Dr. Gabriel Baker

@gabrielbaker.bsky.social

Ancient History PhD. Teacher. H-War Network Editor. Author of Spare No One: Mass Violence in Roman Warfare. Chicagoland. Views/opinions are my own.

Even if the goal is strategic retreat from overseas positions, this is not the way: destroying material, morale, & credibility, hurting friends & helping enemies, all while killing your world-leading research ecosystem. This is what you get when you purge expertise & experience from decision-making.

I think this is a key part of why historians are mad, yeah. Because it’s a dunk, and it’s one that like. We all know that scientists and engineers think themselves better and smarter than humanities students. There’s always an assumption that they could do our job but we couldn’t do theirs.

Surprised Eel Historian, PhD@greenleejw.bsky.social · 2w ago

While recognizing that this is partly a reflection of differences between the UK and US models…I do think it’s kinda instructive to think about how this post would play in the world if the author had transposed “history” and “engineering.”

Can't get numb to this: The United States is stuck in a war it started, cannot end, and may further escalate to no avail, having dismantled its diplomatic apparatus, depleted its military stockpile, and destroyed its credibility. A historic strategic mistake harming millions in many different ways.

Every single publisher getting an AI payout from the LLM lawsuits should be paying it to their authors & making that author’s book open access—regardless of who own the rights. Most academic authors (ca. 80%) do not own their own publishing rights (especially first authors) & wont get checks at all.

getting rid of grades entirely would be much more effective at curbing surreptitious use of genAI than any amount of surveillance, would do vastly less harm to the pedagogical relationship at the heart of education, and wouldn't be another massive economic windfall for the creepiest people you know

Hypervisible @hypervisible.blacksky.app · 4mo ago

“At UCLA, students in a recent sociology class said they were told in an email to ‘procure a mirror large enough to fully reflect your entire desk-area work space,’ and turn on their laptop camera so the professor could watch them during an online test.”

Uninterested in leading a pile-on but no, AI does not “have access” to everything ever published. Not archival material, obviously, but not secondary material either. Nor across times nor languages. AI is not human knowledge personified. It’s exactly not that, in fact. It’s not even a search engine.

I apologize, but I've some harsh words here: Until the tenured are taking pay cuts to get more tenure lines, until they are pooling their salaries to provide basic living for the folks who *didn't* get hired in this shit job market, y'all have no right, zero, NONE to tell us how to do history.

“The Fiscal Year (FY) 2027 Budget proposes to eliminate the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) and provides $38 million to conduct an orderly shutdown of the Agency.” — NEH.gov The NEH has $207 million for FY2026. War in Iran? 1 billion per day. We go through 4.83 NEHs a day for what?

The danger to my job from AI isn't that AI can do my job, it's that my job is made even more precarious by the way AI is shaping ideas of the value of work. It can't do my job, but it can be part of convincing people (incorrectly) that my job isn't necessary.

I know that the people who need to read this aren’t here, but here goes: Rules of engagement aren’t for the enemy. They’re for you. They’re for your soldiers when they’re captured or wounded. They’re for your civilians when they’re in range of the enemy. They’re for your allies, to reassure.

Alysa Liu telling 60 Minutes “I love struggling, it makes me feel alive” is a legit revolutionary statement from a Bay Area native in a time when copious amounts of time and resources are being put toward convincing us to opt out of experiencing struggle, friction and self-actualization

I don't understand the point of this comment. Because from where I'm sitting, it is actually not a Good Thing for a world class university--situated in a democracy that is frequently at war, where a disproportionate number of future policy makers are educated--to NOT teach military history.

Kevin M. Kruse@kevinmkruse.bsky.social · 10mo ago

We don’t teach military history at Princeton. For a while Jim McPherson and John Murrin did a great “war and society” course, but even then it was a seminar with a dozen students.

Just a reminder that I'm happy to speak to any journalist, or to recommend other scholars to do so, about why prejudice and "potentially divisive symbols" like swastikas (!) are so harmful to morale and cohesion in militaries

U.S. Coast Guard will no longer classify swastikas, nooses as hate symbols

The military service, which falls under the Department of Homeland Security, has drafted a new policy that classifies such items “potentially divisive.”

washingtonpost.com