Tell your dad I promise to stay off Quaaludes as long as I get a job!

На самом деле я говорю на трех разных языках. Только не этот. Я не должен знать, что это значит.

Yes?

Only if you’re a little bitch.

I don’t care what .ml is doing.

I’m not a centrist.

I was inferring that Russian bot farms and propaganda Mills like to sew discourse about socialism in America they don’t necessarily agree or disagree with socialism they simply like to make people fight over it.

You made an assumption that was incorrect which is generally what assumptions are.

Negative.

I’ve always felt like Russian bot farms and propaganda Mills like to push discourse about socialism in the United States.

It’s not that they’re necessarily in support or against socialism they just like to have people arguing about it for whatever reason.

There has been a lot less posts about socialism that’s for sure.

Lol. Not even beating around the bush anymore.

The results of the study are not in question, nor am I arguing against them. I am criticizing the sensationalist title being used in this Lemmy post.

The study does not say that using ChatGPT for 10 minutes erodes your ability to perform hard tasks. You yourself acknowledged this in the information you provided from the study.

So I guess the question is, what exactly are you arguing against?

Once again, to reiterate, my complaint is about the misleading clickbait title.

The vast majority of people who see this post aren’t going to read the study. They’re going to look at the title, nod their heads, and move on. I’m simply trying to provide some context.

You used an AI service to determine if my comment was written by AI, and the service itself admits it can’t reliably determine that. Do you see the irony here? You literally used AI to guess whether I used AI and then treated that guess as fact. That’s some next-level nonsense.

I will say this however in my own defense not that I have to, I use Google keyboard which has a built-in AI editor it helps me to write long responses quickly.

I will use any and all tools that I deem necessary to complete any and all tasks regardless of your idiotic criticism.

Of course I’ll be happy to explain, the title of the article states:

Using Al for just 10 minutes erodes your ability to persist at hard things - Berkeley News

The findings of the study do not indicate that using an LLM (AI) for ten minutes removes your ability to do hard things. The study showed that it was harder to perform tasks without AI assistance after having access to it. In fact, people who used AI for ten minutes before performing difficult tasks actually performed better than those who did not.

The ten minutes was simply used as a control so that everyone had the same amount of time with AI. It had nothing to do with the erosion of their ability to perform difficult tasks. The conclusion the researchers drew, which is up for interpretation, was that prolonged AI usage may potentially impair people’s ability to perform harder tasks without assistance.

The title heavily implies that just ten minutes of AI usage makes difficult tasks harder to perform, which is not what the study showed or concluded. Therefore, the title has been intentionally sensationalized as clickbait. It objectively misrepresents the findings by encouraging a different interpretation and conclusion than what the study actually demonstrated.

The study itself is interesting, but apparently, the researchers’ findings weren’t sensational enough on their own. The people posting these articles still felt the need to mislead their audiences into drawing a different conclusion from the one the research actually supports.

Eh. Go sit and spin.

This is… Unfortunately completely true. ☹️

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.

Shenanigans.

That’s not 37 pieces of flare!

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.

Ok.

Every post-apocalyptic society we can point to is fictional. After all, we’ve never actually experienced an apocalypse on that scale.

But just off the top of my head, The Book of Eli depicts a post-apocalyptic society that has largely devolved into anarchy, with power concentrated in the hands of warlords and whoever can enforce their will through violence.

Cyborg presents a similar picture: societal collapse, competing factions, and survival through force.

Then there’s Mad Max, where civilization has collapsed into violent competition over increasingly scarce resources, with whoever controls the necessities of life holding the power.

But I’d also venture to say that many of the post-apocalyptic societies people point to as examples of socialism are actually post-scarcity societies, or at least societies in which scarcity has been resolved to some degree. When the necessities of life are readily available, the incentive to hoard resources and compete for basic survival diminishes. That creates the conditions for people to organize society around collective needs rather than individual accumulation.

In other words, what people identify as socialism in these fictional settings may actually be the result of a fundamental change in the material conditions of society.

The interesting question isn’t whether people are naturally selfish or naturally cooperative. It’s how the conditions people live under influence which behaviors become necessary for survival. When resources are scarce and institutions collapse, people may turn to violence and self-preservation. When their basic needs are reliably met, cooperation and collective ownership become much more practical.

Of course, neither outcome is inevitable. Scarcity doesn’t automatically produce anarchy, and abundance doesn’t automatically produce socialism. But the material conditions of a society have a tremendous influence on the political and economic systems that can realistically emerge.

Dude it’s not even that like it took me significantly more words to explain how bad the article is and how long the actual article is.

And people aren’t going to actually read the article they’re just going to look at the title and be like oh my God conspiracies!

This article is extremely short, misleading, and ultimately pointless.

The owner of the coffee machine was unable to determine why it had generated approximately 1 TB of network traffic in just 10 days. However, the data reportedly remained within his own Wi-Fi network and was never transmitted over the internet. The owner himself acknowledged that it was likely some kind of error, software malfunction, or defective unit.

More importantly, he admitted that he never investigated the issue further. Instead, he simply unplugged the machine and replaced it rather than attempting to determine what was actually happening.

So what, exactly, does this article accomplish? It provides no technical explanation, identifies no underlying cause, and offers no evidence that the manufacturer was collecting, transmitting, or doing anything nefarious with the data. It presents an unexplained technical anomaly and leaves the reader to draw their own conclusions.

The implication is obvious: look at how much data this coffee machine is generating! What could the manufacturer possibly be doing with all that information? The article encourages suspicion without providing the evidence necessary to justify it.

And the irony is that the sheer volume of traffic makes the most sensational interpretation less plausible, not more. One terabyte of data in 10 days is an extraordinary amount for a coffee machine. Without knowing what the traffic consisted of, the most reasonable starting point is a software bug, a malfunctioning device, or some other technical error, not a manufacturer secretly harvesting an unprecedented amount of information about someone’s coffee-drinking habits.

Could there be a legitimate privacy concern? Certainly. But establishing one requires examining the traffic, identifying its destination, determining what information was being exchanged, and explaining why. None of that appears to have happened here.

Instead, we are left with an unexplained anomaly, an owner who chose not to investigate it, and an article that invites readers to fill in the blanks with their own conspiracy theories.

If the goal was to inform readers about the privacy risks of connected appliances, the author had an opportunity to do so. Instead, the article generates suspicion without generating any meaningful understanding.

That is the real problem with this kind of reporting: it teaches people to be afraid of technology without teaching them how to evaluate the evidence. There is a legitimate conversation to be had about connected devices, data collection, and consumer privacy. Stories like this do little to advance it.