bence pfp
bence
@bence
so with both the cmu and mit studies pointing to specific behaviours with ai tools reducing cognition and critical thinking, where does that leave us with daily use? first, let’s be clear what these studies concluded. using ai as a ghostwriter reduces every possible important metric for cognition and output. you’re less creative, remember less, and over time become less sharp. while using ai to challenge what you’ve already made, and build on it, actually improves these metrics baseline, i think what's being revealed is you need to be at the extremes, with either: 1. writing fully without ai tools, using it only to debate your line of thinking as an intellectual partner 2. automating your writing fully, with zero input from you, apart from historical data for training
1 reply
0 recast
8 reactions

androidsixteen pfp
androidsixteen
@androidsixteen.eth
Different use cases 1. Is a tool to enhance creativity work via research and inspiration 2. Is a tool to reduce overhead of boilerplate Both of these tools already exist, I think LLMs just turbocharge them Problem is, with a narrative around AGI / “no more jobs” meant to psyop people into overestimating the tool, the general population doesn’t know how to discern 1 from 2
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction

bence pfp
bence
@bence
like this categorisation, you can almost work backwards from it to reframe the studies: research looked at ai creative work, and found that bc genpop can’t distinguish 1 and 2, in worse cases, ended up treating everything as boilerplate work
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction

androidsixteen pfp
androidsixteen
@androidsixteen.eth
🎯 Overfitting bc the tool peddlers have a perverse incentive to make you believe it can do everything
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction