You must log in or register to comment.
- mechoman444@lemmy.worldEnglish4 days
This article is a perfect example of how legitimate research gets turned into sensationalist nonsense, and the post on Lemmy is making it worse.
The study involved 1,222 participants across three experiments. Researchers had people use AI to help with math and reading comprehension, then tested them when that assistance was removed. They found that participants were more likely to struggle with accuracy and persistence when they had to work independently.
That’s an interesting finding. It’s worth discussing.
But this whole fixation on “just 10 minutes” is ridiculous. Ten minutes of AI use under specific experimental conditions does not mean that ten minutes of ChatGPT permanently damages your brain or destroys your ability to think for yourself. The study did not demonstrate that.
There’s a pretty significant difference between showing that people can become reliant on assistance and struggle when that assistance is suddenly taken away, and claiming that AI use fundamentally erodes your cognitive abilities. One is an experimental finding. The other is an exaggeration of what that finding actually means.
And this is where I have a problem with the article and the way it’s being presented on Lemmy. The actual research is interesting enough without having to dress it up in sensationalist headlines. If the point is that people need to struggle with difficult problems to develop their skills, then make that argument. It’s a perfectly reasonable one.
But “using AI for 10 minutes erodes your ability to persist at hard things” is a hell of a lot more dramatic than what the research actually establishes.
There’s a difference between reporting scientific findings and manufacturing a narrative around them. We should be capable of discussing the potential downsides of AI without resorting to clickbait and misrepresenting what the research actually says.
- 4 days
“Students who cheat on their homework don’t learn as much” is a better headline.
- mechoman444@lemmy.worldEnglish4 days
TLDR: LLMs are better information aggregators than Google, which has become a mess of ads and SEO spam. Using AI to complete homework isn’t inherently cheating; homework is practice, not an exam. If schools want to measure independent knowledge, they should use supervised assessments instead of take-home assignments. And if an assignment offers little educational value, perhaps the assignment is the problem, not the tool students use to complete it.
I think the more important takeaway from this study is that people produce better results when querying LLMs than when using traditional search engines. To me, that points to a problem with conventional search more than it demonstrates a detriment to using LLMs.
Have you tried Googling anything in recent years? It’s a bloody mess. Google increasingly prioritizes what it wants you to see, and more importantly, what advertisers have paid it to show you. Finding genuinely useful information has become an exercise in digging through sponsored results, SEO spam, and pages that exist primarily to generate ad revenue.
LLMs, for all their faults, are arguably better information aggregators at this point. That isn’t necessarily a ringing endorsement of AI, considering that they aren’t particularly good at searching either. It just illustrates how bad conventional search has become.
I wouldn’t interpret using an LLM to complete a task as inherently equivalent to students cheating. I’d argue that LLMs are simply another tool for finding, processing, and synthesizing information. If students can produce better results using those tools, perhaps we should be asking why we’re so determined to prevent them from doing so rather than examining the tools themselves.
And frankly, you can’t really cheat on homework. It’s homework, not a supervised examination. Students should be able to complete assignments using whatever resources are available to them. If the objective is to determine what students can accomplish independently, then schools should assess that through supervised examinations rather than take-home assignments.
More importantly, there’s a broader question about whether we’re assigning too much homework in the first place. Research has repeatedly found that its educational benefits depend on factors such as age, workload, and assignment quality. If an assignment provides little educational value beyond producing a completed worksheet, then perhaps the problem isn’t that students are using AI to complete it. Perhaps the assignment itself isn’t worth doing.
- h0tbeef@lemmy.zipEnglish4 days
Have LLMs become better than Google?
Or has Google just gotten shittier than LLMs?
My SearXNG instance never lies to me, and returns results better than Google used to before they fully enshitified
- SabinStargem@lemmy.todayEnglish3 days
Kagi is able to reach into Japanese websites, aggregate their information, and translate a summary of the contents for me. I used it to learn a bit about an old SNES kusoge, called Saiya no Densetu. Apparently you can get Goku to arrive before the Ginyu Force fight, but paradoxically, he has to be very low level.
This is information that a traditional search engine can’t easily grasp and present.
