They're probably not what you think.
(This article was originally posted for paying members on Medium.)
When I began writing this article, I didn’t know anything about the Cognitive Debt AI study beyond the sentiment that, perhaps, AI is making us “dumb”. But when I started looking into it more, I realized this issue was a lot more nuanced than it seems.
Earlier this month, an group of MIT researchers published a study on the effects of using AI to help with school work.
Researchers recruited 54 greater-Boston area residents aged 18–39 to write SAT-level essays. Participants were limited to either being able to only use LLMs in their writing process, using any websites besides AI, or not being allowed to use the internet at all. In total there were 4 sessions that took place over the course of 4 months, with the last session switching the groups that subjects were originally placed into.
Researchers found that AI is affecting our brains in certain ways. Mainly, they found that neural connectivity in the brain is much weaker when subjects went from LLM-only to brain-only writing, compared to those who started in the brain-only group.
The other thing they found that *I* thought was interesting was the affect on participant’s ability to recall or quote information that was written with AI. Those who wrote with AI assistance were unable to quote anything from their essays in the first session.
Overall, they looked at many different items of interest in their study, from what’s discussed above to even things like the perception of ownership in AI-assisted writing.
There were many immediate and intense reactions to this research. Many of us saw major publications posting about this study using words like “dumb” and “brain rot”.
However, this was seemingly not the original intent.
Primary author, Nataliya Kos’myna, has done a really good job of trying to head the negative public perception of their study, even going so far as to ask journalists to avoid certain language as to not glance over the reality of their findings.
There have also been a few criticisms of the study, notably the fact that it is not yet peer-reviewed. Also, the number of participants is very small. But many people are failing to acknowledge that the others have said and are aware of these faults.
Notably, they are currently in the process of peer review. However, researchers felt as though the findings were too important to not be discussed and receive wide feedback on.
I really enjoy that we are coming to a point where we are examining AI very closely. I think if we as a society want to continue to use AI as a productive tool, we need to take precautions.
This study does not make the claim that AI is harming us. What it does do is raise concern and start a conversation about the effect it has on us. And “effect” is not a dirty word. Even in the study, at first the LLM’s were seen as beneficial, but over time participants got lazy. I think this says a lot about how we should and shouldn’t try to use AI.
It’s not there to do our job for us. But, it has plenty of potential to make our jobs easier if we come together and find solutions to the current AI problems. Hopefully these solutions will do nothing but benefit us all in the end.
This article was written by Haley Marie Salgado
Find me elsewhere: X | Blogger | Substack (coming soon)



Comments
Post a Comment