Peter Slattery, PhD

How much does it run to book a research communications workshop? I have long mulled over the idea of transparency relating to costs for my services. I appreciate that there is a wide range between what consultants charge. Most research groups and organisations believe that this kind of support is beyond their reach, especially when budgets are getting squeezed more and more in the HE and research sector. I'm running the first of a few yearly workshops for a Northern university and they book me year on year to teach their staff. I thought it might be worth showing what kind of training you can get and what it will cost you.   I have seen wildly varying prices for services and have tried to be as fair as I can with mine given that a lot of effort goes into preparing and creating course materials. In the course of a two hour workshop I share a lot of information and nearly 20 years of knowledge in the area of digital literacy and research communications. ​ Below is a link to the rates I charge for online workshops, usually hosted by the organisation who book me.    Please contact me if you want me to come and deliver a workshop at your organisation, which obviously incurs travel and possible accommodation costs. You can also get in touch via the form on my website. ​ All prices include VAT.    10% discount for repeat clients, NHS and registered charities.    Two hour workshops seem to work best in terms of sharing lots of information and skills without attendees getting fatigued. Hence why it is better to spread online learning across a few days than in a single one, people are staring at screens long enough as it is.    Maximum number of attendees for a workshop is 30 and copies of the teaching materials can be shared after the workshop for personal use on request. https://lnkd.in/eWtKDmFm  

4

For those who are eager to have the cost savings AI can bring, they should keep the bigger picture and the long term business defensiblity of their value proposition in mind and avoid basking in the glory of short term cost savings at the expense of the long term viability of the business. Replacing jobs with algorithms is a financial opportunity to upskill human talent to protect the organization's future #competitiveness. This will inevitably require reimagining positions and future value chains. For more on imagination in disruptive times check out my new book "Imagination Dilemma: tools to overcome it and thrive through disruption" www.imaginationdilemma.com And sign up for the webinar series where I unpack each chapter of the book and tools https://lnkd.in/efx8vuXZ #imaginationdilemma #AI #jobs #disruption #technologicalunemployment

23

Here is another summary of the prompting tips mentioned in the Anthropic podcast. This one was generated with NotebookLM which now supports YouTube videos. Tutorial on how it was generated: https://lnkd.in/evumcRPb

56

2 Comments

AI is having an impact across industries but currently we’re lost somewhere in the hype-cycle between the “Peak of Inflated Expectations” and the “Trough of Disillusionment”. This article from Jonathan Durst at NVIDA is a balanced piece of reflection on what AI is going to mean for computing and research computing in particular. As a former (or current) cloud consultant this para struck me as being amusingly insightful : “Cloud - that’s stupid, ignore it and it’ll go away. Containers - that’s stupid, ignore it and it’ll go away. Machine learning - you mean curve fitting? Ignore it and it’ll go away.“ Eventually people stop asking. If what they wanted was a reflexive “no” from a computer person, they could file a ticket with enterprise IT. The next phase in the hype-cycle is the “Slope of Enlightenment” - let’s hope we get there fast. https://lnkd.in/gBRkY-2i [image from easy-peasy.ai] #research #rse #ai #computing #researchcomputing

11

When applying HRV cognitively to support human creativity, productivity and wellness, I have a collection of PubMed and other research papers to ensure my R&D not as the hallucinations (no matter from either AI or human). They are mostly as the knowledge ignored and left by the sport or fitness sectors due to HRV as the average of several hours or one moment applied there - meaning a lot of the details as HRV changes often not so interested yet. For GenAI Aided No-Code exploration, I am also searching and saving a similar collection of research papers if applicable theoretically able to help my R&D, such as following 2 links: LINK 1 AI is making a whole new way of thinking, experts say https://lnkd.in/dizDAsff Artificial intelligence could lead to a kind of thought that happens outside of brains, researchers suggest The idea builds upon the idea of System 1 and System 2 thinking - System 1 is fast and emotional, where System 2 is slower but more considered. Now experts proposed a new kind of thinking: System 0 - It relies on the capabilities of AI and so is external to the brain, but relates to it, they suggest. humans could use AI as a way of gathering and filtering organisation but handing off the final control and thinking to humans. it could also offer positive opportunities, such as the ability to quickly deal with data and tackle complex problems. LINK 2 System 0: Is artificial intelligence creating a new way of thinking, an external thought process outside of our minds? https://lnkd.in/dmTnrvAK AI can support humanity in tackling problems that exceed our natural cognitive capacities. Whether solving complex scientific issues, analyzing massive datasets, or managing intricate social systems, AI could become an indispensable ally. System 1, characterized by intuitive, fast, and automatic thinking, and System 2, a more analytical and reflective type of thinking. However, System 0 introduces an additional level of complexity, radically altering the cognitive landscape in which we operate, and could thus mark a monumental step forward in the evolution of our ability to think and make decisions. In other words, AI can perform calculations, make predictions, and generate responses without truly "understanding" the content of the data it works with. This cognitive support provides valuable input, but the final control must always remain in human hands. --- If in comparison with my 11 features from GenAI Aided PDF to APP, as the following link, are they somehow as an example of System 0 even tried already before seeing the above research paper? GenAI Creativity Flow https://lnkd.in/dJYndnDr The original PDF file was the result of GenAI and human interactions as a process of System 0 way - then continued for APP with such a list of 11 features still in a same way: 1. AI-Powered Design Generator Create unique design elements quickly with customizable parameters. CONTINUE IN COMMENT #learningisfun #GenAI #NoCode #HRV #System0

