It was already soooooo dead out there that I doubt they considered this systematic properly in the study…
Counterpoint - if you must rely on AI, you have to constantly exercise your critical thinking skills to parse through all its bullshit, or AI will eventually Darwin your ass when it tells you that bleach and ammonia make a lemon cleanser to die for.
That’s the same company that approved Clippie and the magic wizard.
Pretty shit “study”. If workers use AI for a task, obviously the results will be less diverse. That doesn’t mean their critical thinking skills deteriorated. It means they used a tool that produces a certain outcome. This doesn’t test their critical thinking at all.
“Another noteworthy finding of the study: users who had access to generative AI tools tended to produce “a less diverse set of outcomes for the same task” compared to those without. That passes the sniff test. If you’re using an AI tool to complete a task, you’re going to be limited to what that tool can generate based on its training data. These tools aren’t infinite idea machines, they can only work with what they have, so it checks out that their outputs would be more homogenous. Researchers wrote that this lack of diverse outcomes could be interpreted as a “deterioration of critical thinking” for workers.”
That doesn’t mean their critical thinking skills deteriorated. It means they used a tool that produces a certain outcome.
Dunning, meet Kruger
That snark doesnt help anyone.
Imagine the AI was 100% perfect and gave the correct answer every time, people using it would have a significantly reduced diversity of results as they would always be using the same tool to get the correct same answer.
People using an ai get a smaller diversity of results is neither good nor bad its just the way things are, the same way as people using the same pack of pens use a smaller variety of colours than those who are using whatever pens they have.
First off the AI isn’t correct 100% of the time, and it never will be.
Secondly, you as well are stating in so many more words that people stop thinking critically about its output. They accept it.
That is a lack of critical thinking on the part of the AI users, as well as yourself and the original poster.
Like, I don’t understand the argument you all are making here - am I going fucking crazy? “Bro it’s not that they don’t think critically it’s just that they accept whatever they’re given” which is the fucking definition of a lack of critical thinking.
Let me try with another example that can get round your blind AI hatred.
If people were using a calculator to calculate the value of an integral they would have significantly less diversity of results because they were all using the same tool. Less diversity of results has nothing to do with how good the tool is, it might be 100% right or 100% wrong but if everyone is using it then they will all get the same (or similar if it has a random element to it as LLMs do).
deleted by creator
I‘m surprised they even published this finding given how hard they‘re pushing AI.
That’s because they’re bragging, not warning.
How many phone numbers do you know off of the top of your head?
In the 90s, my mother could rattle off 20 or more.
But they’re all in her phone now. Are luddites going to start abandoning phones because they’re losing the ability to remember phone numbers? No, of course not.
Either way, these fancy prediction engines have better critical thinking skills than most of the flesh and bone people I meet every day to begin with. The world might actually be smarter on average if they didn’t open their mouths.
Mostly just this one:
0118 999 881 999 119 725 3
But even back when we only had land lines, I could barely remember my own phone number. I didn’t think it’s a good measure.
Memorization is not the same thing as critical thinking.
A well designed test will freely give you an equation sheet or even allow a cheat sheet.
Memorization is not the same thing as critical thinking.
A library of internalized axioms is necessary for efficient critical thinking. You can’t just turn yourself into a Chinese Room of analysis.
A well designed test will freely give you an equation sheet or even allow a cheat sheet.
Certain questions are phrased to force the reader to pluck out and categorize bits of information, to implement complex iterations of simple formulae, and to perform long-form calculations accurately without regard to the formulae themselves.
But for elementary skills, you’re often challenging the individual to retain basic facts and figures. Internalizing your multiplication tables can serve as a heuristic that’s quicker than doing simple sums in your head. Knowing the basic physics formulae - your F = ma, ρ=m/V, f= V/λ etc - can give you a broader understanding of the physical world.
If all you know how to do is search for answers to basic questions, you’re slowing down your ability to process new information and recognize patterns or predictive signals in a timely manner.
I agree with all of this. My comment is meant to refute the implication that not needing to memorize phone numbers is somehow analogous to critical thinking. And yes, internalized axioms are necessary, but largely the core element is memorizing how these axioms are used, not necessarily their rote text.