- h0tbeef@lemmy.zipEnglish3 days
They make browser extensions for translations, and my SearXNG can index Japanese sites. I use it to find and download obscure Japanese music albums and ROMs. AI is a very inefficient way to achieve that result.
- 8oow3291d@feddit.dkEnglish4 days
Have LLMs become better than Google?
Or has Google just gotten shittier than LLMs?
LLMs are better at most search tasks than Google has ever been. No contest, it is in no way close.
- SabinStargem@lemmy.todayEnglish3 days
Truth. There is a lot of obscure searches that would go nowhere if I tried to use old-school searching. AI is the way forward when it comes to collecting lots of info and giving a cliff notes. Even better, the AI can then go into detail.
AI is the glasses of the information world: it lets people focus on getting shit done, every day.
- WizardOfFrobozz@lemmy.caEnglish4 days
Read the text of the post. Are you admitting you can’t distinguish LLM output when you see it?
- aesthelete@lemmy.worldEnglish4 days
“Using a compiler for ten minutes erodes your ability to write raw machine code”
4 daysForgive me, but i’m not understanding why you find the headline to sensationalize or over state the actual findings of the study. The abstract of the paper directly says:
we provide causal evidence for two key consequences of AI assistance: reduced persistence and impairment of unassisted performance.
I’m struggling to discern a meaningful difference between “erodes your ability to persist at hard things” and “reduced persistence of unassisted performance”. Forgive me for not understanding but I would appreciate your explanation. The paper’s very own conclusion actually uses the term erosion:
Here, we show that AI interaction can result in significant impairments in independent performance and persistence – capacities that are foundational to life-long learning. If brief exposure produces measurable erosion, the cumulative effects of daily AI use over months or years may be profound and difficult to reverse
I found a definition of erosion: “the gradual loss of something as a result of an ongoing process”. Trust can erode and be rebuilt; soil can erode and be restored.
I agree that 10 mins of foundation model assistance likely doesn’t “permanently damage your brain or destroy your ability to think for yourself”. However, in my reading of the Berkeley news piece, I find no claim of this specific kind. Does the text of the press release explicitly claim the duration of effect is long-term or lasting? Does it explicitly claim the the erosion is permanent? Again, I find myself confused what you are arguing against.
- nonentity@sh.itjust.worksEnglish4 days
LLMs are a competency chipper and credibility solvent.
My observation from having to deal with entities which have engaged with LLMs, is any competency or credibility they may have had, is eroded proportionally to their level of exposure. It’s analogous to experiencing a traumatic brain injury.
Losing cognitive ability is bad enough, but it’s devastating when they never possessed it to begin with.
Deferring all your work to anything or anyone would do the same thing.
That’s not a llm unique problem but a byproduct of not engaging your mind or skills. You can still do that while also using an llm or taking on human help.
If you hired a human to do everything for you, you also end up becoming a potato.
The problem is that llms make it too easy for people to actively choose that route because of lack of self discipline or desire to improve.
But a lot of technology is like that and not just computer tech.
Yeah, if i would employ my local LLM in a “solve every simple thing for me” way, it would degrade my mental acuity too. I only defer it to areas where i don’t have any fucking clue about anything anyways or struggle very much to reach an usable result, and i do not just accept whatever was spit out, i engage with it and try to understand what is happening and why, including experimentation with my own modifications of whatever i was given.
Good examples of that is my constant battle against RegEx, sed, awk and the like for string manipulation in linux. I struggle with the syntax a lot (the rules themselves are becoming clearer to me by now, mainly because i analyze what the LLM output really does).
I started at a point where i could just confidently say that a ? is a wildcard and a * is a lot of wildcards in a row, and escaping things is something people do. Nowadays i can form most simple RegEx without consulting the LLM at all.
So we really have to put this in another framework: Do you use it to replace your own thought process? or do you use it because you genuinely do not know how to solve it and are willing to learn?
- LittleBorat3@lemmy.worldEnglish4 days
On the other hand I have seen llms write better emails (with better understanding of the subject) than less competent colleagues. Some people are already very intellectually challenged to begin with and were able to hide it well.
