BA in French Teaching; PhD in Educational Technology; Associate Professor of ICT at University of Kentucky School of Information Science. My CV is available here, you can browse my research here, and my Google Scholar profile here
Supported by digital methods, my research focuses on online social spaces, community practices within these spaces, and the influence of the platforms where they are found. My research is interdisciplinary, exploring spaces associated with teaching and learning, Mormonism, the far right, or even combinations of these themes.
You can subscribe to this content through this RSS feed or this Mastodon account. You can also subscribe to all of the content on this website through this RSS feed, this Bluesky account, or this newsletter.
I sometimes write in French! To only see the French content (which is also available below, alongside English content), please click on [fr] in the site header.
🔗 linkblog: Musk’s Grok 4 launches one day after chatbot generated Hitler praise on X
Okay, really don’t want to spend any more time writing about Grok, but let’s talk about this passage:
“With respect to academic questions, Grok 4 is better than PhD level in every subject, no exceptions,” Musk claimed during the livestream. We’ve previously covered nebulous claims about “PhD-level” AI, finding them to be generally specious marketing talk.
To return to my thoughts on AI and epistemology, I don’t think having a PhD is (or should be) a benchmark for content knowledge.
🔗 linkblog: Trump Seeks to Cut Basic Scientific Research by Roughly One-Third, Report Shows
Reading this through an Ellulian lens is interesting. In the 1950s, he was expressing concern about the valuing of (applied) technique over (basic) science. In this article, though, it’s clear how often that basic science is still described and defended in applied/technical terms. pushing the boundaries of knowledge seems to only be valuable if it “sow[s] practical spinoffs and breakthroughs” or helps the U.S. in its geopolitical competition.
Gift link.
🔗 linkblog: Musk makes grand promises about Grok 4 in the wake of a Nazi chatbot meltdown
Yesterday, I wrote my thoughts on how Grok’s “Nazi meltdown” helps illustrate some of my concerns about AI and epistemology.
This coverage of Grok’s latest demo only reinforces that—Musk’s tinkering with the LLM to get the results he wants is at odds with his states naïve epistemology that an LLM can be “maximally truth-seeking,” as though there is a self-evident truth that an LLM can deliver in a straightforward way (that is, without all that mucking about behind the scenes).
on Grok, other LLMs, and epistemology
Yesterday, I blogged (en français) on Jacques Ellul’s emphasis on the need for a technology-responsive ethic that emphasizes (among other values) tension and conflict. Ellul explores this ethic—one of non-power—in a few different writings that feel like different drafts of the same thing, and so I’ve seen that emphasis come up a few times as I’ve tried reading his work. Every time, it surprises me a little bit. Why, in articulating an ethical framework, would you emphasize tension and conflict?
🔗 linkblog: Microsoft, OpenAI, and a US Teachers’ Union Are Hatching a Plan to ‘Bring AI into the Classroom’
It feels like it’s Big Tech’s world and schools are just living in it.
Jacques Ellul contre l'IA
Ça fait plusieurs mois que je m’intéresse aux écrits de Jacques Ellul comme base théorique pour comprendre les techniques et technologies de nos jours. En fait, j’ai déjà écrit en février au sujet de l’intelligence artificielle générative et combien l’œuvre d’Ellul semble utile pour les critiques de l’IA malgré le fait qu’Ellul a vécu et écrit bien avant l’ère de l’IA comme nous la connaissons aujourd’hui.
Je suis en train de lire son livre posthume Théologie et technique (bien lentement, il faut l’avouer—j’avais commencé le livre en mai avant de devoir recommencer il y a quelques jours), et je trouve qu’il y a plusieurs passages qui me semblent utile lors des débats actuels au sujet de l’IA générative.
🔗 linkblog: OpenAI and Microsoft Bankroll New A.I. Training for Teachers
Don’t know what to say here except that I don’t like any of this. Reminded of two arguments from Ellul:
First, that an effective ethics of technology considers systematic effects, not “good” uses vs. “bad” uses,
Second, that “because it exists” is not sufficient justification for adopting a technology.
Anyway, here’s the gift link.
🔗 linkblog: ‘Improved’ Grok criticizes Democrats and Hollywood’s ‘Jewish executives’
More on why we need to talk epistemology when we talk generative AI:
Musk tweaking his AI model to be more aligned with right-wing edgelords was inevitable, but there’s a broader point to be made: each AI model is a black box that supposedly gives objective answers but in reality is shaped by its owners. As more people look to AI to learn about the world, the people who control how it’s trained and how it responds will control our prevailing narratives.
🔗 linkblog: Google, de moteur de recherche à moteur de réponse
Voilà pourquoi il faut parler de la théorie de connaissance quand on parle de IA:
On est passé d’un moteur de recherche à un moteur de réponse. C’est-à-dire que les algorithmes proposent des versions rédigées à partir des données qu’ils auront collectées sur Internet, puis reformulées sans que vous ayez rendu visite aux sites contenant ces éléments de réponse à votre requête.