Edit: There’s a blog post on the failings of the study and the communication around it: Clickbait Neuroscience: Lessons from “Your Brain on ChatGPT” – Mind Brain Education
EEG revealed significant differences in brain connectivity: Brain-only participants exhibited the strongest, most distributed networks; Search Engine users showed moderate engagement; and LLM users displayed the weakest connectivity. Cognitive activity scaled down in relation to external tool use.
Over four months, LLM users consistently underperformed at neural, linguistic, and behavioral levels.
But, but, that Nvidia guy said they are cognitive amplifier tools. :|
maybe he calls his net worth “cognition”
This lines up with my completely unscientific observation that the people who have started relying heavily on AI are dumbasses.
I’ve got some anecdotal evidence to suggest that people who go to the gym a lot also tend to be stronger. You know, there could be some connection between exercise and muscle growth… Someone should probably investigate that link, could be something there.
I mean this feels like an obvious result. Are we thinking this is ground breaking?
Like comparing 3 ways of making a table, hand tools, power tools or paying someone to make it for you. Then asking which required the most effort.
I mean I know it’s important to confirm even expected results but this feels so intuitive.
It seems intuitive but also 2000 years ago people thought that for example the eye emitting some sort of substance that interacts with the surrounding environment to be an intuitive explanation for how vision works, so intuitions need to be tested.
Damnit. Eye lasers would have been so much cooler though.
Well we do have some kind of eye lasers it’s just very low energy
No it’s more complex than that. In the final session, participants were swapped between the LLM and Brain groups, and the effects persisted to some extent.
So it’s worse than “using an LLM doesn’t engage your brain”, it’s more like “using an LLM actually makes you dumber.”
It’s so easy to pontificate instead of actually doing studies, right?
Fuck yeah. Lets do it!
That’s a great observation!..
Maybe I was not eloquent enough, but I don’t object to the research being done. I think though that the result is the expected one and therefore it is not noteworthy enough to post on here. Doubtless this paper with end up highly cited.
Well it’s rather than being about effort, it’s more like, in the end, which of these people best understands how to make a table?
I bet my connectivity would be off the charts with activity because anytime I see results from it, I get enraged and wonder how something can be so stupid
I only prompt questions for things I already know… more of a confirmation thingand more often then not, it’s wrong
Kind of hilarious that the comments in this post are doing exactly what the linked post points out as the big pitfall of studies like this.
This study is almost 6 months old. Why post it now?
Because I found it now and searching didn’t show anyone posting it before…