Yeah they basically disappear behind their new tool, as the only contribution you now see is the one coming from the plagiarism machine.
I don’t use LLMs (especially now during nosloptober), but I’m also trying to apply this to web searching. Like instead of doing a search for “how many minutes in a month” I’ll realise I have all the tools and information to figure it out and just do that.
Or checking with a local manual before searching online
Also, correlation does not equal causation. So the title is attributing AI to eroding your ability to persist, when in reality there was no prior test to ensure the individual could do the task at all. Which is almost like what they’re proving is that AI gives people the ability to do things they otherwise would not be able to do with out it.
Giving someone a tool to start and then taking the tool away mid task isn’t a good way to study the impact of the tool.
- sheetzoos@lemmy.worldEnglish3 days
Ironically, the people that agree with the headline won’t bother to critically think about the study.
- Tollana1234567@lemmy.todayEnglish4 days
dont need a new study, 1 study already said people using AI during HS or COllege makes them inability perform at thier grade education level.
- PattyMcB@lemmy.worldEnglish4 days
Yeah, but reproducible results is a hallmark of a scientific peer review
Can you shorten your sentence please, oh wait, I’ll copy it to AI.
It is so sad that people always look for shorter means to a problem solution, I understand it is coded in our DNA to exhaust the least but over the long term it looks increasingly worrying.
For the first experiment with 354 participants, one group was tasked with solving 15 basic fraction problems without help, while another had ChatGPT open on the side to use for assistance and to even ask for the answer. The group with AI access started off more accurate than the group without it. Then, after 12 problems, researchers took away the AI tool. Almost immediately, the people in that group stopped solving questions accurately.
A similar thing happened when they ran the experiment on a second, larger group of 667 participants. Whereas the AI users got answers wrong or gave up entirely when the AI assistance was withdrawn, the group without AI stuck with the task and were more successful at the end.
Researchers then ran a third experiment with 201 participants and an SAT reading comprehension prompt. The results echoed those from the fraction problems: When the AI tool was removed, persistence and accuracy dropped.
- 4 days
I wonder if this kind of test would show the same results if you compared people using calculators for math problems vs. those without. From the basic operations to doing trig and calculus, if you provide an easier way they’re going to take it, and unfortunately not going to pick up on how the answer is obtained, which an LLM will usually tell in the process. Doing something yourself always teaches you better than watching it, or just being told the answer.
If the tests are implying or showing that people who already were proficient in doing these tests and would have done well without started declining after exposure to an LLM’s help, and that persisted… that’s a different problem and one that should be looked into. Losing skills you had because of help? That shouldn’t happen.
- Encrypt-Keeper@lemmy.worldEnglish4 days
A lot of pro AI people like to compare LLMs to calculators but it’s not comparable at all unless the math you’re doing is simple arithmetic. If you’re doing calculus, the skill you’re working on isn’t arithmetic, so the calculator isn’t much of a factor. Lots of people forget how to do long division after using calculators on the other hand.
Losing skills you had because of help? That shouldn’t happen.
That’s exactly what should happen. Cognitive thinking skills are use it or lose it. If you use an LLM to replace your brain, your brain will get worse.
- 4 days
It’s funny because I actually think learning math the old fashioned way is super important. I used to struggle with math a lot as I’d always had calculators. I went back as an adult and got some old 1980s math textbooks based on Soviet pedagogy (widely considered the best for math at the time) and the impact has been huge. I’ve been building from the ground up math skills that got entirely skipped in school, and feel much better about it now. Calculators are useful but when LEARNING math they should not be used imo. Except maybe to check an answer after you already get it. Doing difficult things is good.
Yep, especially in mathematics a calculator is not much of a help in calculus. The moment you put numbers in whatever thing you wanna solve is the point where the hard part is already done.
- Jessica@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish4 days
Speak for yourself lol. I failed calculus the first time because my algebra skills were shit and it had nothing to do with calculus
That’s an issue with your teacher putting the focus on the wrong part. Sorry you had to experience that. My math skills (which were mediocre at best at the time i left school) skyrocketed the moment i got a teacher that made sure we understood the calculus part and didn’t even want us to insert real numbers.
