How many studies do researchers need to do before the threat of LLMs is taken seriously? This technology *might* have some useful niche applications, but widespread deployment will be a disaster for humanity.
This shit is an existential hazard, and not in the way the AI companies love to talk about. It's not going to take over the world like Skynet, it's a cognitohazard that turns anyone that interacts with it into an idiot.
It's #Aislop, it's not a serious study.
It doesn't even measure what it claims to measure.
Do you folks even read these "studies"
Or do you just mash "boost" on every "AI bad" trash?
@[email protected] @[email protected] The Kosmyna "Your Brain on ChatGPT" preprint at least hooked up EEGs and measured actual brains doing actual tasks. Flawed, preliminary, n=54 — but real science trying. Gerlich? STOP. CITING. GERLICH. (It's Business school FFS) The viral "AI makes you dumb" paper doesn't test if AI makes you dumb. It asks people to self-rate their thinking on a Likert scale. That's the whole study. A vibes check dressed up in ANOVA. It claims to use the Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment. It doesn't. Zero HCTA items. That's not a simplification, that's fraud-adjacent. Let me restate IT DOES NOT MEASURE CRITICAL THINKING!!! Forbes ran it. Big Think ran it. PsyPost ran it. Psychology Today ran it. None of them read it. A paper about the death of critical thinking, amplified by the total absence of critical thinking. This is what we deserve. Nebu takes a hatchet to it an leaves a twitching corpse. https://nebu.substack.com/p/highly-cited-ai-erodes-critical-thinking #AI #AISlop #CriticalThinking #PeerReview #psychology #education
Mallory's Musings & Mischief
Wulfy—Speaker to the machines