▲ 257 ▼ Spending Just 10 Minutes With AI Can Fry Your Brain, Researchers Find (gizmodo.com) submitted 3 months ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world 113 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] derAbsender@piefed.social 1 point 3 months ago (1 child) Wow. Now do this with a calculator. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago (2 children) A calculator is not the same problem, it doesn't reduce our general ability to think critically. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] iglou@programming.dev 2 points 3 months ago* (1 child) The studies referenced are about calculations, reading comprehension and work performance, not critical thinking. The article is, like many, a bad one. It generalises what it should not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago* (1 child) The sessions lasted about 10 minutes, suggesting that those who decided to rely heavily on AI to solve problems for them abandoned their critical thinking abilities in a matter of minutes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] iglou@programming.dev 3 points 3 months ago* (1 child) As I said, this is a bad article. The experiment does not suggest that at all. The study does not mention critical thinking. I'd say, however, that the proliferation of shitty news websites has caused readers to lose their critical thinking. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world -5 points 3 months ago* (1 child) In academia it is normal not to directly spell out things that are obvious to a person with academic knowledge on the subject, research papers are meant for scholars, and they are supposed to be able to read and understand the consequences for themselves. So you can't use it as an argument that it isn't spelled out, if it can be easily derived by a person who understands the subject. Research papers do not spell out every possible consequence of their findings. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] iglou@programming.dev 3 points 3 months ago* (1 child) It isn't spelled out because it is not a logical conclusion at all. Nothing in this test requires critical thinking to achieve. Why are you defending an obviously terribly written article? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] architect 2 points 3 months ago Because AI bad! permalink fedilink source parent [–] derAbsender@piefed.social 1 point 3 months ago (1 child) As the study defines critical thinking: yes it does. The study claims, essentially, relying on a machine that solves a Problem for you, lessens your critical thinking skills. Their Definition of "critical thinking" is just, at least to me, way Off. Just because i can conprehend Stuff i read for example, does not show critical thinking. It just shows i can repeat shit i read adequately. It's just bad science. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] architect 1 point 3 months ago Oooooh have they done religion yet? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago (2 children) A calculator is not the same problem, it doesn't reduce our general ability to think critically. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] iglou@programming.dev 2 points 3 months ago* (1 child) The studies referenced are about calculations, reading comprehension and work performance, not critical thinking. The article is, like many, a bad one. It generalises what it should not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago* (1 child) The sessions lasted about 10 minutes, suggesting that those who decided to rely heavily on AI to solve problems for them abandoned their critical thinking abilities in a matter of minutes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] iglou@programming.dev 3 points 3 months ago* (1 child) As I said, this is a bad article. The experiment does not suggest that at all. The study does not mention critical thinking. I'd say, however, that the proliferation of shitty news websites has caused readers to lose their critical thinking. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world -5 points 3 months ago* (1 child) In academia it is normal not to directly spell out things that are obvious to a person with academic knowledge on the subject, research papers are meant for scholars, and they are supposed to be able to read and understand the consequences for themselves. So you can't use it as an argument that it isn't spelled out, if it can be easily derived by a person who understands the subject. Research papers do not spell out every possible consequence of their findings. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] iglou@programming.dev 3 points 3 months ago* (1 child) It isn't spelled out because it is not a logical conclusion at all. Nothing in this test requires critical thinking to achieve. Why are you defending an obviously terribly written article? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] architect 2 points 3 months ago Because AI bad! permalink fedilink source parent [–] derAbsender@piefed.social 1 point 3 months ago (1 child) As the study defines critical thinking: yes it does. The study claims, essentially, relying on a machine that solves a Problem for you, lessens your critical thinking skills. Their Definition of "critical thinking" is just, at least to me, way Off. Just because i can conprehend Stuff i read for example, does not show critical thinking. It just shows i can repeat shit i read adequately. It's just bad science. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] architect 1 point 3 months ago Oooooh have they done religion yet? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] iglou@programming.dev 2 points 3 months ago* (1 child) The studies referenced are about calculations, reading comprehension and work performance, not critical thinking. The article is, like many, a bad one. It generalises what it should not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago* (1 child) The sessions lasted about 10 minutes, suggesting that those who decided to rely heavily on AI to solve problems for them abandoned their critical thinking abilities in a matter of minutes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] iglou@programming.dev 3 points 3 months ago* (1 child) As I said, this is a bad article. The experiment does not suggest that at all. The study does not mention critical thinking. I'd say, however, that the proliferation of shitty news websites has caused readers to lose their critical thinking. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world -5 points 3 months ago* (1 child) In academia it is normal not to directly spell out things that are obvious to a person with academic knowledge on the subject, research papers are meant for scholars, and they are supposed to be able to read and understand the consequences for themselves. So you can't use it as an argument that it isn't spelled out, if it can be easily derived by a person who understands the subject. Research papers do not spell out every possible consequence of their findings. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] iglou@programming.dev 3 points 3 months ago* (1 child) It isn't spelled out because it is not a logical conclusion at all. Nothing in this test requires critical thinking to achieve. Why are you defending an obviously terribly written article? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] architect 2 points 3 months ago Because AI bad! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago* (1 child) The sessions lasted about 10 minutes, suggesting that those who decided to rely heavily on AI to solve problems for them abandoned their critical thinking abilities in a matter of minutes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] iglou@programming.dev 3 points 3 months ago* (1 child) As I said, this is a bad article. The experiment does not suggest that at all. The study does not mention critical thinking. I'd say, however, that the proliferation of shitty news websites has caused readers to lose their critical thinking. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world -5 points 3 months ago* (1 child) In academia it is normal not to directly spell out things that are obvious to a person with academic knowledge on the subject, research papers are meant for scholars, and they are supposed to be able to read and understand the consequences for themselves. So you can't use it as an argument that it isn't spelled out, if it can be easily derived by a person who understands the subject. Research papers do not spell out every possible consequence of their findings. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] iglou@programming.dev 3 points 3 months ago* (1 child) It isn't spelled out because it is not a logical conclusion at all. Nothing in this test requires critical thinking to achieve. Why are you defending an obviously terribly written article? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] architect 2 points 3 months ago Because AI bad! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] iglou@programming.dev 3 points 3 months ago* (1 child) As I said, this is a bad article. The experiment does not suggest that at all. The study does not mention critical thinking. I'd say, however, that the proliferation of shitty news websites has caused readers to lose their critical thinking. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world -5 points 3 months ago* (1 child) In academia it is normal not to directly spell out things that are obvious to a person with academic knowledge on the subject, research papers are meant for scholars, and they are supposed to be able to read and understand the consequences for themselves. So you can't use it as an argument that it isn't spelled out, if it can be easily derived by a person who understands the subject. Research papers do not spell out every possible consequence of their findings. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] iglou@programming.dev 3 points 3 months ago* (1 child) It isn't spelled out because it is not a logical conclusion at all. Nothing in this test requires critical thinking to achieve. Why are you defending an obviously terribly written article? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] architect 2 points 3 months ago Because AI bad! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world -5 points 3 months ago* (1 child) In academia it is normal not to directly spell out things that are obvious to a person with academic knowledge on the subject, research papers are meant for scholars, and they are supposed to be able to read and understand the consequences for themselves. So you can't use it as an argument that it isn't spelled out, if it can be easily derived by a person who understands the subject. Research papers do not spell out every possible consequence of their findings. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] iglou@programming.dev 3 points 3 months ago* (1 child) It isn't spelled out because it is not a logical conclusion at all. Nothing in this test requires critical thinking to achieve. Why are you defending an obviously terribly written article? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] architect 2 points 3 months ago Because AI bad! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] iglou@programming.dev 3 points 3 months ago* (1 child) It isn't spelled out because it is not a logical conclusion at all. Nothing in this test requires critical thinking to achieve. Why are you defending an obviously terribly written article? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] architect 2 points 3 months ago Because AI bad! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] derAbsender@piefed.social 1 point 3 months ago (1 child) As the study defines critical thinking: yes it does. The study claims, essentially, relying on a machine that solves a Problem for you, lessens your critical thinking skills. Their Definition of "critical thinking" is just, at least to me, way Off. Just because i can conprehend Stuff i read for example, does not show critical thinking. It just shows i can repeat shit i read adequately. It's just bad science. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] architect 1 point 3 months ago Oooooh have they done religion yet? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] architect 1 point 3 months ago Oooooh have they done religion yet? permalink fedilink source parent