Fuck AI

6774 readers

656 users here now

"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"

A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.

AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

VerbFlow@lemmy.world

MrMcGasion@lemmy.world

TootSweet@lemmy.world

BigMikeInAustin@lemmy.world

cynar@lemmy.world

drmeanfeel@lemmy.world

pavnilschanda@lemmy.world

CriticalMedicine@lemmy.world

WonderfulWanderer@lemmy.world

Communist@lemmy.ml

eatCasserole@lemmy.world

SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world

NutWrench@lemmy.world

Soup@lemmy.cafe

iAvicenna@lemmy.world

Tinks@lemmy.world

wizblizz@lemmy.world

corus_kt@lemmy.world

Prandom_returns@lemm.ee

TrickDacy@lemmy.world

TheFriar@lemm.ee

HawlSera@lemm.ee

andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works

MeDuViNoX@sh.itjust.works

33550336@lemmy.world

Nougat@fedia.io

Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world

Quill7513@slrpnk.net

glowing_hans@sopuli.xyz

e8d79@discuss.tchncs.de

ThefuzzyFurryComrade@pawb.social

120

There's yet another study about how bad AI is for our brains (www.engadget.com)

submitted 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) by merdaverse@lemmy.zip to c/fuck_ai@lemmy.world

10 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://mander.xyz/post/50596810

“We find that AI assistance improves immediate performance, but it comes at a heavy cognitive cost,” the study declares. Researchers went on to state that just ten minutes of using AI made people dependent on the technology, which led to worsening performance and burnout once the tools were removed.

The study followed people who use AI for "reasoning-intensive" cognitive labor. This refers to stuff like writing, coding and brainstorming new ideas, which are some of the most common use cases.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] mabeledo@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Are we comfortable saying that “people using LLMs solve more issues” than those who don’t? Because, clearly, they don’t. Parroting a solution back is not solving it, in the same way running the 100m dash on a motorcycle isn’t a demonstration of athleticism.

[–] NostraDavid@programming.dev 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Are we comfortable saying that “people using LLMs solve more issues” than those who don’t?

According to figure 1 of the paper: yes.

Solve-rate-over-time implies more solutions provided, no?

[–] mabeledo@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

I’m not sure why you excluded the second part of my comment, which is the very reason why I question the result.