You’re right it’s not the same thing as critical thinking, but it is a skill we’ve lost. How many skills have we lost throughout history due to machines and manufacturing?
This is the same tale over and over again - these people weren’t using critical thinking to begin with if they were trusting a prediction engine with their tasks.
I think “deliberately suppressed” is different than lost.
When was the last time you did math without a calculator?
Calculators also don’t think critically.
Damn. I wonder where all the calculus identities and mathematical puzzle solving abilities in my head disappeared to then. Surely not into the void that is Wolfram Mathematica. Surely not…
Something something… Only phone number I remember is your mother’s phone number (Implying that is for when I’m calling her to arrange a session of sexual intercourse, that she willingly and enthusiastically participates in).
The same could be said about people who search for answers anywhere on the internet, or even the world, and don’t have some level of skepticism about their sources of information.
It’s more like, not having critical thinking skills perpetuates a lack of critical thinking skills.
Yeah, if you repeated this test with the person having access to a stack exchange or not you’d see the same results. Not much difference between someone mindlessly copying an answer from stack overflow vs copying it from AI. Both lead to more homogeneous answers and lower critical thinking skills.
I’d agree that anybody who just takes the first answer offered them by any means as fact would have the same results as this study.
Copying isn’t the same as using your brain to form logical conclusions. Instead your taking someone else’s wild interpretation, research, study, and blindly copying it as fact. That lowers critical thinking because your not thinking at all. Bad information is always bad no matter how far it spreads. Incomplete info is no different.
I find this very offensive, wait until my chatgpt hears about this! It will have a witty comeback for you just you watch!
Remember the:
Personal computers were “bicycles for the mind.”
I guess with AI and social media it’s more like melting your mind or something. I can’t find another analogy. Like a baseball bat to your leg for the mind doesn’t roll off the tongue.
I know Primeagen has turned off copilot because he said the “copilot pause” daunting and affects how he codes.
Cars for the mind.
Cars are killing people.
Microsoft said it so I guess it must be true then 🤷♂️
Just try using AI for a complicated mechanical repair. For instance draining the radiator fluid in your specific model of car, chances are googles AI model will throw in steps that are either wrong, or unnecessary. If you turn off your brain while using AI, you’re likely to make mistakes that will go unnoticed until the thing you did is business necessary. AI should be a tool like a straight edge, it has it’s purpose and it’s up to you the operator to make sure you got the edges squared(so to speak).
Well there’s people that followed apple maps into lakes and other things so the precedent is there already(I have no doubt it also existed before that)
You would need to heavily regulate it and thats not happening anytime soon if ever
I think, this is only a issue in the beginning, people will sooner or later realise that they can’t blindly trust an LMM output and how to create prompts to verify prompts (or better said prove that not enough relevant data was analysed and prove that it is hallucinations)
Oddly enough that’s exactly what corporate wants. Mindless drones to do their bidding unquestioned
Garbage in, Garbage out. Ingesting all that internet blather didn’t make the ai smarter by much if anything.
Corporations and politicians: “oh great news everyone… It worked. Time to kick off phase 2…”
- Replace all the water trump wasted in California with brawndo
- Sell mortgages for eggs, but call them patriot pods
- Welcome to Costco, I love you
- All medicine replaced with raw milk enemas
- Handjobs at Starbucks
- Ow my balls, Tuesdays this fall on CBS
- Chocolate rations have gone up from 10 to 6
- All government vehicles are cybertrucks
- trump nft cartoons on all USD, incest legal, Ivanka new first lady.
- Public executions on pay per view, lowered into deep fried turkey fryer on white house lawn, your meat is then mixed in with the other mechanically separated protein on the Tyson foods processing line (run exclusively by 3rd graders) and packaged without distinction on label.
- FDA doesn’t inspect food or drugs. Everything approved and officially change acronym to F(uck You) D(umb) A(ss)
- Handjobs at Starbucks
Well that’s just solid policy right there, cum on.
It would wake me up more than coffee that’s for sure
I love how you mix in the Idiocracy quotes :D
A savvy consumer, glad you mentioned. Felt better than hitting it on the nose.
I hate how it just seems to slide in.
Bullet point 3 was my single issue vote
that “ow, my balls” reference caught me off-guard
