Sue Young

@suetas.bsky.social

Editor, publisher, dachshund fan, hoping to make my bit of the earth in southern lutruwita Tasmania a bit better.

Just because big tech companies want to move at hyperspeed, doesn’t mean we need to fast track & roll out the red carpet for them. We need to consider very carefully the impact on workers, as well as the mega extraction of our intelligence, knowledge, culture, water and energy.

It’s important to be clear that the truth value of a subject does not become debatable just because somebody wants to debate. Ether. Wandering wombs. Devils in red heads, the cursed left handed. Flat earth. Phrenology. Humors. Race science. “Debate me bro!” It’s fine for the answer to be: no.

1. Recently I’ve received lots of emails from people I don’t know personally, asking for my feedback on their books or papers. They explain the connection between my work and theirs and ask me to take a look. The catch, of course, is that the emails are transparently, obviously, written by AI.

I'm getting the feeling that writers are now so scared of being accused of writing with AI that they won't use em (or en) dashes at all, and keep misusing semicolons instead. Meanwhile, the AI stuff I see on social media has moved on, with hardly a dash to be seen. #amediting

The ground is pretty soft in the Huon right now. I've finally emailed a story back to the author after two earlier attempts were interrupted by people getting their cars stuck in my paddocks, with all the ensuing carry-on. 1/-

Can't help but notice that in the novel I'm reading, no female character is introduced without some description of her hair. She might even be not so much a woman as a brunette, blonde or redhead. The men? I have no idea if they even have any hair, let alone what colour it is.

These companies are out to mine our resources – our water, our space, our power generation capacity and our creativity – as cheaply and carelessly as they can and take the profits back home. Albanese must show some spine.

Jennifer Mills@jennifermills.net.au · 2mo ago

Another one framing copyright as an obstacle. It’s not complicated. It’s our right as creators not to have our work stolen. You have to ask permission. Licensing is not difficult! We’re all extremely contactable! www.abc.net.au/news/2026-07...

Please see this as a general reminder that you're not alone. Many of us reject, refuse, repudiate artificial intelligence and the technology industry: Guest et al. (2026). Against the Uncritical Adoption of 'AI' Technologies in Academia. Digital Culture & Education doi.org/10.5281/zeno...

Artificial intelligence (AI) companies and their rhetoric infringe on academia in harmful ways, mirroring past uncritical acceptance of industry logics, such as those of tobacco and petroleum. In this position piece, we tease apart and explain why phrases like 'generative AI' impede scholarly discussion because by design these expressions are used to dazzle and sidestep scrutiny. Furthermore, we contend with the AI industry's logics to enable rejecting frames such as: that we must embrace the future, that this hype cycle is unique, that anthropomorphism and circular reasoning hold water when discussing AI systems, and that students are now all cheating or all need to use AI. To these ends, we expound on why universities must take their role seriously to a) counter the AI industry's marketing, hype, and harm; and to b) safeguard higher education, critical thinking, expertise, academic freedom, and scientific integrity. For each point we raise, we include pointers to relevant work to further inform and convince our colleagues.
Olivia Guest · Ολίβια Γκεστ@olivia.science · 12mo ago

Finally! 🤩 Our position piece: Against the Uncritical Adoption of 'AI' Technologies in Academia: doi.org/10.5281/zeno... We unpick the tech industry’s marketing, hype, & harm; and we argue for safeguarding higher education, critical thinking, expertise, academic freedom, & scientific integrity. 1/n

Abstract: Under the banner of progress, products have been uncritically adopted or
even imposed on users — in past centuries with tobacco and combustion engines, and in
the 21st with social media. For these collective blunders, we now regret our involvement or
apathy as scientists, and society struggles to put the genie back in the bottle. Currently, we
are similarly entangled with artificial intelligence (AI) technology. For example, software updates are rolled out seamlessly and non-consensually, Microsoft Office is bundled with chatbots, and we, our students, and our employers have had no say, as it is not
considered a valid position to reject AI technologies in our teaching and research. This
is why in June 2025, we co-authored an Open Letter calling on our employers to reverse
and rethink their stance on uncritically adopting AI technologies. In this position piece,
we expound on why universities must take their role seriously toa) counter the technology
industry’s marketing, hype, and harm; and to b) safeguard higher education, critical
thinking, expertise, academic freedom, and scientific integrity. We include pointers to
relevant work to further inform our colleagues.

The hardest part about proving genocide is "Intent." Israel's fascist defense minister BenGvir just proved again his intent to mass murder everyone in Lebanon, declaring "ALL OF LEBANON MUST BURN." Block arms to Israel. Sanction these war criminals. Any politician denying this is complicit.

Bild

OK, finally watching Pauline Hanson's speech. On Sky News's Youtube. Superb timing with the banner, whoever unrolled it just as Hanson was getting into The Desperate State of the Poor.

Yep. The only reason my husband got diagnosed fairly early with prostate cancer was that the GP he was now seeing for diabetes suggested a routine PSA test. Without the diabetes he'd never have been seeing a GP.