11

1 Comment

I'm forever banging on about the importance of behaviour change in the neuro-inclusion space. This visual perfectly summarises what I tell organisations. Knowledge is the first step, a necessary one. But behaviours and habits are what have to be targeted to create sustained change, and a new world of work where everyone belongs. D&I consultants may tell you what to do, but that's the easy part. Transferring this into new behaviours and using data & metrics to measure if any of your initiatives are actually leading to change, is the missing piece. But are there any companies willing to put in the work of creating a solid strategy upfront, so they can actually make sustained change? 🤷🏼‍♀️

17

5 Comments

This is a serious problem. And it's not the name->NRIC lookup that I'm worried about. Update (previous post kept brief as it related to an active vulnerability): NRIC numbers were originally intended as a unique identifier to facilitate government administration. Even if we accept the premise that NRIC numbers are now meant to be used freely as a personal identifier, I'd be surprised if this is commonly understood to mean we should not object to giving out NRIC numbers to persons or entities that we do not have any legitimate need to transact with. I don't do that with my full name or my age... (I welcome commenters to include their full name and NRIC in their remarks.) Never mind the dogma/philosophy behind this new policy--what was wrong with the status quo where NRIC is already used (freely) as an identifier for government transactions and bona fide KYC? And where other casual use cases establish unique identity through a combination of other fields (including masked NRIC)? As it is, emailed bank statements will now need to be secured with something other than NRIC+DOB (because the former is now public and the latter can be guessed to within a few days' margin of error with the former). I would be keen to see an articulation of the citizen benefit that this policy change seeks. On my alarm, now that the query function has been disabled... it apparently lacked basic safeguards--no rate limits, no captchas (even though it claims to implement one), no sign-in requirement. This makes it trivially easy to scrape NRIC numbers at scale for any given set of names. But that's not all. While the namespace of names is practically infinite, the namespace of NRIC numbers is finite and enumerable. The unprotected NRIC->name lookup without a paywall effectively enables automated scraping of the Name-NRIC table at scale. Seemingly non-sensitive information (if NRICs are such), when aggregated into large datasets, can become sensitive due to the potential for misuse and increased risk of harm to individuals. Enabling a mass enumeration attack, even for non-sensitive information, is still a security vulnerability. For all the investment in ScamShield communications, I worry about my relatives, for whom the effort that will go into this forthcoming public education exercise is likely to be of scant consolation when they fall prey to scammers that win their trust by demonstrating familiarity with personal details. Perhaps one positive effect will be greater impetus for wider adoption of SingPass for KYC and authentication. But that's another story for another time. Disclaimer: Personal commentary

163

25 Comments

Are you an early-career researcher who wants to make a real impact on society with your research? Engaging in a science-policy interface might show you the way! For newbies to science-policy interfaces(SPI), our latest publication presents 🗺 a mind-map to help you navigate your potential engagement. 🔗 open-access: https://lnkd.in/gM75ARm4 You can use the mind-map to: - self-evaluate the current condition for engagement (see ‘Environment’ of the map). - identify activities to engage that interest you (see ‘Acts of Engagement’) - understand your expectations from SPI engagement (see ‘Outcomes’) Explore the mind-map yourself, and share it with your friends, supervisors, policy-makers, and others to discuss future engagement!🗣 🤔 💡 🏃‍♂️ 😎 LET'S HAVE SOME FUN: What’s your experience with science-policy interfaces? Was it satisfying or a total nightmare? Please share it in the comments!

19

2 Comments

This is a bigger threat to the future of science than any potential budget cuts. See UPDATE in comments (spoiler - it's worse than we thought). Bad business models around a flawed peer-review system plus wanton use of half-baked AI have left science in perilous situation. In the Dark Ages there were at least monasteries to hide and preserve science. With the current threat - the "shittification" of science to borrow Gary Marcus ' term - the future of science is in jeopardy as all of our pipeline of knowledge is being infected. It will take a new application of something like the Republic of Letters to get us past this threat, with tamper-resistant validation and authentication of data, information (manuscripts), and knowledge (systematic reviews) along with verified and confidence scored tools, devices, models, people and organizations. Trust - but verify - the science. Hopefully we can still save it from ourselves. #science #research #publishing #technology #threat #future Heather Leigh Flannery Yoram Vodovotz Thomas C. Collin, PhD Amicia D. Elliott, Ph.D. Kris Rockwell Keith Main Paul Tibbits, MD Sandy Barsky Ivor Dsouza

