416 scholars reject AI in qualitative research \ stacker news ~AI

pull down to refresh

The primary reasons we note for such rejection relate to:

GenAI as simulated intelligence is incapable of meaning making

Qualitative research should remain a distinctly human practice

The established manifold harms of GenAI, especially to the environment and workers in the Global South

But they lost me at:

Third, we draw your attention to the concerning exploitative, colonialist and extractivist practices in which big AI corporations engage

[..]

Critics have pointed to the extractivist, racist, imperialist and exploitative ethos motivating Big AI Tech in their quest for profit

If you perceive that the nazis are winning, compete them out of existence; Karening something out of existence is so unlikely it could, if successful, perhaps warrant a whole new Nobel prize category for those that fought injustice by complaining to the manager.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Kayzone OP 2 Dec

Thanks for taking your time to always contribute a good insights.

50 sats \ 0 replies \ @xz 2 Dec

I had to re-examine the concept of reflexive qualatitive research. After that, I couldn't understand why any intelligent researcher would expect a language model to be reflexive.

The statement continued, “Reflexive qualitative research is a distinctly human practice, undertaken by humans, with or about humans (for example, through interviews, focus groups or textual data), and for the benefit of humans.."

Surely, reflexive qualitative research is undertaken by humans and directed by organizations and corporations?

We could simply summarize this as observer paradox.