257
Spending Just 10 Minutes With AI Can Fry Your Brain, Researchers Find (gizmodo.com)
submitted 3 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
113 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 31 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Changing the terms of the test in the middle of it, without warning, is disruptive. I’m not convinced it “fried their brains.” The same would happen with a calculator suddenly removed during the middle of an exam.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago

    Or any task change really. You tell me that I'm here for a writing task, then halfway through it becomes a math test? There's no way I'm doing anywhere near as well as if they told me what was happening ahead of time.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    You are disregarding the last paragraph, where 2 other studies showed similar results, without having the "disruptive" factor.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago* (1 child)

    Here’s that last paragraph. Microsoft’s finding actually sounds like it does have the disruptive factor: people are trained to use AI and then it is removed. And finally, finally in the very last sentence of the entire article we get the one piece of information that’s been missing the entire time: doctors perform better with AI help, but then worse than ever without it.

    My conclusion? Let people have AI and perform better with it.

    Carpenters trained on power tools will suddenly perform worse with hand tools than carpenters who were never given power tools. But if they are given power tools, they can build homes faster.

    No shit?

    The findings are also in line with a study Microsoft published last yearthat looked at cognitive decline among knowledge workers, which found that the more people lean on AI, the worse they perform when asked to work without support. It also echoes a study out of Poland, which found that while doctors are better at spotting cancer risks with AI assistance, they perform worse than the no-AI baseline once that assistance is removed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child)

    Carpenters trained on power tools will suddenly perform worse with hand tools than carpenters who were never given power tools.

    Now you are just making shit up. None of these examples are about people being trained on AI. The comparison would be if a carpenter using power tolls for 10 minutes, suddenly becomes worse at using the traditional tools he is trained to use.

    Your claim is baseless, there is no evidence for it, and the lack of any evidence of it, makes it an unreasonable assumption based on your prejudice alone, and should not be believed.

    Let people have AI and perform better with it.

    Again a very loaded statement, nobody is preventing anybody from using AI based on this research. But maybe people are not really performing better, or at least not always, it may depend on the task.

    Your logic is fundamentally flawed and inconsistent, and you seem to lack any ability to see this as a potential problem, so much so that it reeks of you having an agenda.

    Your flawed logic and prejudice does not beat 3 research papers.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    I laugh in your face. This article has a clear agenda, not me.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Yes the article reporting on a research paper has an agenda, and not the random guy ignoring the evidence to contradict it. With absolutely zero to show for your argument, and clearly using flawed logic.

    All I hear is the laugh of ignorance.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago* (1 child)

    Ah yes, Gizmodo, arbiter of scientific truths. Their agenda is clear: to get you to click, typically with an outragey clickbait headline that reinforces your favorite narrative.

    You need to learn the difference between debating someone and shouting at them that they have no argument, no logic, no evidence, and ill motivations. I can think of a couple other things you also need to do, but I’ll keep it PG.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •