all 7 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

Einstein called it

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Science predicts people will become so stupid they won't even be able to figure out a way to blame it on boomers.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago
    [–] 4 points 1 year ago*

    Nuh uh I asked gpt and it said: The impact of AI on human intelligence and decision-making depends largely on how we choose to use and integrate these technologies. AI can serve as a powerful tool to enhance learning, creativity, and problem-solving when used thoughtfully. However, there is a concern that over-reliance on AI for basic tasks or critical thinking might lead to skill atrophy or reduced mental engagement in certain areas.

    Ultimately, AI's influence on human cognition will depend on factors such as education, individual habits, and societal norms. Promoting responsible use, critical thinking, and continuous learning can help ensure that AI complements rather than diminishes human intelligence.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago
    [–] 1 point 1 year ago
    [–] 2 points 1 year ago
    21 comments in c/chatgpt@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Is AI always going to be stuck at its current level? Is there no way to improve it?

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Both groups were asked to research how to start a vegetable garden, with some participants randomly selected to use AI, while others were asked to use a search engine. According to the study’s findings, those who used ChatGPT gave much worse advice about how to plant a vegetable garden than those who used the search engine.

    This seems like not quite the same thing as the implied effective brain damage from the headline.

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

    Two more questions need answering before these findings can become actionable:

    • How do these two groups compared to a third group that can use both? ChatGPT is pretty useless on its own when correctness is important, but it improves a lot when you combine it with ways to verify its output.
    • How much time and effort would this new group need to accomplish the same task? One of ChatGPT's strengths is being able to communicate a piece of information in many different ways, and in whatever order you ask of it. It's then much faster to verify or through a legitimate source than it is to learn from those sources in the first place.
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    To me the main thing is, this is about utility of tools for acquiring general domain knowledge in a one-off event. The effects on overall intelligence, which is a separate thing from knowledge or ability to give effective advice on a topic, are a totally different scope.

    What it's actually testing doesn't seem like it's finding anything surprising, because the information itself the subjects are getting from ChatGPT is likely lower quality. So it could just be that the people reading blogposts or wikihow articles about starting a garden learned more and/or more accurate things about it, rather than, research using AI negatively affects the way you think, something that would make more sense to test over a longer period of time, and with a greater variety of topics and tasks.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    If similar studies are the same, then they suggest no such thing? They suggest that (that particular) AI is not very good at that task (in the hands of that particular cohort). As an analogy: imagine you see if 2 groups can actually start a vegetable garden. One is given gardening tools, the other are given licenses to the adobe suite. The first makes a better garden. Is this a good argument that the adobe suite causes people to be morons?

    As quoted, I don't see a claim of injury. The headline implies injury imo.

    (and now having looked at both studies; yeah, both are doing this bait+switch.)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I welcome you all to my level. 🙂‍↕️

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Have you read The Time Machine book where the humans in the future were all morons and weak because we turned the world into a safe place that didn’t represent any challenge for us anymore?

    The author described them like gnomes just playing around with the intelligence of little children.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    And the people who control the Ai control us.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago*
    [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    That's why I limit my use of it to moronic activities, like replying to brain-dead customers who can't read five lines of text. If I didn't, I wouldn't be able to restrain myself from insulting them, probably.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    I use it to help me correct my grammar and punctuation. It's great at fixing those problems. Other than that, it's just been a fever dream

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago*

    If you use the LLM by itself it’s nothing beyond a toy, but I like to have personal coding projects indexed in a way I can discuss things like suggestions on what to do next, looking for mistakes etc.

    Not everything you use LLMs for need accuracy, for example brainstorming is a very interesting activity for us humans, trying to see where your flaws in understanding a certain subject.

    To be honest, you could do that just by writing (hence why writing is such an important activity), but I think for the majority of people discussing a problem with an LLM is easier than staring at a blank piece of paper.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Eh. People do just fine at that without AI, what difference does it really make?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Same has been said about nearly every advancement in history.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago*

    Replace "using AI" with "managing undergrads" and all the experiments are obvious (yes, you can't quote a paper you asked an undergrad to write) and all the headlines are insane (no, you are not a moron for asking an undergrad to write the report).

  • source