270
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2026
270 points (97.9% liked)
Technology
80724 readers
3722 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I mean this feels like an obvious result. Are we thinking this is ground breaking?
Like comparing 3 ways of making a table, hand tools, power tools or paying someone to make it for you. Then asking which required the most effort.
I mean I know it's important to confirm even expected results but this feels so intuitive.
It seems intuitive but also 2000 years ago people thought that for example the eye emitting some sort of substance that interacts with the surrounding environment to be an intuitive explanation for how vision works, so intuitions need to be tested.
Damnit. Eye lasers would have been so much cooler though.
Well we do have some kind of eye lasers it's just very low energy
And thus, ray-tracing was born.
No it's more complex than that. In the final session, participants were swapped between the LLM and Brain groups, and the effects persisted to some extent.
So it's worse than "using an LLM doesn't engage your brain", it's more like "using an LLM actually makes you dumber."
It is obvious, but we have so many liars lying to everyone and each other about AI that they get away with it. Skilled bullshitters shitting up clouds of smoke and using every manipulation tactic in the world.
Some hard evidence makes it easier to prevent their damage.
It’s so easy to pontificate instead of actually doing studies, right?
That's a great observation!...
Fuck yeah. Lets do it!
Maybe I was not eloquent enough, but I don't object to the research being done. I think though that the result is the expected one and therefore it is not noteworthy enough to post on here. Doubtless this paper with end up highly cited.
I'm glad scientists think otherwise, or we would still be living in the dark ages.
In other news, dark ages are a myth disproven by science.
Fair enough, let me rephrase that:
I'm sorry, that came off very passive-aggressive, I really shouldn't post at 3 am when I can sleep.
The whole dark ages, and golden ages thing is just very annoying, made up during the renaissance, in part as a useful tool to go "look how shit everything is, I will make it great and amazing like it was before", still a favorite to use by populists (in reference to whatever time is most suitable) and it's been repeated so much, it actually works, everyone kinda just accepted it. But then when you dig into it, the middle ages weren't really worse in terms of invention/art/etc. than the renaissance, nor was there this big stagnation after the decline of the roman empire, and people always made art, new inventions and great achievements, along with cruelty, bloodshed and other awful things. But then this has been a relatively recent shift in historical research, so not that well known
Well for one the historical field is part of the humanities and for second dark ages are certainly a thing just not the medieval dark age. The Greek dark age is most certainly a thing for example.
Well it's rather than being about effort, it's more like, in the end, which of these people best understands how to make a table?