unwaver
78026
2406
81
Edit: Pay heed to the top comment, but I wouldn't bother with the ensuing drama that follows. As with anything, remember to check your sources and learn to recognise the sensationalism behind any media.
Original study: https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.08872
I made an edit to this, so I took a screenshot of the comments, that were going to be erased, to include along with the repost. I apologise for any inconvenience.
https://www.media.mit.edu/publications/your-brain-on-chatgpt/
AbsolutelyDramaticNutjob
We... We already knew this? Like fucking duh. We knew that getting someone else to write your essays for you means you learn nothing and know nothing about it. This has been a plot point in TV shows for children.
landbaronness42
A very high priced law firm here in Alabama used AI to write a legal brief defending the state against charges of prison abuse. Prisoners lawyer showed in court that the cases used in that brief were all imaginary. A very angry Judge demanded those lawyers explain themselves in court. A brief containing lies is illegal. https://www.al.com/news/2025/05/did-alabamas-pricey-prison-lawyers-just-use-ai-to-file-motions-the-judge-wants-answers.html
Theshnazzyone
No wonder Trump wants no limits to AI
LHprs
I watched a clip of somebody who needed to divide 35 in half and rather than even using a calculator, typed "What is 35/2?" into ChatGPT.
I was a single blonde hair away from shutting off my computer and lying down in front of a train.
Fortherea
which answer did ChatGPT give?
VerifiedApproves
I use ChatGPT like an expensive "rubber duck." It's good to play wall ball with and bounce ideas, but I spend a significant amount of time "keeping it in check" with misinformation and guessing. If you use ChatGPT like an infallible Sci-Fi AI you will fail. "Right tool, right job."
coffeeandprozac
I understand what the study is aiming to illustrate, and I believe that over-reliance on AI might result in lower cognitive skills with regard to critical thinking. However, they will need to do a far broader approach over a longer span of time with replicated results before a definite conclusion can be determined. I feel like this just scratched the topical itch and does not address any underlying factors satisfactorily.
Tarmaccian
But see… there’s just so much profit to be gained by hating new things!
I’m old enough to have seen the cycle a handful of times now. A new tool comes out, and everyone wants to use it… and there’s a huge pushback saying it’s harmful to the users, cheating, destroying jobs, and so on.
The naysayers are quite happy to sell speaking engagements and write many articles and books on why this horrible thing dooms us all. A decade later, and everybody’s just fine using Photoshop and digital cameras.
LeftRightThere
#1 *People with ADHD https://media4.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTY1YjkxZmJldmliNHJoeTVvOWJpMTF5MW9oZTEwc3J3bHBtcHN2M3Q0Nng0dHNrdSZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/46Mb6bnzVNWcwWpTjv/giphy.mp4
clarkWhogotsanity
Yea.... When you don't continue to use skills or learn you don't keep your mind active and then you decline mentally. Eventually you end up watching Faux News and buy into the Jewish space lasers then complain on social media about topics you know nothing or just spew the same fake information you got from a "reliable" source
Sarcastus
I've written a five novel series that I posted to reddit. On the next novel, I tried chatgpt thingie to just help me out with some options for an alien space heist scenario and such. All I got out of that experiment were some cool technobabble and ignored the rest. Wasn't worth it.
Sunflier
I, for one, wish tech companies would stop shoving AI down my throat.
vanderzee
the more time passes, the more real this is becoming. scary!
malachilenomade
Except President Camacho would be an improvement.
vanderzee
true and very concerning
SavageDrums
Also, AI has a 60% error rate. So, y'know, it sucks out loud on many, many levels.
Tarmaccian
I work for one of those giant military-industrial-complex companies.
It’s the sort of place where mistakes directly lead to disaster, headlines, and small coffins.
As much as I love working with my human interns and junior engineers, you really don’t want to know what their error rate is…
FallingStar7669
So if you don't write something, you forget what you wrote? Hm.
MatrimBloodyCauthon
It's true. I didn't write the cure for cancer and I don't remember it :( I'm sorry
djangojazz
As a developer I scream this all the time. And Cursor and other IDEs that creat code and answers are wrong a lot too. If you don't evaluate the answers given to you by knowing the source material. You really are having a slippery slope of losing your cognition completely. This article is just proving that in spades. Even in the past things like doing 20% in your head versus a calculator. It's just using your brain as a muscle.
