this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2025

113 points (97.5% liked)

Fuck AI

3565 readers

185 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.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

VerbFlow@lemmy.world

MrMcGasion@lemmy.world

TootSweet@lemmy.world

BigMikeInAustin@lemmy.world

cynar@lemmy.world

themaninblack@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

JimSamtanko@lemm.ee

TrickDacy@lemmy.world

TheFriar@lemm.ee

ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com

HawlSera@lemm.ee

andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works

MeDuViNoX@sh.itjust.works

33550336@lemmy.world

Nougat@fedia.io

Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world

Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world

Quill7513@slrpnk.net

ogmios@sh.itjust.works

glowing_hans@sopuli.xyz

e8d79@discuss.tchncs.de

ThefuzzyFurryComrade@pawb.social

113

‘Don’t ask what AI can do for us, ask what it is doing to us’: are ChatGPT and co harming human intelligence? (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 3 months ago by ThefuzzyFurryComrade@pawb.social to c/fuck_ai@lemmy.world

17 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 18 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] all4theTomatoes@lemm.ee 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I think there is something to be said about AI usage in schools by children.

You cannot convince me children just simply don’t want to learn. The fact that children will have AI solve their homework for them in order to avoid it can be seen as a crucial flaw in our education system. We need to seriously consider a new, entirely different system for teaching. One that will realistically keep children more engaged. I absolutely despised school when I was a teenager, now in my 20s, and I can’t stop finding subjects I want to learn about. What does that have to say about our system?

[–] systemglitch@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

Lol a big fucking duh yeah

[–] Luisp@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 months ago

the better it gets the worse this problem is, let's invest another trillion dollars on GPUs

[–] vane@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

We don't know. Same with internet. Information is faster than human for couple generations, maybe our civilisation died a long time ago.

[–] Tehdastehdas@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

Same old trend of thoughtlessly offloading jobs onto the computer instead of collaborating with and over the computer.

https://www.quora.com/Who-invented-the-modern-computer-look-and-feel/answer/Harri-K-Hiltunen

Similarly, cars are designed to atrophy muscles.

[–] Randomgal@lemmy.ca -3 points 3 months ago

Lol. Ok buddy.

[+] Randomgal@lemmy.ca -8 points 3 months ago (2 children)

So you think people become more stupid by listening to Donald Trump? How about watching shitty TV? Like, do you think your brain is so vulnerable, and you're so much of a pushover, that a real-time choose your own adventure system is gonna fuck you up?

Give me a break, AI has real deal breaker issues, but this is just "vaccines cause autism, level science.

[–] prototype_g2@lemmy.ml 11 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Microsoft did a study on this and they found that those who made heavy usage of AI tools said they felt dumber:

"Such consternation is not unfounded. Used improperly, technologies can and do result in the deterioration of cognitive faculties that ought to be preserved. As Bainbridge [7] noted, a key irony of automation is that by mechanising routine tasks and leaving exception-handling to the human user, you deprive the user of the routine opportunities to practice their judgement and strengthen their cognitive musculature, leaving them atrophied and unprepared when the exceptions do arise."

Cognitive ability is like a muscle. If it is not used regularly, it will decay.

It also said it made people less creative:

"users with access to GenAI tools produce a less diverse set of outcomes for the same task, compared to those without. This tendency for convergence reflects a lack of personal, contextualised, critical and reflective judgement of AI output and thus can be interpreted as a deterioration of critical thinking."

[+] Randomgal@lemmy.ca -7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Your "study" is based on self-reported opinions, funded by a company with serious conflict of interests and not peer reviewed.

Damn, you got me .

[–] prototype_g2@lemmy.ml 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The classic Ad Hominem. Instead of actually refuting the arguments, you instead attack the ones making them.

So, tell me, which part of "As Bainbridge [7] noted, a key irony of automation is that by mechanising routine tasks and leaving exception-handling to the human user, you deprive the user of the routine opportunities to practice their judgement and strengthen their cognitive musculature, leaving them atrophied and unprepared when the exceptions do arise.” is affected by the conflict of interests with the company? This is a note made by Bainbridge. The argument is as follows

If you use the machine to think for you, you will stop thinking.

Not thinking leads to a degradation of thinking skills

Therefore, using machine to think for you will lead to a degradation of thinking skills.

It is not too hard to see that if you stop doing something for a while, your skill to do that thing will degrade overtime. Part of getting better is learning from your own mistakes. The AI will rob you those learning experiences.

What is the problem with the second quote? It is not an opinion, it is an observation.

Other's have noticed this already:

https://www.darrenhorrocks.co.uk/why-copilot-making-programmers-worse-at-programming/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DdEoJVZpqA

https://nmn.gl/blog/ai-illiterate-programmers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQNyYx2fZXw

This, of course, only happens if you use the AI to think for you.

[–] Randomgal@lemmy.ca -3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That's a lot of bon-scientific blogs to talk about the non-scientific study I pointed out. Still no objective evidence.

I didn't say much about the "hominem" but I think you're defining Microsoft? They don't need you to dot shit buddy.

[–] prototype_g2@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 months ago

You have yet to refute the deduction based argument:

If you use the machine to think for you, you will stop thinking.

Not thinking leads to a degradation of thinking skills

Therefore, using machine to think for you will lead to a degradation of thinking skills.

This is not inductive reasoning, like a study, where you look at data and induce a conclusion. This is pure reasoning. Refute it.

That’s a lot of bon-scientific blogs to talk about the non-scientific study I pointed out. Still no objective evidence.

They are a bunch of blogs of people sharing that, after utilizing AI for extended periods of time, their ability to solve problems degraded because they stopped thinking and sharpening their cognitive skills.

So what would satisfy your need for objective evidence? What would I need to show you for you to change your mind? How would a satisfactory study be conducted?

I didn’t say much about the “hominem” but I think you’re defining Microsoft?

"Defining Microsoft"... I didn't define Microsoft?

Did you mean "Defend"? What do you mean "defend"? Again, ad hominem. Instead of substantiating why it is you say the document doesn't count, you attack the ones who made it.

All your dismissals and you have yet to refute the argument all these people make:

If you use the machine to think for you, you will stop thinking.

Not thinking leads to a degradation of thinking skills

Therefore, using machine to think for you will lead to a degradation of thinking skills.

All you have to do is refute this argument and my then it will be up to me to defend myself. Refute the argument. It's deductive reasoning.

[–] StupidBrotherInLaw@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

By combining related and unrelated, reasonable and ridiculous examples, the unwary might think you made a legitimate argument. Instead, you made a straw man, probably without even realizing it, and it provides a great exemple of what this article is talking about.

Humans aren't born with a robust mental skill set, so skills must be learned. If they are not learned, are learned poorly, or decline due to disuse, then functional intellectual performance suffers. AI use supplements or replaces multiple key skills, particularly relevant here the communication of complex concepts and critical thinking.

Critical thinking skills are, well, critical. Using critical thinking, I look at your comment and ask "does this comment make sense? Does listening to Donald Trump inherently mean letting him think for me? Could cognitive skill atrophy due to disuse be resisted by 'not being a pushover'? Greatest of all, did this person read the fucking article?"

Answer key: no; LOL WTF nooo; obviously not.