- leftzero@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish4 days
I hate that I never had a good math teacher and that the ones I had made me hate maths.
I would love to like maths, but there’s too much trauma there.
I’ve taught myself what I’ve needed for work, but it has never been a pleasant experience.
Bad math teachers are a plague on humanity.
- 4 days
Over time yes, but this says skills were lost during a single session or short term. It was a random group of people, so unknown on what skills they did have before. I think what they observed wasn’t a permanent loss, but a placebo effect of having extra help and it was taken away, so for the rest of the test they felt lacking.
My example of calculators was implying one that could do the test work. All calculators have trig functions, and some have calculus abilities. Would a student forget how to find cosine if the calculator was taken away, or do a derivative of a function? Not in one test. But if they were using it first half and then had to do it themselves for the rest, I imagine there’s some psychological stuff going on that makes you feel like you’ve lost that skill.
- h0tbeef@lemmy.zipEnglish4 days
They were tested on fractions
Did you use an LLM to summarize the study for you or something?
- 4 days
And reading comprehension.
We’re discussing the effects of the test, not what the test was.
- skibidi@lemmy.worldEnglish4 days
Doing something yourself always teaches you better than watching it, or just being told the answer.
A neat result from pedagogical studies is that being given the worked solutions to new problems to study from is much more effective for learning the material than simply practicing.
Students who were assigned practice problems performed worse on later tests than those given the same problems and all of the worked-out solutions for them. The explanation from the research was - when learning a new topic, immediate practice isn’t beneficial because the student doesn’t yet know what to practice. If they are lost when trying the problem, they can easily end up practicing the wrong skills by not knowing where to start. Those with the solutions have some of the cognitive burden removed, and are better able to internalize the task and generalize it to later problems.
I completely agree with you on LLMs and I think they’ll be a disaster for education. But I’ve always found it interesting that being given the answer can be useful for learning in certain circumstances.
- h0tbeef@lemmy.zipEnglish4 days
There are different ways to learn, some work better for certain people than others.
I would think that the best way to learn is neither of these options, but to be taught how to do the work by someone who understands (like a teacher) and then made to do it after it has been thoroughly explained to you and practiced with you.
That’s what works best for me anyhow, that or literally reading the textbook, lol, but that’s less efficient time-wise.
- searabbit@piefed.socialEnglish4 days
That was one of my gripes with my experience in college vs hs. In my hs at least, we were taught the most difficult combination of a problem and then everything that we practiced would be able to be worked out from there. In college, we were often taught the simplest example and somehow expected to derive the most difficult version of it on the problem sets. That’s how you get students who study really hard for an exam and half of them fail. They never taught the proper way to solve the problem!
I was out of college by the time LLMs came out but I still believe they could be helpful in this scenario if fine tuned and limited as a tutor not an answer-giver. Obviously if you have access to a good human tutor (who doesn’t call you dumb like my friend had at the time), but I didn’t have access to one.
- 4 days
Immediate practice on something you haven’t been walked through yet? I guess the way I phrased it made it sound like jumping in yourself with no guide is better. You definitely need to be taught first, or at least as you go, and not figure it out on your own. The point was that simply watching someone do something isn’t enough, you have to develop the process of getting to that point yourself. But only after seeing that route, otherwise you will take lots of wrong paths.
- h0tbeef@lemmy.zipEnglish4 days
Calculators don’t help with reading comprehension (3rd Test)
Also, they’re not talking about trig and calculus, they’re talking about fractions
You know (hopefully), like 1/5 =0.2? Or 6/18=1/3=0.333?
- 4 days
Yes, I’m aware of what they tested and what fractions are…
I was just expanding the point to other things that are comparable. And an LLM for a reading comprehension test is exactly what a large language model would be best suited for, so in essence a language “calculator”.
Doesn’t change the rest of the discussion, which was about the brain’s ability to jump back into things when the crutch is taken away.
- h0tbeef@lemmy.zipEnglish4 days
I don’t think it’s fair to say that fractions are similar to trigonometry and calculus aside from the fact that they’re all types of math
Very few people do trigonometry or calculus in their heads, I’m sure most people who know it really well could do a cosine on paper, but that’s a much higher level operation than a fraction
- 4 days
Um, you know all of those were developed before calculators, right?
I learned both trig and calc on the principles in how they were derived, so yes, when I was learning and using them, I could do some of it in my head or with a few figures on paper.
But I never said “similar” at all, I was using them as comparable subjects that could be done by hand or with aid.
You’re so obsessed with calling out someone on not mentioning fractions you’ve missed the point of the test, article, and this thread. They use fractions because it was above simple math but not so high level that some of the random people picked might not know it. Which going back to the real discussion, having randoms whose skill isn’t known even halfway through the test might have been a flaw in the test.
- h0tbeef@lemmy.zipEnglish4 days
Um, you know all of those were developed before calculators, right?
What does the timing of the advent of the calculator have to do with what I said?
But I never said “similar” at all, I was using them as comparable subjects
I would contest that they are comparable subjects. Entry level piano lessons and music theory are both technically of the same subject, but wildly different in practice. One is suitable for beginners or lay people, the other is not.
You’re so obsessed with calling out someone on not mentioning fractions you’ve missed the point of the test, article, and this thread.
You are projecting your own obsession of using the poor comparison of “AI = Calculator” onto me. That’s why I keep bringing up fractions, it is an easy-to-understand (for most) rebuttal to your logically fallacious proposal.
They use fractions because it was above simple math but not so high level that some of the random people picked might not know it.
Exactly, that’s why your comparison doesn’t work.
Which going back to the real discussion, having randoms whose skill isn’t known even halfway through the test might have been a flaw in the test.
What changes would you make to the experiment to remove the flaw you’re perceiving?
How do you expect that change would impact the outcome?
- 4 days
As I’ve said before, the abilities of the ones with ChatGPT assist don’t seem to be known, as they started off with help. The assumption is that they might on average be the same as the others, but we don’t know that. A simple fix to start is to offer the LLM help in the middle of the test for them, see how the curve of ability goes up and down, and compare before and after.
Not answering the rest, I was more interested in the study and what it was claiming and not arguing about missing context of commentary. I think the study may be right in suggesting people today have more trouble understanding things than they used to, but it’s far deeper and older than LLMs. They are just the latest part of the bigger problem.
- sbv@sh.itjust.worksEnglish4 days
Some kind of comparison group would have made the result more informative.
Now you need a human control. Provide a human assistant to do the same.
Is this a problem of AI or a problem of dependency.
Cause from my understanding of the topic this same phenomenon happens when people are given too much assistance of any kind form any source.
Not many people will actively drive themselves if given a solution with low barriers.
It’s such a common thing it’s been a trope among noble classes though out the ages. If you coddle someone they go full potato.
Replace this with math and calculators. Similar results? Then it’s not AI’s fault, but a known phenomenon.
Of course, they would never even get the funding for this “experiment” if they didn’t have AI fearmongering in the title.
- h0tbeef@lemmy.zipEnglish4 days
You can’t do fractions without a calculator?
I assume you’re also a fan of AI then?
- the_q@piefed.socialEnglish4 days
A calculator doesn’t stroke your ego and you know that. That’s why you like and use AI.
- Echo Dot@feddit.ukEnglish3 days
Surely if I offload work tasks onto someone else then I would achieve the same effect? I don’t think this is AI exclusive.
Jokes on you. I never persisted at doing hard things because I had no idea what I was doing. Now I get into all sorts of shenanigans because I do what ai tells me to do.
- SabinStargem@lemmy.todayEnglish4 days
Pretty much my situation. My local AI has whipped up some compatibility enhancements for a 2006 game, and about four save editors. Right now, I got it researching The Oregon Trail 2021’s character sheets for editing.
When a Qwen4 Flash is released, I will be looking in recompiling some Windows 3.1 games.
I don’t agree with this study and I am not a fan of AI. Replace the AI tool that they used with a calculator. You’d get the same results. Here you are legally cheating on some task because you were told to do it - breezing right along thinking of something cool you are gonna do later and then … WHAM ! Cheaty tool gets yoinked. Now fuck - I have to think ? I’d probably think fuck it, I’ll give it a half asssed shot because fuck them for making it not fun.