SmellingMistake
When they say "more creative with AI" do they actually mean "more random with AI"? If not what metrics are they using to determine the level of creativity?
Timetoupdatemyusername
For me, ChatGPT sparks my imagination with cool ideas, but I pick and choose what he gives and riff on that. In my case it's currently building a themed Blood Bowl team (tabletop game) which you have to paint yourself, but I used ChatGPT to give me fun lore ideas and to give my team a specific vibe. I probably would've gotten to a lot of things myself. but it was a lot quicker this way, and some ideas were hillarious! Yes, it's shortcutting, but it's a hobby.
Tarmaccian
“Shortcutting” is the whole damned point.
I’m an engineer. Sometimes I have to write software. It’s infrequent enough that I forget whether today’s language uses “or” or “||”, whether it’s “string()” or “str()”, and all the little shit like that… but I just need a thing to convert X to Y using tool Z.
AI can spit out working code faster than I can go read yet another reference document. I’ll still review it and I’m responsible for it, but it’s a useful tool to have on hand.
Inkfinger
I gotta be real with y'all. I have been in college for 3 years. I do not use ChatGPT to write my papers. And still I could not tell you a single fucking thing any of my papers were about.
OutboardOverlord
How is it a surprise to anyone that skills not used will atrophy, wither away and disappear?
memebot3000
doom sayer
bobbobbybobbington
It's not a surprise that staying out in the sun for too long gives a sunburn, but people still study it, people still talk about it.
jrntn
Their knowledge of that might have atrophied, withered away and disappeared
MioTaalas
It's not a suprise, but now we have more scientific proof that it happens.
Hammerwell
Reading a street map is a skill that's less and less known. I even can proof that. We have a fenced industrial park here where the streets are systematically named from a to z north/south and 1 to 20 east/west. At the reception you get a well labeled map with two dots (you are here and the company you want to go to is here) and a line, following the best route in between them. I can't count the number anymore I rescued despaired truckers sitting not even remotely close to the target. ....1/2
Hammerwell
2/2 And the streets names are shown at every intersection too.
Hexrowe
The people who say you never forget how to ride a bicycle, maybe?
aflarge
It's not even atrophy. They're not losing the knowledge they gained from researching and writing, they're not gaining the knowledge at all, because they didn't do the research, they just asked chatGPT to spit something out for them.
It'd be like if I lied about being super rich, and then when someone actually checks my bank statements and sees that I NEVER had wealth to begin with, that it somehow counts as me losing all that money I claimed to have.
EmanNiemThcin
It is not and no one expected it to be, but if you want to make the assertion with authority you need to proof it first. You know how people are.
OutboardOverlord
For sure. It makes for many belated "...told you!" moments though.
Hexrowe
That's just how people SHOULD be (but all too often aren't). That an assertion with no evidence to back it up should not be accepted at face value is only the most basic aspect of critical thinking.
EmanNiemThcin
The basic principle has been proven any number of times already. "Skill atrophy now with added AI" as a now proven specialised case of an already established general principle is nice to have but should really not be necessary for casual conversation or have been in doubt in general. That's what I was getting at, in case it was a bit too sloppy with my phrasing.
Hexrowe
True, true. But then, studies are rarely conducted with casual conversation in mind, and also, by the exact same principle we're discussing here, just reading prior studies is not the same as doing a study yourself, y'know? Academics need practice, too! :)
EmanNiemThcin
For certain. I have to admit I was thinking of some rather specific people when I made that comment, colleagues that spent the last year or so trying to get me to use AI integration in my IDE and they would not accept this exact reason for I won't.
MaleProstateMilker88
Folks use Grok as Google too (someone posts "UN condemns the Israel's aid blockage" and they ask Grok "why does UN do it"), so it doesn't matter which generative ai program people use, they keep using them and think "asking" a program is like searching information from legimate sources. The line between information and asking some person as a way to have conversation is blurred. Not to mention that people don't care who made the program and by what unethical means, and if using it supports it
memebot3000
the "information" can only be things some a hole put on the internet. sooo it is not a reliable source of wisdom, but it is super easy. We don't always need the right answer, but if I do I need more accurate sources.
