuthMalan/1...
mastodon.social/@RuthMalan/1...
Reposted by M.J. Crockett
I'm shocked no-one has started cosplaying Dreyfus on AI yet! philpapers.org/rec/DREWHA But I also found this ace piece on automation from the early 80s last week which is like every ai in work application www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...
Ironies of automation
This paper discusses the ways in which automation of industrial processes may expand rather than eliminate problems with the human operator. Some comm…
www.sciencedirect.com
December 3, 2025 at 1:10 PM
I'm shocked no-one has started cosplaying Dreyfus on AI yet! philpapers.org/rec/DREWHA But I also found this ace piece on automation from the early 80s last week which is like every ai in work application www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...
Reposted by M.J. Crockett
So many things.
Have you read Philip Agre's "Toward a Critical Technical Practice" ? pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/agre...
Have you read Philip Agre's "Toward a Critical Technical Practice" ? pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/agre...
pages.gseis.ucla.edu
December 3, 2025 at 3:12 AM
So many things.
Have you read Philip Agre's "Toward a Critical Technical Practice" ? pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/agre...
Have you read Philip Agre's "Toward a Critical Technical Practice" ? pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/agre...
Reposted by M.J. Crockett
Cannot second this one enough! If you haven't read it, I'd also recommend John Pierce's Whither Speech Recognition, which I think has some interesting resonances today, and some early inklings of how a lot of later technology ended up working out, couched in so.e *pure* venom
Whither Speech Recognition?
Speech recognition has glamour. Funds have been available. Results have been less glamorous. “When we listen to a person speaking much of what we think we hear
pubs.aip.org
December 3, 2025 at 4:48 AM
Cannot second this one enough! If you haven't read it, I'd also recommend John Pierce's Whither Speech Recognition, which I think has some interesting resonances today, and some early inklings of how a lot of later technology ended up working out, couched in so.e *pure* venom
Ooh! Adding to my list.
December 3, 2025 at 3:15 AM
Ooh! Adding to my list.
E.g. “systems are evaluated and judged successful without regard to whether real-life users find them to be useful. After all, as one scientist pointed out, usefulness is not quantifiable.“ (Forsythe, Studying Those Who Study Us, 2001)
December 3, 2025 at 3:09 AM
E.g. “systems are evaluated and judged successful without regard to whether real-life users find them to be useful. After all, as one scientist pointed out, usefulness is not quantifiable.“ (Forsythe, Studying Those Who Study Us, 2001)
Sure, it seems like you think it's more plausible than I do that ML/AI could in principle be used to predict replicability. So I understand why you ran the original competition based on this belief. I'm wondering why a 2nd one is helpful given results of the 1st (and where is stopping point)
December 2, 2025 at 9:02 PM
Sure, it seems like you think it's more plausible than I do that ML/AI could in principle be used to predict replicability. So I understand why you ran the original competition based on this belief. I'm wondering why a 2nd one is helpful given results of the 1st (and where is stopping point)
For the reasons articulated in the piece, I don't think predicting replicability is a valid use case for ML/AI. I'm concerned that investing in such projects is a waste of resources and risks contributing to harmful narratives that ML/AI is more capable than it actually is.
December 2, 2025 at 8:10 PM
For the reasons articulated in the piece, I don't think predicting replicability is a valid use case for ML/AI. I'm concerned that investing in such projects is a waste of resources and risks contributing to harmful narratives that ML/AI is more capable than it actually is.