So you think people become more stupid by listening to Donald Trump? How about watching shitty TV? Like, do you think your brain is so vulnerable, and you’re so much of a pushover, that a real-time choose your own adventure system is gonna fuck you up?
Give me a break, AI has real deal breaker issues, but this is just "vaccines cause autism, level science.
Microsoft did a study on this and they found that those who made heavy usage of AI tools said they felt dumber:
“Such consternation is not unfounded. Used improperly, technologies can and do result in the deterioration of cognitive faculties that ought to be preserved. As Bainbridge [7] noted, a key irony of automation is that by mechanising routine tasks and leaving exception-handling to the human user, you deprive the user of the routine opportunities to practice their judgement and strengthen their cognitive musculature, leaving them atrophied and unprepared when the exceptions do arise.”
Cognitive ability is like a muscle. If it is not used regularly, it will decay.
It also said it made people less creative:
“users with access to GenAI tools produce a less diverse set of outcomes for the same task, compared to those without. This tendency for convergence reflects a lack of personal, contextualised, critical and reflective judgement of AI output and thus can be interpreted as a deterioration of critical thinking.”
The classic Ad Hominem. Instead of actually refuting the arguments, you instead attack the ones making them.
So, tell me, which part of "As Bainbridge [7] noted, a key irony of automation is that by mechanising routine tasks and leaving exception-handling to the human user, you deprive the user of the routine opportunities to practice their judgement and strengthen their cognitive musculature, leaving them atrophied and unprepared when the exceptions do arise.” is affected by the conflict of interests with the company? This is a note made by Bainbridge. The argument is as follows
If you use the machine to think for you, you will stop thinking.
Not thinking leads to a degradation of thinking skills
Therefore, using machine to think for you will lead to a degradation of thinking skills.
It is not too hard to see that if you stop doing something for a while, your skill to do that thing will degrade overtime. Part of getting better is learning from your own mistakes. The AI will rob you those learning experiences.
What is the problem with the second quote? It is not an opinion, it is an observation.
You have yet to refute the deduction based argument:
If you use the machine to think for you, you will stop thinking.
Not thinking leads to a degradation of thinking skills
Therefore, using machine to think for you will lead to a degradation of thinking skills.
This is not inductive reasoning, like a study, where you look at data and induce a conclusion. This is pure reasoning. Refute it.
That’s a lot of bon-scientific blogs to talk about the non-scientific study I pointed out. Still no objective evidence.
They are a bunch of blogs of people sharing that, after utilizing AI for extended periods of time, their ability to solve problems degraded because they stopped thinking and sharpening their cognitive skills.
So what would satisfy your need for objective evidence? What would I need to show you for you to change your mind? How would a satisfactory study be conducted?
I didn’t say much about the “hominem” but I think you’re defining Microsoft?
“Defining Microsoft”… I didn’t define Microsoft?
Did you mean “Defend”? What do you mean “defend”? Again, ad hominem. Instead of substantiating why it is you say the document doesn’t count, you attack the ones who made it.
All your dismissals and you have yet to refute the argument all these people make:
If you use the machine to think for you, you will stop thinking.
Not thinking leads to a degradation of thinking skills
Therefore, using machine to think for you will lead to a degradation of thinking skills.
All you have to do is refute this argument and my then it will be up to me to defend myself. Refute the argument. It’s deductive reasoning.
By combining related and unrelated, reasonable and ridiculous examples, the unwary might think you made a legitimate argument. Instead, you made a straw man, probably without even realizing it, and it provides a great exemple of what this article is talking about.
Humans aren’t born with a robust mental skill set, so skills must be learned. If they are not learned, are learned poorly, or decline due to disuse, then functional intellectual performance suffers. AI use supplements or replaces multiple key skills, particularly relevant here the communication of complex concepts and critical thinking.
Critical thinking skills are, well, critical. Using critical thinking, I look at your comment and ask “does this comment make sense? Does listening to Donald Trump inherently mean letting him think for me? Could cognitive skill atrophy due to disuse be resisted by ‘not being a pushover’? Greatest of all, did this person read the fucking article?”
So you think people become more stupid by listening to Donald Trump? How about watching shitty TV? Like, do you think your brain is so vulnerable, and you’re so much of a pushover, that a real-time choose your own adventure system is gonna fuck you up?
Give me a break, AI has real deal breaker issues, but this is just "vaccines cause autism, level science.
Microsoft did a study on this and they found that those who made heavy usage of AI tools said they felt dumber:
Cognitive ability is like a muscle. If it is not used regularly, it will decay.
It also said it made people less creative:
LINK
Your “study” is based on self-reported opinions, funded by a company with serious conflict of interests and not peer reviewed.
Damn, you got me .
The classic Ad Hominem. Instead of actually refuting the arguments, you instead attack the ones making them.
So, tell me, which part of "As Bainbridge [7] noted, a key irony of automation is that by mechanising routine tasks and leaving exception-handling to the human user, you deprive the user of the routine opportunities to practice their judgement and strengthen their cognitive musculature, leaving them atrophied and unprepared when the exceptions do arise.” is affected by the conflict of interests with the company? This is a note made by Bainbridge. The argument is as follows
If you use the machine to think for you, you will stop thinking.
Not thinking leads to a degradation of thinking skills
Therefore, using machine to think for you will lead to a degradation of thinking skills.
It is not too hard to see that if you stop doing something for a while, your skill to do that thing will degrade overtime. Part of getting better is learning from your own mistakes. The AI will rob you those learning experiences.
What is the problem with the second quote? It is not an opinion, it is an observation.
Other’s have noticed this already:
https://www.darrenhorrocks.co.uk/why-copilot-making-programmers-worse-at-programming/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DdEoJVZpqA
https://nmn.gl/blog/ai-illiterate-programmers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQNyYx2fZXw
This, of course, only happens if you use the AI to think for you.
That’s a lot of bon-scientific blogs to talk about the non-scientific study I pointed out. Still no objective evidence.
I didn’t say much about the “hominem” but I think you’re defining Microsoft? They don’t need you to dot shit buddy.
You have yet to refute the deduction based argument:
If you use the machine to think for you, you will stop thinking.
Not thinking leads to a degradation of thinking skills
Therefore, using machine to think for you will lead to a degradation of thinking skills.
This is not inductive reasoning, like a study, where you look at data and induce a conclusion. This is pure reasoning. Refute it.
They are a bunch of blogs of people sharing that, after utilizing AI for extended periods of time, their ability to solve problems degraded because they stopped thinking and sharpening their cognitive skills.
So what would satisfy your need for objective evidence? What would I need to show you for you to change your mind? How would a satisfactory study be conducted?
“Defining Microsoft”… I didn’t define Microsoft?
Did you mean “Defend”? What do you mean “defend”? Again, ad hominem. Instead of substantiating why it is you say the document doesn’t count, you attack the ones who made it.
All your dismissals and you have yet to refute the argument all these people make:
If you use the machine to think for you, you will stop thinking.
Not thinking leads to a degradation of thinking skills
Therefore, using machine to think for you will lead to a degradation of thinking skills.
All you have to do is refute this argument and my then it will be up to me to defend myself. Refute the argument. It’s deductive reasoning.
By combining related and unrelated, reasonable and ridiculous examples, the unwary might think you made a legitimate argument. Instead, you made a straw man, probably without even realizing it, and it provides a great exemple of what this article is talking about.
Humans aren’t born with a robust mental skill set, so skills must be learned. If they are not learned, are learned poorly, or decline due to disuse, then functional intellectual performance suffers. AI use supplements or replaces multiple key skills, particularly relevant here the communication of complex concepts and critical thinking.
Critical thinking skills are, well, critical. Using critical thinking, I look at your comment and ask “does this comment make sense? Does listening to Donald Trump inherently mean letting him think for me? Could cognitive skill atrophy due to disuse be resisted by ‘not being a pushover’? Greatest of all, did this person read the fucking article?”
Answer key: no; LOL WTF nooo; obviously not.