ALTEFFFOUR
gock is this true?
onlyhalfghost
if you get down on your knees one can confirm or deny for you
MaleProstateMilker88
There's also the people who use the "information" someone else got from one of the gen ai programs and think that is somehow better. "I didn't use it myself, someone else did, so this is fine, right?" No. It isn't.
dlbgaw
I'm not big on stuff like ChatGPT, but my wife uses it enough that she pays for it. She has bad ADHD and it helps her formulate her thoughts more cohesively so that she can get her point across at work easier. She already knows what she's trying to say, but it helps others understand what she means as well.
DeepFriedAndSanctified
It's pretty awesome for writing emails to people that don't take a lot of explanation. It handles the administrative work that you don't really want to focus on or remember.
pvtsquirel
I use it as a better version of Google for code when I'm stuck, it's almost always wrong, but usually going in the right direction. Google just gives me a bunch of unrelated nonsense these days
CrestoftheStars
This is good because it is something of a sort of..a medical aid for her. People who are just lazy and have no ADHD,no depression,no traumata, dont need it as much as patients like your SO do.
Its like drugs vs the problem that causes people to take drugs. <-you must solve the problem, not 'just' stop drugs. Ergo lazy people betting enabled to be lazy does not solve their problem. they should not just stop 'AI' they should tackle their problem.
I am not a doctor, but your SO being aided is good
CrestoftheStars
I have HF Asperger’s with severe PTSD, and on thee rare case i have a full on PTSD attack, I might go non-verbal. When I recover slowly, I cannot verbalise the correct words i.e. vase : I say 'vessel of green leaves,put sky wet in, sticks' or some obscure word my brain grapples to and loosely connects to 'vase'.... if some sort of AI app could find the right words at the moment that would be fine for emergency communication, no?
billiebitkiller
see this is what bothers me. like anything, capitalism is going to capitalism and try and use this to cut costs and human workers, and yes, I agree, that's bad--but I have autism, and chatgpt has become my first line resource for attempting to interpret instructions I find confusing or unclear. "oh just ask the person who gave it to you" like I havent been doing that 30 years and a) getting back nothing of use and b) paying a social cost in the form of "asking dumb/obvious questions" and people
billiebitkiller
get pissed off at me no matter how "patient" they claim to be. chatgpt doesn't get frustrated with me no matter how many times I need something explained or the explanation altered. chatgpt doesn't exact a social cost that asking a human would. is it for everything, on all levels? ofc not. it's a tool like anything else, but importantly, an accessibility tool. yes, it gets stuff wrong. so did pre-ai google. as long as you treat it as what is is (Google with memory) I don't think there's an issue
kewakl
I know what you mean about patience. I am not normally a patient person, but I must get new-hires in my department up to speed. I have spent untold hours on some who JUST CANNOT GET IT. But... I try -- without AI /chatgpt...
CrestoftheStars
This is so interesting. My OCD would have me verify the AI gave me correct answers, according to the data I fed it, or formulate the prompt in such a way that it will use only the data given and not add 'hallucinations' . From your comments I see that you arent relying on it, but using it as a tool/aid to restructure stuff, not solve the problem for you! kudos!
JPRiddles
I'm genuinely curious and mean absolutely no offense by this. Has using it to explain things many times to you resulted in any kind of change in how you'd subsequently phrase similar questions to a person?
billiebitkiller
no bc it is an assistive tool, not a learning one. with the robot I can ask followup questions or for additional clarification with no repercussions, which is what I need. disability doesn't go anywhere, but I can at least make the world less painful to exist with it in.
Samthetrue
An AI assistant keeping track of the post-it notes sounds good
TheRealJoeHasenguy
I use gpt all the time. My company has a corporate level account and encourages us to use it to make our lives easier. Its usually a solid starting point but as with anything you gotta tweak it.
