Browse Comments — Clean (de-noised)

Jiri Räsänen ..Using AI for research sounds more positive rather than depending on it...then you don't get BRAIN BOO BOOS ..😵‍💫

You should see the planet? 70 percent disease? You think it's separate it is not. These are nested incoherent systems. You got 4-40 years left. Likely on the low end with acceleration. The planet only has 30 percent coherence left and you want to tap it.

USE AI CRITICALLY, NOT FOOLISHLY

My god. To think that all of that research I did in the libraries all these years must have caused an equal amount of damage. And Google, and working on my computer? 😱😖🥱

AI = Artificial Idiocy

Donna R Lewis it could be changing the biochemistry that’s an area of research that could be helpful to look at changes in synapses and overall cognitive processing. Education and common sense don’t have a causal inverse relationship. I’ve worked with people with though post secondary degrees who have next to zero common sense. I don’t think this line of reasoning has anything to do with the topic here.

Gary Kucher, But ONLY if you blindly accept what its telling you without engaging critical thinking... Those GJ Priors in your training should have spotted the bias.

Hilarious !

I would also skip such tests, using AI or not.

Theres some validation to it , we can already see some effects of AI on people making them delusional , knowing 5 % but overconfident like 100 % there's also strange one where people are having discussions with person A and excepting Person C to magically know what they talked about with Person A like some kind of Auto Chat resume and context transfer feature exists in real life... So on some level AI usage is definitely impacting people in some weird ways . Its either that or the people i interacted with were just genuinely retarted.

What does "using AI" mean?!? If you use AI to verify your ideas or to put them into practice, then your brain activity intensifies. AI does not always give you the solution directly. When you use AI to carry out a project, you must constantly verify the answer, ask additional questions, look for solutions to overcome the problems that arise, verify various solutions. When working with AI, it is not a passive activity but an active one. 🙄

Rebecca Human AI Trust Leader Yes and no 🙂 I think that, as you stated, AI can "re-solve" known (from training data) problems, in different variations. But it can also generate solutions that match for new (in the sense of "not been in training data") problems. Most likely this is not how a human would have tackled a new problem, but the result can still be of value, ideally checked, confirmed and utilized by a knowledgeable human. Furthermore, I disagree with "machines do not navigate the real world". They do, collecting and analyzing enormous amount of data for military and for civilian purposes.

Tyler Jensen Yes, that’s how I read this too.. lol

A couple examples come to mind one would you run a self-powered lawn mower with your kids in the yard and you go in and drink a beer I think not. example two would run a printing press and walk away from it and I'll watch what the actual machine is doing I think not. example three would you allow a surgeon to operate on you without any training I think not.

I find it rather ironic that, in the comments section, people who are willing to believe that generative AI is based on sound science—even though there seem to be good reasons to believe that this is not always the case— or simply trusting their intuition, would disparage and dismiss scientific work whose findings do not suit them. All of this research can (and should) be discussed, but it must be done with a minimum of seriousness. P.S. The paper is available as a preprint: “AI Assistance Reduces Persistence and Hurts Independent Performance”

The concern around AI isn’t really the technology itself... it’s blind trust without verification. Every major technological leap in history created fear at first. Electricity, the internet, social media. AI is no different. The real question is not whether AI will exist, but how humanity chooses to guide, verify and govern it. That’s why I believe the future won’t belong to a single AI model or company. It will belong to systems that can compare, challenge and consensus-check information across multiple sources. In many ways, AI now needs what society has always needed:Checks and balances. The most dangerous thing isn’t AI.It’s confidence without transparency. The most powerful thing may become trusted consensus. #AI #ArtificialIntelligence #Trust #Innovation #FutureOfWork #ConsensusAI

AI dependency and AI enhancement may be two very different conversations. The study itself sounds interesting, but I’d be cautious about jumping from “performance dropped after removing a tool” to broader conclusions about cognitive decline. Historically, calculators changed math workflows. Search engines changed information retrieval. GPS changed navigation. The question wasn’t whether tools changed behavior — they did. The question became whether people learned to use them responsibly. There is also another side that deserves equal attention: • accelerated learning • increased accessibility • amplified productivity • better problem solving • capabilities that simply did not exist before Many people are now building, learning, and creating things they otherwise never could have. The larger challenge may not be AI vs. human intelligence. It may be designing systems where AI strengthens human capability without replacing human judgment and critical thinking. Humans create. AI enhances. Humans decide. Matt Davis Founder & CEO CivicTruth Media Group Founding Partner & Civic Educator American Institute for Civic Leadership (Nonprofit)

Andrew Morris This. In a scenario such as this one, it is important to think of the mind less as "the ideal supercomputer" and to consider the act of cognition as "the accumulation and aggregation sense." In that view, this outcome is neither more startling nor more concerning as becoming aware thaf a person's average visual acuity in bright light suffers after just 10 minutes in a dark room. In fact, the two may be directly correlated for similar reasons (our models for biological creatures suggest that we need to rely on the implicit assumption of continued environmental conditions to minimize power and resource losses caused by overactivity and hypervigilance—to "relax").

Hass G I think you’re missing some key points: corporate communications tend to portray these systems as trustworthy (particularly by promoting their use in education, including at the elementary school level); these same companies influence policy to push for less regulation; and finally, these systems have been deployed on a massive scale without any democratic consultation, despite their predictable impacts on our societies. The focus of this research is not so much on whether these systems could be used in a positive way, but on understanding the effects of these systems as they are actually used.

Jérôme Frossard You raise valid concerns, and honestly that’s exactly why conversations like this matter. The issue isn’t just AI itself, it’s who controls it, how it’s deployed, how transparent it is, and whether society has any meaningful oversight in the process. Technology introduced at massive scale without public understanding or democratic discussion naturally creates distrust. I don’t think the answer is blind adoption or blind rejection. I think the answer is verification, transparency, accountability, and systems that encourage cross checking rather than dependence on a single source of “truth.” That’s partly why I’ve been so interested in concepts like consensus based AI systems. Not to replace human judgment, but to strengthen it by comparing perspectives, exposing inconsistencies, and reducing the risks of centralized influence or bias. At the end of the day, AI should remain a tool that serves humanity, not a system humanity quietly adapts itself around.