- 4 days
Yea, if you compare the post-AI test group data with the initial control group data before they had practiced, the AI test group literally did about the same as the non AI group. And you are very correct about the fact that yoinking the easy solving tool makes skipping jump because why would you do a thing that feels pointless and is harder then it was before? I hate the enviornmental and technofascist implications of AI, but people need to stop trying to make brain degradation from AI a thing, it is never going to be a thing. You just don’t really learn from it if you don’t want to y’all, like everything else. It’s not that fucking complicated. This is just a technology witch hunt.
I am begging people to look at the ACTUAL studies and analyze the variables and results critically.
- whalesnrainbows@lemmy.worldEnglish4 days
While I think studies like this are bunk, I think it’s a mistake to assume that there is no real effect on cognitive health.
We know that using LLMs is addictive. I can’t imagine that long term use is going to be as benign as long term use of a calculator.
I mean you can see the same thing all the time with caudled kids. Kids who grow up with a bunch of help and servants and waited on if they aren’t pushed they just end up helpless.
This isn’t an LLM problem. It’s just a known issue with dependency. It’s been a problem as far back as history goes.
It’s just before it was a problem that mostly the rich were allowed to have. And now it’s cheap enough that everyone gets to have it!
- 3abas@lemmy.worldEnglish4 days
There’s a huge difference between someone using agentic ai to solve real problems quickly and someone asking a chatbot for life advice. A lot of people are asking llms for life advice, and don’t get me wrong it’s a great research tool IF you already posses critical thinking skills and know when to question it, but schools are introducing generative ai to middle schoolers before they even gain any critical thinking skills.
- 4 days
I agree, my main issue is people treating AI as some pseudo psychological evil. It’s just an answer box. People who have issues from it already needed help. If AI didn’t make them worse, a forum site would’ve.
- Bluegrass_Addict@lemmy.caEnglish4 days
the calculator doesn’t get 1+1 wrong…
AI can and will be wrong and then tell you it’s right and that youre wrong and stupid for questioning it. you
- SabinStargem@lemmy.todayEnglish4 days
AI does get things wrong, but it owns up to it when pointed out, and often self corrects once it has observed that something is wrong with the work. Your characterization is straight-up wrong.
"The bcrypt hooks caught only GOG web traffic (blob_007 is literally plaintext GET /token?.. HTTP) — the save crypto never touched bcrypt.dll, confirming it’s done inside the exe by statically-linked OpenSSL. That also means the ChaCha state I scanned is likely TLS traffic, not the save. Two parallel paths now: brute-force the record layout against AES-GCM (OpenSSL’s default AEAD), and locate the AES tables in the exe to find the cipher code:
No AES tables at all — the game uses hardware AES-NI, so table-xrefs are out (and that also means my earlier AES-schedule scan is the right detector… except it never finished; that was the hang). Let me nail the layout facts offline and check my tooling:"
Any series of events where something makes an error and then though a process of trial and error or reasoning from facts to arrive at a correct destination. Then accurately state the error, the reason why it was made then the steps to correct it. Is “owning up”.
Your giving moral weight and ethics to a phrase used in a way that was not intended to carry any in context.
At best your being stubborn, at worse your trolling.
We can all agree the dumb slop machines aren’t people and anthropomorphicizing them is dumb. But take the statement in the way he clearly intended and he’s not wrong.
Models are at the point they will noticed they are wrong and self correct 9 times out of 10. If given the resources, tools, knowledge to know it’s a error and see it.
The bigger problem is bad user input. Ask a stupid question get a stupid result. Even if the best case is a mediocre result. Thats still good enough .
- SabinStargem@lemmy.todayEnglish4 days
This is pathetic. I have been working with an AI, and there are many bugs and oversights that it acknowledges and addresses, ultimately creating a final product. Frankly, you are in denial.
If I had a choice of interns to hire and you were one of them, I would have ruled out hiring you. This is because your lack of objective reality would undermine any project, be it purely human or involving AI.