Brownie19
100% - I've spent decades doing lots of technical writing and I'm so done with it. It's painful and redundant in my field of work. Now I can focus more effort on collecting and inputting the best information and don't need to focus as much on how to articulate it perfectly.
mehismyname
I use it for every affidavit I have to write. Obviously I check them thoroughly, but it’s such a timesaver. And I’ve written enough of them that I don’t feel like I need constant practice
CalculatorFunTime58008
I remember life way before cell phones. Someone could just tell me their phone number, I could repeat it once in my mind and remember it for many years. I knew every city I lived in and could tell anyone directions from anywhere to anywhere by picturing the city map in my head. I could still do this, but I didn't. I don't remember anyone's phone numbers at all anymore. Why bother
Tarmaccian
Now here’s the fun philosophical question: is memorizing phone numbers an _important_ skill? Does it matter that we’ve lost that training and ability?
Is it important to be able to do a job on your own? Or simply to have a job done, even with the aid of a tool?
CalculatorFunTime58008
That's for smarter people then I am. I can't even be bothered to remember a phone number for an emergency
literallymike
As someone funnier than me put it, "I’m shocked having someone write your essay doesn’t make you smarter."
memebot3000
having a bot do your homework, robs you of training your brain
literallymike
Like we need one more thing decimating our critical thinking skills.
TheFishFace
A 47% reduction in neural connections led some idiot to post screenshots of tweets AND IMGUR COMMENTS... TO IMGUR
unwaver
I considered stooping to your level with your asinine use of language, but I won't.
1. I posted screenshots from a different platform of his - not X.
2. The "IMGUR COMMENTS" I took a snap of were going to be erased when I chose to hide/edit the post. I didn't want the valuable time others took to comment on my post to be in vain.
Do you now comprehend this?
azarza
JPRiddles
What? Why were you going to hide/edit the post just to repost it? What is going on?
FlyByGRider
No, they are stupid and ruin the post. It's like you purposely added them to make it hard for people to find the comment section
Mazzy94
jimjong1
"I won't stoop to your level" just to end with "Do you now comprehend this?"
BrokenAnimal
Teacher here. Many of us called it when the use of iPads or similar was introduced and we were encouraged, nay, forced to use them for almost everything. We said that this wholesale use of digital media would be detrimental to the pupils' reading and writing skills, as well as academic retention. We were right. We weren't listened to.
Many of us now warn about the blanket use of AI in in the classroom for many of the same reasons.
I don't expect we will be listened to this time either.
wadatahmydamie
You weren’t listened to about tablets because you were wrong, FYI. They’re just tools, like computers or calculators. I watched an autistic nephew go from struggling in remedial math at 9 years old to being near the top of his class in Algebra in two semesters because his school tablet helped him visualize math concepts.
LLM’s are basically plagiarism machines that prioritize popular answers over correct ones, so obviously I’m not suggesting you’re wrong about that.
wadatahmydamie
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jcal.12123
BrokenAnimal
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0883035513000219?vib">https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/p">a">b">https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0883035513000219?via%3Dihub
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1747938X18300101?via%3Dihub
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797614524581
BrokenAnimal
You seem to be arguing against a point I've never made. No teacher I know were against us using tablets or laptops while teaching, and we have in fact done so for decades, especially for pupils with diagnoses. We know, and have known for many years what they are good for, and what they are not good for.
The problem is that the tech industry has been allowed to dictate how we teach, backed up by politicians and school administrators. And they want us to use it all the time for everything. 1/?
BrokenAnimal
So now you have schools that can't afford physical books and teachers who are forced into a way of teaching that we know has serious drawbacks. The last 10 years of studies have shown clearly that academic retention is best when pupils write with pencils and read in books. So, yeah, we were right.
The methods used in the classroom should be chosen by THE TEACHER and adapted for individual pupils by THE TEACHER. Not tech companies. Not politicians. 2/2
wadatahmydamie
Fair enough.
I generally agree that LLM garbage is worse than useless, and it’s my opinion that the only real utility is cramming slop into itself - such as the above example of using it to create cover letters for other algorithms
BrokenAnimal
I've used it a little professionally for grunt work, like say, "make a 20 questions quiz about this subject" and similar tasks, but I always have to check it for accuracy. So, it's things that I could easily do myself but that just takes time.
But yeah, I agree otherwise.
Timetoupdatemyusername
Teacher here as well, my managers said about the use of laptops "There's nothing we can do to stop this, they use IT stuff every day." - Stop what? Laptops even then were already passé, all they did was look at their phones all day not having the slightest idea how they actually worked. And any IT applications they might one day be required to use, they will learn on the job. It's not like I can operate an industrial operating system either... Even now, all they use the laptops for is Roblox.
kewakl
make 'em play the Factorio 1.0 (free DEMO) - find out who the 'engineering/logisitics/maths-types' really are
https://store.steampowered.com/app/427520/Factorio/
TheHuntedSnark
Now do a study of the irreparable damage caused by watching Fox News, with proof that even seeing a Fox clip on another show will permanently drop your IQ.
Next: Masturbation causes teens to go blind.
THEdrakespirit
But that's not sensationalist enough
memebot3000
I was not able to see this you know because of the blindness
alt1387
https://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-makes-you-less-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5
ravnicrasol
The study's about how informed people are based off of what their main source of "news" is.
With, obviously, Fox-news consistent viewers being far more uninformed than others.
TheHuntedSnark
Better yet: Let ChatGPT write the study for you.
Hexrowe
To be clear, there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the actual study, aside from the small sample size; the setup was reasonable and the results and conclusions as expected (TL;DR - having someone or something do a thing for you is not the same as doing it yourself). It's just this sensationalist reporting on it that's bullshit.
Toqom
Ya, he's clearly not very intelligent as he's trying to convey that watching Fox news doesn't drop your IQ and it absolutely does if you watch it long enough and believe it.
captapathy
Do I trust a post by a guy who looks like Skweezy Jibbs?
Hexrowe
You mean to imply you wouldn't trust Skweezy Jibbs...!?
captapathy
Skweezy, yes. Some knockoff? No way.
jimjong1
Would you trust something that looks like toilet paper?
Hexrowe
I trust toilet paper every day...
jimjong1
That's the difference though, it's actually toilet paper instead of something that just looks lioe toilet paper
Hexrowe
Godsdamn mimics.
IThoughtIdComeUpWithABetterUserNameThanThis
#1 the phrasing of that already seems crooked to me, no-one has ever "used Chat-GPT to write" they've used Chat-GPT to write something FOR them, with that in mind it's no wonder they don't remember what they "wrote" since they didn't fucking write it, in all likely hood they didn't even properly read it to begin with
PectorialMuscles
Just based on my experience as someone trained in classical research techniques and practices (not just the average college level "check sources") being swarmed by "AI summary" is very helpful ONLY if you back up what it tells you with proof reading, which can take even longer than simply reading the sources myself. My brain is wired to use the shortest route and I can feel my training causing cognitive dissonance using the summary even when I KNOW from prior research it is correct. It's fucked.
Wraithofspades
Similar analogy for me: using a character builder to make a D&D character instead of reading the books and writing it down. I def noticed I was more in tune with a character that I had to read up on and then physically write down. Char gen to print? Less overhead but I knew nothing about its mechanics half the time. Odd anecdote, maybe, but applicable to this dicsussion, I think.
nomorehate
I was always best at English & writing classes, but I had such a struggle writing in the format I was told to (like research essays) the ideas were there, just didn't flow right. I recently used it to restructure a paper I did for a paralegal class I took, still my words (with some edits for clarity) but in an order that flowed better.
BlueDsc
I didn't go to class today. Fuckin wild how I didn't learn anything that class.
Aspernari
> no-one has ever "used Chat-GPT to write"
Plenty of people are using ChatGPT to bounce ideas off of, to rephrase things, to review what was written to make sure they're conveying the proper intent, etc. Many people are using it as a writing TOOL, as opposed to whole-assed authorship.
IThoughtIdComeUpWithABetterUserNameThanThis
i suppose so, they shouldn't though, but yea
NoNameFred
And, of course: consider the difference in the sorts of people who are likely to get a chatbot to write for them, versus the sorts of people who prefer to write themselves. Are they sure they've got the order of causation the right way around?
