Oh, and wow is Pride Village ever a great place!

Oh, and I know that there was too much text on my poster (on a propsed study on academic teacher's perceptions of "AI" tools) and the type was too small and it wasn't really enticing to read, but luckily there's OSF for that and if you're interested you can now peruse it at your leisure: https://osf.io/nj27d

I had many more discussions and visited more sessions, so if I didn't mention your unconference, hackathon, workshop or lightning talk even if I was in it, rest assured I made notes (oh so many notes...) but I had to draw the line somewhere...

But the problem is that - at least in the context that I know best and that Rima-Maria referred to the most, Germany - most psych. Ph.D. programs don't prepare you well for anything else or build good bridges out of academia. So, yes, we need permanent positions for post-docs but we also need to provide good training and opportunities. Psych Ph.D.s are highly qualified people and an asset to any context they may end up in and we should treat them that way, not just as "failed academics".

And, in the end, @rmrahal made a very succinct but multi-faceted argument why we need good working conditions if we want good science. There was one thought that I've had before but that came back into my mind during the talk: I don't think anyone expects that every person that ever does their Ph.D. expects a permanent position in academia afterwards, and many, I assume, don't even plan to stay in academia anyway.

Finally I attended a great @FORRT hackathon, led by Alaa Aldoh, gathering info on (non-)replications and meta-analyses of effects from all subfields of psych. in order to create an easily readable and searchable overview on https://forrt.org/reversals/ I've had something like this in mind for ed. psych. for the longest time, so it's great people are doing this, and not just for one specific subfield. It is a _lot_ of work though, so get in touch with them if you want to help!

However, open source algorithms are already in a very exciting place. I'd love a hackathon at #SIPS2024 for working on a model that does things that we need (automated pre-registration? automated codebook? course materials?) better and more ethically than whatever the big corps are selling.

We had a very rich and multi-faceted discussion about ChatGPT et al., led by Laura and Matt Vowels. All the ideas, worries and excitement about how these models may help or hinder research and teaching should be moot, if we realise that the way these systems are built is deeply unethical (in the sense of e.g. exploitative labour practices) and unsafe (because of data security and privacy issues). @auzdavenice made this point very eloquently.

@andreakispsy's lightning talk introduced me to the concept of epistemic sustainability, in the sense of reliability and longevity of our research results.