you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] 3 points 1 year ago (9 children)
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    The study itself is entirely benign, and I'd actually accept it as a reason to eschew AI in an educational context. Their conclusion is basically "if you use an LLM to write an essay you tend to not retain the information as well", which is... Downright boring in how reasonable it is. Particularly given the converse observation I wouldn't have expected: if you are already familiar with a subject then using an LLM to write an essay can strengthen your understanding.

    The "journal" this summary of the study was shared in is quackery, so I'm not surprised they distorted the findings.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [+] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    No, like, you're seemingly saying "new inventions never cause health problems"

    Y'know, like asbestos. It was a wonder material! And then the health effects were uncovered.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] [S] -2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Literally every piece of technology introduced in the past thousand years has had this kind of hue and cry built up around it, beginning with the printing press and books in Europe.

    The ill-concieved printing press argument is a standard pro-AI trope.

    Remember when television would "rot kids' minds"? Remember when the Internet was going to end civilization as we know it?

    Yeah, i don't know where you live but here in America our democracy is in shreds thanks to those things. They came true, just as they said it would. Environmental collapse is next, for those keeping score at home.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Saying knee jerk rejection of new technology is common is pro-ai?
    If it's such a bad, ill-concieved notion, why don't you explain why it's wrong, instead of just saying that it's used by people you disagree with?

    Maybe if an argument is used by both pro and anti AI people, it's less a "pro-ai" argument, and more a "let's keep in mind how often doom and gloom has been wrong and keep our criticism grounded"?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] -1 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    If it's such a bad, ill-concieved notion, why don't you explain why it's wrong, instead of just saying that it's used by people you disagree with?

    Again? No. Maybe someone else feels like explaining it this time.

    "let's keep in mind how often doom and gloom has been wrong and keep our criticism grounded"?

    My good dude, the sentient life on this planet is about to witness several extinction events in our lifetime because we ignored the grounded "doom and gloom" research. If you want to stand on the big red X this time while a loud whistling noise and billionaire cackling gets louder, that's up to you but as many people have tried to say before - it's a bad idea, don't do it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)