Browse Comments — Raw (as collected)

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.

This study shows how you can make be a professional complainer (I mean critic) about tech you can never invent in the first place or can’t solve real world problems even if you had the most powerful tool ever created in front of you

How is this even remotely useful??

Proof is in the 'basement dwellers' inability to function without a 'lean back swivel' chair, case of Red Bull and an overclocked PC.

Let’s see an extraction based base level frequency hurting people’s brains? that were never taught the foundational education to use it ? Or how to train it to not do that ? Hmmm …. Sounds pretty usual in the home of trauma induced compliance in the United States . We Do it with medicine , politics , your phone , the food , families No sector is untouched in trauma . People have to stop blaming AI to avoid accountability for their crimes against humanity

Just use it for more than 10 minutes. 🤣

Common sense, really.

Same can be said for most all évolutions of technology replacing thinking. A line in the sand has to be drawn somewhere before we are too dumb to realize it. See: "Idiocracy"

I think article reference is a provocative, typical attention grabber that may even have been suggested or assessed by whatever AI agent(s) Gary uses. That being said, when I checked the Cramer article and reviewed it with Perplexity, it became clear that over reliance on ai processes without strong skeptical and critical analysis does tend to degrade cognitive capabilities. It would be much more useful to promote constructive discussion rather than social media ping pong.

I use it sparingly and have no noticed any decline in my thinking ability.

Joris L. One of the most important positive and constructive behaviors that both promotes self and the development of greater cognitive evolution is to maintain a vigilant and skeptical enagagement with any AI generated responses.

Eduard Stancu, you’ve hit the nail on the head. How the use of AI affects your brain depends on how one uses AI. They should do a similar study with calculator use. Anyone care to guess what the results would indicate?

That is a contrived conclusion. If you give me an electric screwdriver, I will remove screws easier than the fellow without it - yet, when you give us both a regular screwdriver, I will have less practice, and will be more easily upset having had the electric screwdriver experience. So, electric screwdrivers affect intelligence?

Using my brain for 10 minutes full tilt hurts too. 🤯😂

"The function creates the organ" - Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. This is how we evolved. Remove the function and the organ disappears.

This finding has been known for decades with cheat sheets. When a tool is suddenly taken away in the middle of a test, be it a text book, cheat sheet, calculator, internet search, or AI, then participants’ performance in the immediate few minutes drops, the the participants try to shift their workflow. This happens with tests for other skills, including manual skills. A bricklayer who gets one of his trowels taken away has to take a few minutes to find a way to readjust. This is also often the case with construction workers who use shared machinery. Workers digging a trench manually, along side a backhoe, will suddenly stop working, reevaluate their task, and reorganize for several minutes when an assistive machine is taken away. This is human nature, not AI.

The conclusion from this simple-minded experiment that AI use "hurts your brain" is wildly overblown. In this experiment the subjects are using AI as a calculator, so the conclusions would be exactly the same as using a calculator to solve the same fractions, then suddenly being asked to do those calculations by hand. No one would reasonably conclude that use of a calculator "hurts your brain". The top mathematicians in the world use calculators for arithmetic and save their brains for real math.

Eugene E. Kim 🫣

Show me the actual research report (or even an abstract!) rather than some Fast Company psuedo journalism. Let's see what they state under their limitations and suggestions for future research sections.