As a further dimension, the conflation of objectivity and rigor where AI as a product of a "more rigorous" field like the computing sciences is concerned means that OF COURSE the products of that field can do the work of "less rigorous" fields without an issue.

March 12, 2026 - 19:19 UTC

1
0
33
I've been kicking that bit around in my head because LLMs and GenAI in the computing sciences are often treated as aids to the highly technical fields. E.x.: you can have Claude spit out some code which frees you up to do other, more important tasks. This is not how it is framed in humanities.
2
0
33
In the contexts of the humanities (and the social sciences) the AI is presented as a REPLACEMENT for the scholar and the skills they develop. You can now have GenAI write your essays, provide input via stolen data, correct your grammar, all things cultivated into students by humanities scholars.
1
0
48
Whoa, they are similarly used in other fields as they are in computing. That code it spits out still has the same ownership issues, skill retention issues, etc.

If you use it as an expert tool, also in computing it will mess up spectacularly.
0
0
0