25

19 Comments

I had an opportunity to chat about all things AI with Harvard Business School Online. I find it strange to listen to my own voice, so I'll give you a few key take-aways from memory: (1) Society needs to start an open dialogue about how we feel around AI content - what sort of disclaimers and authorizations are needed? - so that businesses know how to proceed. (2) Ignore the hype, follow the science, when trying to navigate AI decisions. Research from Digital Data Design (D^3) Institute at Harvard is a great source for cutting-edge research into how your business can harness AI. (3) We are on the cusp of major transformations across roles and industries. Buckle up. Pay attention. #generativeai #business #data #design #digital

64

6 Comments

It’s finally here! My long-awaited book is officially released. 🚀 It’s literally an encyclopaedia for scaling research—all sorts of research. #RTS #ResearchOps #UXresearch #UX

225

36 Comments

This is by no means a new or hot take, but an important one: qualitatively data is not just bad quantitative data. In this GovLoop article, I cite Indi Young’s data spectrum, a wonderful meme I saw on UXinsight, and provide rebuttals to some of the common misconceptions on qualitative data. #qualitativedata #mixedmethods #research #uxr #civictech #govcon

58

1 Comment

I've seen people criticize the AICPA and state societies for not taking political positions. The first segment of this podcast describes the impact of a scientific journal taking a "social justice" position and how it impacts the trust in science. As accountants and auditors we are seen as the "arbiters of truth" and I am glad that our professional associations are not putting our position as the most trusted profession at risk. #transformaccounting https://lnkd.in/gGF-MDQi

6

1 Comment

All of us involved in trying to change human behaviour should read the paper that Petar links to here

3

One of the best articles on AI and our future in the The New York Times this week from Thomas Byrne Edsall. Will AI be a creator or a destroyer of worlds? An amazing summary of research from leading thinkers including Erik Brynjolfsson, David Autor and others. My takeaway: the future of AI is about choices, what we want to do with AI, how we want AI to impact fairness and equality. It's not trends. It's not what AI can do. It's about the direction we want to see in how we integrate AI in our lives. Columbia Business School https://lnkd.in/eKRzDyX7

12

3 Comments

A really interesting read by Caroline Busta, that replaces the way "AI" operates in the perspective of the paradigm shift we are currently experiencing as a society in our way to communicate (and to think, more generally). In a nutshell, she shows that the way our current experience of the world is shared, is becoming less and less based on meaning (carried by texts) and increasingly on affect (carried by a digital, intersensory flow of data). As artists, i.e. dealing with affects as our main expression means, i don't think we should try and go against this–since "the reading of the shape and feel" is maybe our first skill–but we should rather see how we can contribute to find new ways of making sense of the world, and ultimately "channel [it] into a new kind of governance.” Excerpts: “What if there’s something deeper, older, even organically emergent that has been nudging us to perceive and communicate in a fundamentally different way and “machine learning neural networks” are, rather, answering that call?” “we now predominantly transmit information in ways that exceed the limits of alphabetic code, and we gained this ability so rapidly that we are civilizationally unprepared to absorb the shift.” “We are still programmed to read signs directly, to attempt a denotative decoding, but there are just too many applications and interpretations of any given sign or data point to enact actual democratic deliberation. So instead we sense, basing our decisions on the shape and feel of the content and squaring that with whatever meaning feels closest (and therefore “truest”) to our personal experience.” “Looking to the future, maybe all of this human sensing will, for better or worse, be channeled into a new kind of governance.” https://lnkd.in/eyC-AG4V

26

7 Comments

In what feels like such a long time coming, read about my PhD research into how "justification practices" emerge in charities! Milestones, targets, and outcomes aren't neutral tools of "measurement"—they shift people's working practices and prevent people doing their best work. That doesn't mean we throw the whole thing out—but a focus on evaluation rather than learning leads to poor working conditions.

14

1 Comment

Happy New Year all! ICYMI before Christmas, I shared some of my research into the emergence of "justification practices" in charities, which mostly emerges around evaluation and impact. Milestones, targets, and outcomes aren't neutral tools of "measurement"—they shift people's working practices and prevent people doing their best work. That doesn't mean we throw the whole thing out—but a focus on evaluation rather than learning leads to poor working conditions.

6

1 Comment

Could #AI nudge us into buying more sustainably? New research from colleagues Jennifer Ducarre (née Evans) Emma Blackburn Allison Katz suggests people drowning in the tyranny of choice could use ‘AI-powered advisors’ to cut through the noise. But what does this mean for #sustainability? In the dystopian view, these assistants will find the lowest price points – and simply encourage us to consume more. But what if we told these advisors to surface green products, concurrently programming in our appetite for compromise on price, quality, or convenience? We know the intent/action gap remains wide in sustainability research: consumers are laser focused on environmental creds...until they get to the checkout. But could AI, somewhat counterintuitively, help us keep our values ‘top of mind’?

28

3 Comments