We'll see how I feel in the morning, but for now i seem to have convinced myself to actually read that fuckin anthropic paper

I just

I'm not actually in the habit of reading academic research papers like this. Is it normal to begin these things by confidently asserting your priors as fact, unsupported by anything in the study?

I suppose I should do the same, because there's no way it's not going to inform my read on this

@jenniferplusplus No it is not. That kind of thing is left to the realm of "self-publishing". Was this thing peer reviewed?
How AI Impacts Skill Formation

AI assistance produces significant productivity gains across professional domains, particularly for novice workers. Yet how this assistance affects the development of skills required to effectively supervise AI remains unclear. Novice workers who rely heavily on AI to complete unfamiliar tasks may compromise their own skill acquisition in the process. We conduct randomized experiments to study how developers gained mastery of a new asynchronous programming library with and without the assistance of AI. We find that AI use impairs conceptual understanding, code reading, and debugging abilities, without delivering significant efficiency gains on average. Participants who fully delegated coding tasks showed some productivity improvements, but at the cost of learning the library. We identify six distinct AI interaction patterns, three of which involve cognitive engagement and preserve learning outcomes even when participants receive AI assistance. Our findings suggest that AI-enhanced productivity is not a shortcut to competence and AI assistance should be carefully adopted into workflows to preserve skill formation -- particularly in safety-critical domains.

arXiv.org
@seanwbruno @jenniferplusplus
Will "is peer reviewed" change validity/or-lack of the paper?
Should it?
@mikalai @jenniferplusplus IMO, yes. However, reading the first sentence is enough for me to move on to spend my time on other things for the day.
@seanwbruno @jenniferplusplus
I must apologize for focusing on peer review, abstracting from article itself.
But, this "force-fed GenAI and slop" moment is to ask ourselves, about how we assess statements, ideas, words.
If an article is in area with only 50 persons in it from the whole globe, "review" should be, 5 upvotes, 7 downvotes, at moment x, and then you decide to, spend time to comprehend article, or to wait. When this is more explicit, then we have better chances, as civilization, imho

@mikalai @seanwbruno @jenniferplusplus the thing that is a positive signal is that it *survived* peer review, which implies that there are multiple, knowledgeable, independent scientists in the area of study of the paper that read it and came to the conclusion, "the conclusions stated by this paper are supported by the data and arguments presented in the paper".

This paper would not survive peer review.

It is a flawed system but it is not worthless.

@kevingranade @mikalai @seanwbruno @jenniferplusplus … one more anecdote: none of these 100 mistakes were caught by 3+ peer reviews each :’)
https://gptzero.me/news/neurips/
GPTZero finds 100 new hallucinations in NeurIPS 2025 accepted papers

GPTZero's analysis 4841 papers accepted by NeurIPS 2025 show there are at least 100 with confirmed hallucinations

AI Detection Resources | GPTZero
@fnwbr @mikalai @seanwbruno @jenniferplusplus wow if you overload a system it starts failing, who could have predicted that.
@kevingranade @mikalai @seanwbruno @jenniferplusplus … if you are overloaded maybe don’t put your signature under other people’s papers :)