"A study of physicians in Poland who specialize in endoscopy — the use of flexible probes to examine the inside of the human body — shows how quickly AI tools can erode human abilities. The physicians, who had all performed at least 2,000 colonoscopies during their careers, were given access to an AI system that analyses colonoscopy images in real time and flags a type of precancerous intestinal lesion called an adenoma. The tool was available to the specialists on some days but not on others.

Once physicians began using it, their performance dropped significantly whenever the system was unavailable. During the three-month period before the AI tool was introduced, the specialists found at least one adenoma during 28.4% of colonoscopies. During the three-month period after the tool was introduced, the adenoma detection rate for colonoscopies performed without AI assistance decreased to 22.4%.

Gastroenterology and Hepatology, suggest that even highly skilled professionals might get worse at tasks that their job requires as they become more dependent on AI tools, says Robert Wachter, a physician at the University of California, San Francisco, who is the author of a book on how AI tools are transforming health care. The study authors say that continuous exposure to such tools can cause clinicians to become “less motivated, less focused, and less responsible when making cognitive decisions without AI assistance”.

Co-author Yuichi Mori, a physician-researcher at the University of Oslo, says that more studies are needed to confirm the phenomenon. But people who use AI tools should be aware that they risk losing some of their skills, he adds. “There is no established solution against deskilling right now. It should be a very hot research topic in the next decade.”"

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-01947-1

#AI #Deskilling #Science #Medicine

Is AI ruining our skills? Early results are in — and they’re not good

Reliance on artificial-intelligence tools degrades the abilities of physicians and software engineers, studies show.

@remixtures Before I form an opinion on this I want to know the number that they get *with* the AI.

If it's lower than 28.4 I will agree that this is bad. If it's higher than that I think we need to sit down and consider that maybe the question is not how do we stop AI but rather how do we take control of it from the hands of the corrupt billionaires.

@renardboy @remixtures It's not good to use AI hit rates for metrics as they often generate high false positives.

You can use clinician data because they have a proven benchmark to use as baseline.

Studies as you suggest would require years of dedicated independent research. Something that tech CEOs would never truly allow in the current climate of iron fisted control.

@wandrecanada @remixtures very true, but then of course the real metric has been "number of adenomas *correctly* identified" all along. And, of course, false positives are not exclusive to AI.

My stance on AI has many nuances, but I am highly skeptical of the "it makes us stupid" narrative. What is lost in some aspects due to acquired reliance must be gained in other aspects through increased available headspace from strategic offloading.

@renardboy Imagine you're accustomed to foraging for food, but a scientist sticks you in a cage with a button that gives you food and water, and you quickly start relying on it. The door to the cage is opened behind you, but the button is still there, so you continue using it. It gives you a reward for minimal effort, and you are hooked. 1/3
@caitp @Npars01 @renardboy I’m sympathetic to such arguments, but an alternative example is you’re accustomed to foraging for food, and then a grocery store opens up near you. Very few people these days have the skill to forage for all of their nutrition, but I don’t think that’s in principle a bad thing. (1/2)

The issues for me are whether AI-based systems are reliable, and whether they actually improve outcomes. If they don’t they shouldn’t be used, but if they do then they’re a useful tool.

(Of course there are further concerns around violation of other’s creative output with generative AI systems, but that doesn’t seem to be the case here.) (2/2)
@caitp @Npars01 @renardboy