Note: this lemmy post was originally titled MIT Study Finds AI Use Reprograms the Brain, Leading to Cognitive Decline and linked to this article, which I cross-posted from this post in !fuck_ai@lemmy.world.

Someone pointed out that the “Science, Public Health Policy and the Law” website which published this click-bait summary of the MIT study is not a reputable publication deserving of traffic, so, 16 hours after posting it I am editing this post (as well as the two other cross-posts I made of it) to link to MIT’s page about the study instead.

The actual paper is here and was previously posted on !fuck_ai@lemmy.world and other lemmy communities here.

Note that the study with its original title got far less upvotes than the click-bait summary did 🤡

  • DownToClown@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    The obvious AI-generated image and the generic name of the journal made me think that there was something off about this website/article and sure enough the writer of this article is on X claiming that covid 19 vaccines are not fit for humans and that there’s a clear link between vaccines and autism.

    Neat.

    • Arthur Besse@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Thanks for pointing this out. Looking closer I see that that “journal” was definitely not something I want to be sending traffic to, for a whole bunch of reasons - besides anti-vax they’re also anti-trans, and they’re gold bugs… and they’re asking tough questions like “do viruses exist” 🤡

      I edited the post to link to MIT instead, and added a note in the post body explaining why.

    • Tad Lispy@europe.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Thanks for the warning. Here’s the link to the original study, so we don’t have to drive traffic to that guys website.

      https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.08872

      I haven’t got time to read it and now I wonder if it was represented accurately in the article.

  • Wojwo@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    Does this also explain what happens with middle and upper management? As people have moved up the ranks during the course of their careers, I swear they get dumber.

    • ALoafOfBread@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      That was my first reaction. Using LLMs is a lot like being a manager. You have to describe goals/tasks and delegate them, while usually not doing any of the tasks yourself.

  • Tracaine@lemmy.worldBanned
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    I don’t refute the findings but I would like to mention: without AI, I wasn’t going to be writing anything at all. I’d have let it go and dealt with the consequences. This way at least I’m doing something rather than nothing.

    I’m not advocating for academic dishonesty of course, I’m only saying it doesn’t look like they bothered to look at the issue from the angle of:

    “What if the subject was planning on doing nothing at all and the AI enabled the them to expend the bare minimum of effort they otherwise would have avoided?”

    • acosmichippo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      sad that people knee jerk downvote you, but i agree. i think there is definitely a productive use case for AI if it helps you get started learning new things.

      It helped me a ton this summer learn gardening basics and pick out local plants which are now feeding local pollinators. That is something i never had the motivation to tackle from scratch even though i knew i should.

      • frongt@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        It helped me a ton this summer learn gardening basics and pick out local plants which are now feeding local pollinators. That is something i never had the motivation to tackle from scratch even though i knew i should.

        Given the track record of some models, I’d question the accuracy of the information it gave you. I would have recommended consulting traditional sources.

        • acosmichippo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          I would have recommended consulting traditional sources.

          jfc you people are so eager to shit on anything even remotely positive of AI.

          Firstly, the entire point of this comment chain is that if “consulting traditional sources” was the only option, I wouldn’t have done anything. My back yard would still be a barren mulch pit. AI lowered the effort-barrier of entry, which really helps me as someone with ADHD and severe motivation deficit.

          Secondly, what makes you think i didn’t? Just because I didn’t explicitly say so? yes, i know not to take an LLM’s word as gospel. i verified everything and bought the plants from a local nursery that only sells native plants. There was one suggestion out of 8 or so that was not native (which I caught before even going shopping). Even with that overhead of verifying information, it still eliminated a lot of busywork searching and collating.