ElbowDeepInAPoliceState
Pretty sure the PhD's understand the most rudimentary aspects of experimental design, and would've assigned it randomly. Then again, maybe they got chatgpt to draw up the design for them.
scrumby
Or dont because they didn't recruit people who were already using chat bots. They recruited people and then made some of them use chatgpt, some of them use search engines, and some of them use just their brains.
jcmiller23
Right, there is a big difference between having it do the work for you and having it help. I use it in my music to list synonyms and rhymes and then I am still doing all of the creating from there.
kewakl
but AI 'could help' in some instances :p
IThoughtIdComeUpWithABetterUserNameThanThis
lol you got me there
Feralkyn
It's also represented incredibly stupidly. The brain didn't "atrophy" or lose half its connectivity; it engaged half its usual power when working to AI prompt rather than writing. Which... duh?
CylensTheDiscourse
"Research shows that people that type a prompt into Google only use a tenth of their brain compared to people who read books and use ten thousands of their brain."
TheBigBadBonerBiter
"What I'd we could use 100% of the brain?"
DoctorWookie
The problem is illustrated by the second half of their experiment: when the chatgpt users were forced to write on their own, they couldn't do it, or did it extremely poorly. IE, they never learned to write.
BlueDsc
If you never learned to write, you're gonna be shit at it. Chatgpt is completely irrelevant there.
DoctorWookie
It's relevant because more and more kids are relying on it as a tool to do their work for them in school. This study is evidence that doing so is critically harmful to their development. It will help getting it banned in schools.
BlueDsc
If schools are actually letting their students use tools to cheat during class, that's more of an issue with the schools than it is the tool.
Whatdoyousaytoanicecupoftea
As 12 applications to a uni course I read will attest. Paragraphs wrongly ordered, REALLY WEIRD citations and the general air of the applicant being smacked out their brain
PectorialMuscles
Yeah, AI writing is extremely noticeable if you've ever proof read complex human work to a substantial degree. Taking a pro writing class in school was enough to gear me, but proof reading hundreds of peer papers per semester definitely opened my eyes to how unnaturally dim AI is. I suggest asking chatGPT to play 20 questions for a flashbang example of how incapable of understanding nuance or flow it is.
PotatoPirateTheThird
i tried for fun and it got one of two. definitely not the best at 20 questions since it seems to expect literally everything equally where as a human would tend towards celebrities. So it failed at "robert downey Jr", taking all 20 questions to narrow it down to "a mammal that's bigger than a dog and smaller than a horse". but got "the sun" in 13 questions.
PectorialMuscles
I watched a video last night filled with ones where it takes 70 tries and repeats the same question over and over even with instruction not to. "Is it an item of food?" "Is it food?" "Is it a fruit?" "Is it food?"
PotatoPirateTheThird
yeah it started getting stuck on the RDJ thing too. kind of like a local maximum problem.
BenHobson
I have found that ChatGPT works best at re-writing something I have already written. I bad at writing. What I produce is usual full of run on sentences and grammatical slip ups.
The reason AI works for me is because I already have structure built. ChatGPT just makes it more legible.
Even then, you must proofread. It can miss crucial context and remove important details that you have to re-add.
IThoughtIdComeUpWithABetterUserNameThanThis
but aren't you worried that this causes your writing to stagnate? That by not doing these things yourself you won't grow as a writer? Because some things that some might see as "bad writing" might simply be your writing style, it's what makes your work unique, and you have to learn how to seperate those bits from the stuff that works against what you want to put down. But if AI scrubs everything into a more conventional style it might even make your work more bland. I could be wrong though
FetchtheRaven
I will be honest, I turned to chatGPT to help me find solutions to help save my baby brother's life, as for 15 years he was left to rot in the system and very suicidal.
