Since people occasionally ask, here’s the most popular articles on my blog from over the past three years and 1200 posts. The earlier research compendiums rank at the top (which is interesting, since I later discontinued them due to lack of interest from the community). By a decent margin, a collection of articles on the… Continue reading Most viewed articles over three years: people love adaptive philosophies and have a bone to pick with investigations
How Much Content Do LLMs Generate That Induces Cognitive Bias in Users?
This study explored when and how Large Language Models (LLMs) expose the human user to biased content, and quantified the extent of biased information. E.g. they fed the LLMs prompts and asked it to summarise, and then compared how the LLMs changed the content, context, hallucinated, or changed the sentiment. Providing context: · LLMs “are… Continue reading How Much Content Do LLMs Generate That Induces Cognitive Bias in Users?
Safe AF #10: Are safety myths –like most accidents due to human error –holding us back?
Are our safety myths–like most accidents being the result of human error–holding back genuine improvement within safety? Can myths like these actually hamper learning, and increase operational risk? Today’s article is from Besnard, D., & Hollnagel, E. (2014). I want to believe: some myths about the management of industrial safety. Cognition, Technology & Work, 16, 13-23. Make… Continue reading Safe AF #10: Are safety myths –like most accidents due to human error –holding us back?
Fatal, non-fatal, and near misses, oh my. Are they connected? Does it matter?
Is there a connection between minor and major potential incidents? Do non-SIFs illuminate the potential for SIFs? Well…maybe. Check out my pod episodes # and # for two studies which explored this question. PS. More pods focusing on different SIF studies have been recorded, so make sure to subscribe on Spotify/Apple, and join my Safe… Continue reading Fatal, non-fatal, and near misses, oh my. Are they connected? Does it matter?
The fallacy of relying on rules for robust risk management in complex high-risk environments
A few extracts from chapter 11 in Foundations of Safety Science by Bergström and Dekker I found interesting. Here they discuss research in healthcare how: · Nursing was found to have some 600 rules specifying a ward nurses daily work · But, nurses could recite just 2-3 of the 600 rules that “supposedly specify their job” · Despite… Continue reading The fallacy of relying on rules for robust risk management in complex high-risk environments
How certification shifts work away from functional issues to rustling paperwork
Does certification, like under ISO 18001, or likely 45001, only have positive effects, or does it also introduce unintended byproducts, like a focus on managing the paperwork and not ‘real’ issues, and oversimplifying psychosocial issues? Safe AF podcast #9 explored the byproducts of certification – just 9 mins of your life. Links below. They observed… Continue reading How certification shifts work away from functional issues to rustling paperwork
The Folly of Safety-III
Hollnagel’s response to some of the recent (and somewhat bizarre) articles on ‘Safety-III’. Spoiler: It’s not charitable. I’m relying on a lot of direct quotes. Providing context, Hollnagel argues: · Introduction of Safety-I and Safety-II (SI / SII) to characterise two opposite means of safety was “met with surprisingly large interest” and “also with some… Continue reading The Folly of Safety-III
Safe AF #9: How certified systems & auditing mask psychosocial factors
We design, implement and ISO-certify our safety systems with best intentions. We hope these systems help us to identify and address workplace hazards. However, is it possible that certified management systems can instead mask particular complex sociotechnical issues, simplifying psychosocial matters into neat, auditable matters, devoid of their depth and nuance? Can auditing transform functional… Continue reading Safe AF #9: How certified systems & auditing mask psychosocial factors
Cut the crap: a critical response to “ChatGPT is bullshit”
Here’s a critical response paper to yesterday’s “ChatGPT is bullshit” article from Hicks et al. Links to both articles below. Some core arguments: · Hick’s characterises LLMs as bullshitters, since LLMs “”cannot themselves be concerned with truth,” and thus “everything they produce is bullshit” · Hicks et al. rejects anthropomorphic terms such as hallucination or confabulation, since… Continue reading Cut the crap: a critical response to “ChatGPT is bullshit”
Using the hierarchy of intervention effectiveness to improve the quality of recommendations developed during critical patient safety incident reviews
This study evaluated the Hierarch of Intervention Effective (HIE) for improving patient safety incident recommendations. They were namely interested in increasing the proportion of system-focused recommendations. Data came from over 16 months. Extracts: Ref: Lan, M. F., Weatherby, H., Chimonides, E., Chartier, L. B., & Pozzobon, L. D. (2025, June). Using the hierarchy of intervention… Continue reading Using the hierarchy of intervention effectiveness to improve the quality of recommendations developed during critical patient safety incident reviews
SafetyInsights.org 