- leftzero@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish4 days
Replace the AI tool with a calculator. You’d get the same results.
Correct. I used to be able to calculate square roots in my head, then they let us use calculators the next school year, and soon I was no longer able to do so.
The problem is that what calculators due to math LLMs do to thinking in general, causing much deeper and extensive damage to the brain.
Also, calculators are good at maths. They produce correct results.
LLMs aren’t good at thinking (or even capable of doing it at all), they’re very good at putting the most statistically likely (given the texts they were trained on) word in front of a sequence of words. They don’t necessarily produce correct results, they produce results that wouldn’t look out of place in their training set (unless you’re an expert in whatever the text is about, in which case it’s often absolute bullshit that sounds correct to a layman).
We’re replacing working brains with autocomplete engines that (if they were capable of caring about anything, which they’re not) couldn’t care less about the correctness of their output, just that it looks correct.
And it remains to be seen if the people injured by this will ever be able to recover anything close to normal brain function. Personally, I doubt it. Once it’s gone, it’s gone.
Replace the AI tool that they used with a calculator. You’d get the same results.
Then go do the study and publish it. Should be simple as shit.
- jaybone@lemmy.zipEnglish4 days
I feel like they could have (and probably did) say the same think about search engines 25 years ago.
Though this does seem a bit worse, depending on how you use it.
Yes, I was going to ask, how does this compare to with/without internet access. Coders were also likely more persistent when they could only read the tool’s manual and keep trying, vs getting the answer from StackOverflow immediately.
I’ve heard there’s been a decline in memorization skils since the internet, but I have not verified.- [deleted]@piefed.worldEnglish4 days
getting the answer from StackOverflow immediately.
StackOverflow didn’t have immediate responses and the responses were how to do the thing, not literally writing the code for you. The internet and support communities were like reference books and asking a colleague for advice, the normal way people learn.
LLMs are like having someone else do it for you. You have to actively try to lean something from how it did it and most people don’t, they just take the answer and move on.
- kurwa@lemmy.worldEnglish4 days
Stackoverflow definitely had code you could just copy and that would be the end of it. Not always though.
- LittleBorat3@lemmy.worldEnglish4 days
I have zero patience with coding to begin with and this is the first time I can even start to learn anything.
Imagine a help function that actually does help.
- redwattlebird@thelemmy.clubEnglish3 days
We learned how to use the library pre-search engines. Libraries were stacked with text books. Also, education was cheaper, so you could simply learn to code in a classroom.
You’re offloading your thought to an LLM there is no way you don’t come out a bit dumber.
- CeeBee_Eh@lemmy.worldEnglish3 days
I’ve been using LLMs with a project that I simply don’t have enough time for. I’ve built the core of it during most of last year. And in the past 6 months or so I’ve been using LLMs to help me out with some of the more tedious stuff. Half the time it doesn’t quite get it right, and some of that time it’s just flat out wrong. It’s usually when I get the LLM to try to hunt down some bug or something. After a couple tries, I give up on the LLM and figure out the problem myself.
I genuinely don’t believe this “offloading your thoughts to an LLM” idea is universal. For someone still in school and learning? Probably 100% true. But for someone established in a skill, I don’t think it’s true, at least not entirely.
We all knew this was going to be the case. You look at the people around you feeding their entire lives to it, surrendering their will to it completely, you knew it was going to fry their brains extra fast.
- LittleBorat3@lemmy.worldEnglish4 days
But if I want something very specific out of it and don’t tell it my life story it’s going to be beneficial for me.
The idiots use it like google, have angry letters written by it citing things that don’t exist etc.
I am under no illusion that this is more than autocomplete, a summarizer a coder debugger etc.
- solarspark@lemmy.mlEnglish4 days
I don’t know the details of this study but it sounds like a basic result if you get people to rely on something for most of an activity and then you take it away vs those who are doing it manually, they’ve been given more progressively difficult challenges but they’ve been actually practicing and doing the work and hence internalizing it better.
It’s like those open versus closed book exams where those who actually study can do much better than those going through a book during the exam to figure it out. It’s about internalizing and practicing a material.
Not really surprising results. I guess the empirical verification is good.