Two weeks of in depth research, as in.. chat gpt said something about patient rights laws, so I read the laws myself, screenshotted and highlighted it. I wouldn't have thought of looking this stuff up myself. Chatgpt helped me find new angles to approach, which I then did, and I learned a lot about my country's healthcare 1/2
FetchtheRaven
As well as that of neighbouring countries. My brother was finally hospitalized twice this month, crisis and now longer term. I'm not saying it's cause of chatgpt, but chatgpt did give me ammunition and a bit of emotional support, and helped more than the professionals i spoke that 'couldn't help me further'. The pandering gets annoying, but in the end chatgpt was there when humans fell short, and both his mom and I had renewed energy to fight for my brother. I'm not pro ai stealing but I am 2/3
JohnSmithterms
There will always be luddites. Good for you for taking the initiative. A lot of smooth brains would not even bother. Also #taxtherich
FetchtheRaven
Grateful it exists. That said, I don't normally use it. This was a case of being desperate with someone's life in my hands and all professional help turning a blind eye. For reference I had also called my therapists, and reached out to suicide hotline and such. Had to double my personal therapy to deal with the emotional impact of the situation. Anyways thanks for listening, I wish ai could be ethical. 3/3
CapitalNick
Why would anyone remember something they didn't write?
DeepFriedAndSanctified
I write simple administrative emails all the time. I use ChatGBT so I don't have to remember them or spend much time focusing on them at all. I'm not using it to write a family member's eulogy.
zaxlor
I think that's the point, isn't it? A generation or two of high-schoolers only using chatGPT to "write" their assignments, thinking that can just use the same methods when they get a job. And then when you've got a workforce who can't think or create, why bother *having* a workforce, when you could just... employ chatGPT? Which is kind of going on now, with trying to force AI into everything since it "saves money spent on wages".
quadraspaz1
Socrates thought about writing the same way as this article talks about ChatGPT. Why would someone remember something they did write?
"For this invention will produce forgetfulness in the minds of those who learn to use it, because they will not practice their memory. Their trust in writing, produced by external characters which are no part of themselves, will discourage the use of their own memory within them.
JanusLeeJones
Turns out he was wrong. The process of writing often forces me to understand something more deeply than if I just keep it in my head, in vague idea form. That understanding leads to better memory. I've never learnt and remembered things as good as when I wrote about them.
quadraspaz1
You have invented an elixir not of memory, but of reminding; and you offer your pupils the appearance of wisdom, not true wisdom, for they will read many things without instruction and will therefore seem [275b] to know many things, when they are for the most part ignorant and hard to get along with, since they are not wise, but only appear wise."
Colopty
To some extent he was right about that, for instance demonstrated by how people have a much harder time memorising phone numbers these days than what was normal before phones had a contact list built in. His main error was stating that memorisation equals wisdom.
CaptainRedbeardButOnlyTheBeard
Yea, I think in the modern era there is generally (though not universally) an understanding that book learning is not a 1 to 1 equivalent to wisdom or experience. This, I think, is a cultural understanding that comes with mass literacy, and with time, I expect we'll be able to culturally relegate leaning on AI to an appropriate place. There will always be room for abuse, but that's true with any new technology.
mrsdowneyjr
And that writing can help memorization
Colopty
Also true, though given how novel writing was at the time he probably had no way to know how it could aid in the memorisation process so I choose to give him a bit more slack for that. Meanwhile he really should've known better than to define wisdom based on rote memorisation ability because surely he would've met someone who knows a lot but was still dumb af even without writing being a thing.
nesurame
I think there's also a fundamental error in Socrates' assertion that writing makes us complacent. He assumes that writing led to terrible memory and doesn't consider that writing led to people with terrible memories being able to remember, and thus allowing them to do things they otherwise wouldn't, or couldn't. I am godawful at remembering dates and numbers, but being able to externalize things like calendars and measurements has shored up this glaring weakness I've had since childhood
prosper020
This exactally. I don’t remember dozens of phone numbers like I could when I was 10, because I have them written down and on me at almost all times. Could I get myself back to being able to remember that stuff? with effort and time sure. The point of tech is to make our lives easier. I don’t like how AI is being used in a lot of cases. When it’s used well it’s amazing, like in sorting research data.
viila
That's not why you don't remember them. You don't remember them, because you never *use* them (as in dial manually), so you never refresh the memory.
Hexrowe
The actual study: https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.08872
(For the record, even considering the limited format, ABI does a TERRIBLE sensationalist hack job of describing it.)
unwaver
Written by a neuroscientist whose posts I just came across -
AllSeeingMagi1
hold up, this data comes from only a hand full of people, of which only ~1/5 completed the full experiment? how can any concrete conclusion be drawn from such a small sample size?
