Hey congrats!!

Very disappointing loss for my team 😢

I was struck by how white nationalism is woven throughout this document. It is the motivating ideology behind the strategy’s antipathy toward Europe and the desire to assert dominance in our hemisphere.

I also wonder if there is a realistic way for them to document a research process so we can see that their own work led directly to the written words, though this seems onerous.

I’m pondering a requirement that when they turn in a report, they also turn in a handwritten paragraph that copies out verbatim the AI policy for the class, with a signature attesting they followed it.

I am sad that the tech industry took no thought or care for the havoc they would wreak before unleashing this tool, nor taken any steps to curb academic misconduct.

Very considerate!

I’m curious what you do with a turkey done that early?

I was up there this summer and it was gorgeous. Utah is pretty good right now too.

Curious how you secure your e-bike while running errands

This paper measured propaganda accounts and was at USENIX Security. Much more of a quantitative approach. But I get 💕 for a good qualitative paper.

www.usenix.org/conference/u...

You see significant overlap and PCs in human-centered security among the above and SOUPS. For CHI, the security and privacy subcommittee in particular.

Since it’s participatory maybe CSCW but I’m less familiar with it.

You could make an argument that propaganda campaigns fit under the security umbrella. And USENIX Security has a good set of reviewers that understand and accept qualitative work. Same with IEEE S&P. CCS is a work in progress.

Alternatively maybe CHI, but the registration deadline just passed.