Ellen Evers

@the_jeffers @wizards_magic It's technically possible but more likely differences in questions come from different answers on previous questions.

@squig @wizards_magic Okay, it is feeling like we answered different surveys. I didn't get those questions either. Could past surveys also affect your questions? I have seen and answered those questions before, but not this time. Are browser cookies also having an effect?

We want to know what you think of #MTGxTMNT in our latest survey! Take it here: mtg.social/TMTSurvey

@the_jeffers @wizards_magic Yeah, it was also not clear to me for many of the spending questions if they included mtga in that or only spending on paper magic (and if mtga, do gems count? I bought some of those with cash at some point but not all), etc.

@squig @wizards_magic That's interesting. I said I play commander yet received no such question. They also need to check the phrasing on a number of their "agree/disagree" questions. On several of them clearly intend a "like/dislike" answer. It's been a problem on these surveys for years, though.

@greymerchant00 @wizards_magic It's great for my how *not* to design surveys slides 🙃

@squig @wizards_magic It is like they are doing it in house. It was so bad...

@fbanda16 @wizards_magic All the way at the bottom? In that case I missed it, but I definitely wont be the only person missing it from a list of 50 options.

@squig @wizards_magic There was a "None of these" option

@jamesthebatt @mattloaded It's an ad

@mattloaded ok and ?? u bitchin about social media on social media, either i got "ragebaited" or u just fishing for validation like 90% of the ppl on here 😂😂😂

Social apps are completely broken. I know what my friends liked. I see what they repost and the life they aspire to. I know what news they are annoyed at this week. But I don’t know if they’re sleeping okay, hitting the gym, or eating well. I don’t know anything real about them anymore. We’re all just broadcasting into the void and calling it connection

@Cnithster Thanks for sharing, it's a start but mostly covers the government secrets side, not all the other externalities.

@squig Just saw this and thought of you and this thread, Squigles! I hope it goes through and is enough of course: x.com/ChrisMurphyCT/…

I believe public prediction markets to be terrible, they should not exist. That said, a lot of the backlash seems to come from a fundamental misunderstanding of what they are supposed to be (largely due to how the markets position themselves). 1/2

@mattloaded @grok isn't twitter supposed to flag ads as such legally?

@mattloaded what a weird ad

My "Not dead" tweets have people asking a lot of questions already answered by my tweets.

Another consequence of betting markets; journalists reporting getting death threats: timesofisrael.com/gamblers-tryin…

I expect them to become much more strongly regulated in the future, not because they are unfair / because they will cause a gambling epidemic / or because a lot of people find it gross to bet on death, but rather because they are a massive security risk by design.

@minzlicht Yeah I didn't mean to call you guys out specifically :p I think work around moral dumbfounding/ consequence insensitivity is both really interesting (and important) but often seemingly "irrational" judgments can be rationalized (most salient for me the haidt classic).

@squig Excellent point, Ellen. And I've had similar thoughts. We have other measures of moral conviction that align with these consequence insensitive questions, but your point still stands.

Ask a colleague why they refuse to use AI. They say it uses up all that water. You point out the water use is far smaller than some would have them believe. Then it's the hallucinations. You mention accuracy has improved dramatically. Then, finally: the process is the point. The struggle. The craft. The deeply human act of sitting with uncertainty. They're not reasoning. They're rationalizing their gut intuitions. My amazing student @vicoldemburgo, with Éloïse Côté, Reem Ayad, @yorl, Jason Plaks and I have a new preprint that explores this more thoroughly, called "The Moralization of Artificial Intelligence". We started by asking how moralized AI has become in public discourse. Analyzing 69,890 news headlines from 2018 to 2024, we found that AI was moralized at levels comparable to GMOs and vaccines, technologies whose moral opposition has been studied for decades. It ranked above both. The sharpest spike came within weeks of ChatGPT's launch in late 2022. When we surveyed representative samples of Americans, a majority of AI opponents said their views wouldn't change even if AI proved safe and beneficial. That's consequence insensitivity, the hallmark of moral conviction, not practical calculation. Across art, chatbots, legal tools, and romantic companions, AI moralization loaded onto a single latent factor. A global moral stance, dressed up in whatever practical language is available. The behavioral data make this concrete: a one standard deviation increase in moralization scores predicted a 42% drop in actual AI usage, even when it would have benefited that person personally. The conviction preceded the behavior by up to 573 days. The next time someone gives you three different reasons to oppose AI, each one dissolving under mild scrutiny, you're probably not watching someone think. You're watching someone feel. Preprint avaulable here: osf.io/preprints/psya…

The liberal arts are IMPORTANT people! Cause you can be “smart” technically while being a complete idiot

@lakens A more positive alternative take is that reviewers started demanding it and journals adjusted to reviewer demands.

The lesson for me was: academics don't like being told what to do by peers - not even if they are told to do the right thing. But they do not resists change on any principle. If the people with money or in control of journals say the same thing, they will do it.

I remember the widespread pushback when the Peer Reviewer Openness Initiative started in 2017, where we would only review papers that share data and code (or explain why that is not possible) opennessinitiative.org/the-initiative/ Now, funders and journals are requiring it.

@andre_quentin That seems like other side of same coin, or am I misunderstanding?

@squig You can also argue that they function as an information mechanism, in that the insiders' knowledge is trickling through the price signals. But yes, sure-fire way of losing money if you view it as a gambling platform!

@a6785366836359 @wideofthepost That's how the third way question was framed, I should have used an /s because it is indeed a stupid set-up

@squig @wideofthepost You can do two things at the same time. Hope this helps 👍

this is why third way had to cook their results with that ridiculous compound question (which was itself a huge tell)

@notbubbawallace @wideofthepost x.com/squig/status/2…

@squig @wideofthepost disbanding the agency would automatically and unavoidably give complete immunity to all ICE agents? provide a source for that claim, please.