SisyphusRollin
Shitting on AI sells right now, as well as claiming AI is fantastic. Nuance is dead.
MightyFellhanded
Yup. Completely flubbed the data. It's annoying because the research is important
[deleted]
[deleted]
Hexrowe
Nah! if it was me, I'd just edit the post to add the link and a note to NEVER take science reporting at face value.
CylensTheDiscourse
Nah, leave this post up as a monument to human ignorance.
Hexrowe
But, by the same token, also a monument to human learning! 'Cos this is how that works.
Goldensands
As a cognitive psychology student, absolutely, yes. I don't know that I've ever seen a more perverse misrepresentation of cognition than above. I'm not a fan or user of LLMs either but the above is such utter bogus. Every professor I've ever had would unanimously tell you it's at best an utter misrepresentation of what we know of the brain and its mechanics. It literally boils down to if you don't use your brain you don't use your brain, now watch my outrage. I want to slap him.
TheWhiteBarry
Uhh that's a long way to go just to come back full circle. Brain atrophy won't be obvious to everybody and especially not those already using AI to outsource their thinking. This is a really good PSA for those unaware.
Hexrowe
It _could have been_ a good PSA if it didn't misrepresent the study and its findings. You can't fight misinformation with _more misinformation._
TheWhiteBarry
Ideally yes, but if the end result is that people still hear the message, good enough
nowinvisibly
No
ravnicrasol
Gotta wonder what's the difference between using chatgpt and asking someone else for help. In brain-results, I mean.
Hexrowe
Or asking another person to write the essay for you, for that matter.
unwaver
Heavenissize17socks
Stephen King clarified it. If you use alcohol to help you write, it will work For A while. Then you'll require alcohol to be able to write. Then you won't be able to write at all.
pilomotor
Is that why he switched to cocaine?
BigDaddysMeatWagon
He did a lot of writing between the lines.
LocalSemiFriendlyRabbitGal
If this keeps up he'll soon be sipping TEA.
TheElderBowls
Gree tea is the best drug.
LocalSemiFriendlyRabbitGal
Found the alien tea enjoyer.
TheGhostOfFutureDisappointments
It started with an oxy addiction with the painkillers after that fucking car hit him. Then it kind of spread to different substances.
Tumescentpie
The van hit him in 99. He was doing coke in the 80s. He doesn't remember writing cujo and that came out in 81. Unless there is some other car accident I don't remember. I read on writing something like 2 decades ago, so maybe I've forgotten a different car accident.
TheGhostOfFutureDisappointments
No it was the only one. I also read On Writing - but it's been a hot minute.
LoudBirb
Yeah... that ain't true, though. Recovering alcoholics are able to write just fine. Hell, some have written pretty incredible memoirs about their journey into and out out addiction: https://www.shatterproof.org/blog/14-lifechanging-books-addiction-recovery
caserocko
It's possible the alcoholics you're referring to didn't use alcohol as a crutch for writing, unlike the alcoholics King was referring to. It's also possible that the recovering alcoholics you're referring to had to rediscover and relearn their ability to write sober before making their memoirs. Nothing you've said necessarily disproves what King said. They aren't mutually exclusive.
caserocko
Follow-up: I now see the other comments here and appreciate you acknowledging your misunderstanding!
500ug
Did you just uhm ackchually a qoute about being sober and not using crutches.
LoudBirb
Maybe? I pointed out that recovering alcoholics aren't permanently and irreparably damaged and can get their lives and faculties back with enough time and work.
There is always hope of tecovery, even at their lowest point.
If that counts as an "uhm ackshyually", then sure.
500ug
Bro you just uhm ackahually the uhm ackahually.
Hexrowe
Emphasis on "recovering". Like Stephen King when he said that. He got to the place where he couldn't write, but now that he's recovering he can again.
LoudBirb
Yeah, I misinterpreted what Mr. King was trying to say here. That's on me.
Also, the point about using crutches was always good and correct irrespective of what I thought at the time was an implication that the damage of addiction is irreparable.