Live data from Hacker News

Metacognitive laziness: Effects of generative AI on learning motivation

bera-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com

171–180 of 308 posts

Re: Metacognitive laziness: Effects of generative AI on learning motivation

#171
post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One of my friends wanted a bio on a certain musician and asked ChatGPT. I use ChatGPT (or Gemini) instead of web searches. You can blame the content and link farms that are top of the search results, and the search engines focusing on advertising instead of search, because we're the product. Why your friend doesn't know about wikipedia is another matter, if i wanted a generic info page about some topic i'd go direc…

You can use source material instead of LLMs for all of this. "Is Bob Geldof's hair blue?" -> Search for Bob Geldof -> Look at images of Bob Geldof. Intro programming topics can be found at the documentation of the website. Your searching query might be "[programming topic] getting started" and usually if it's a package or a tool there will be documentation. If you want good documentation on web dev stuff that isn't w…

> "Is Bob Geldof's hair blue?" -> Search for Bob Geldof -> Look at images of Bob Geldof

Assuming I get images of Bob Geldof. More likely the first page will be pinterest login-required results.

> there's probably a YouTube video about the topic.

Life's too short to watch talking heads about ... you know, WRITING code ...

> can be found at the documentation of the website

Seriously? Maybe for the top 500 npm packages. Not for the more obscure libraries that may have only some doxygen generated list of functions at best.

Re: Metacognitive laziness: Effects of generative AI on learning motivation

#172

This stands to reason. If you need the answer to a question, and you can either get it directly, or spend time researching the answer, you're going to learn much more with the latter approach than the former. You may be disciplined enough to do more research if the answer is directly presented to you, but most people will not do that, and most companies are not interested in that, they want quick 'efficient', 'compet…

We have accounts from the ancient Greeks of the old-school's attitude towards writing. In the deep past, they maintained an oral tradition, and scholars were expected to memorize everything. They saw writing/reading as a crutch that was ruining the youth's memory. We stand now at the edge of a new epoch, reading now being replaced by AI retrieval. There is concern that AI is a crutch, the youth will be weakened. My o…

random thought if in the future children are born with a brain computer and inherit their family's data that would be interesting

Re: Metacognitive laziness: Effects of generative AI on learning motivation

#173
post #74

This stands to reason. If you need the answer to a question, and you can either get it directly, or spend time researching the answer, you're going to learn much more with the latter approach than the former. You may be disciplined enough to do more research if the answer is directly presented to you, but most people will not do that, and most companies are not interested in that, they want quick 'efficient', 'compet…

> If you need the answer to a question, and you can either get it directly, or spend time researching the answer, you're going to learn much more with the latter approach than the former. Why not force everyone to start from first principles then? I think learning is tied to curiosity and curiosity is not tied to difficulty of research i.e. give a curious person a direct answer and they will go on to ask more questio…

One of the values of doing your own research is it forces you to speak the "language" of what you're trying to do.

It's like the struggle that we've all had when learning our first programming language. If we weren't forced to wrestle with compilation errors, our brains wouldn't have adapted to the mindset that the computer will do whatever you tell it to do and only that.

There's a place for LLMs in learning, and I feel like it satisfies the same niche as pre-synthesized Medium tutorials. It's no replacement for reading documentation or finding answers for yourself though.

Re: Metacognitive laziness: Effects of generative AI on learning motivation

#174
I've been calling this out since OpenAI first introduced ChatGPT.

The danger in ubiquitously available LLMs, which seemingly have an answer to any question, isn’t necessarily their existence.

The real danger lies in their seductive nature - over how tempting it becomes to immediately reach for the nearest LLM to provide an answer rather than taking a few moments to quietly ponder the problem on your own. That act of manipulating the problem in your head—critical thinking—is ultimately a craft. And the only way to become better at it is by practicing it in a deliberate, disciplined fashion.

Re: Metacognitive laziness: Effects of generative AI on learning motivation

#175
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the context of human-AI interaction, we define metacognitive laziness as learners’ dependence on AI assistance, offloading metacognitive load, and less effectively associating responsible metacognitive processes with learning tasks. This sounds like parents complaining when we use Google Maps instead of a folding map. Am I worse at reading a regular map? Possibly. Am I better off overall? Yes. Describing it as "…

When you’re using a map you’re still navigating, even if you’re just following directions. The act of navigating teaches you spatial awareness regardless of how you got there. AI doesn’t provide directions, it navigates for you. You’re actively getting stupider every time you take an LLMs answer for granted, and this paper demonstrates that people are likely to take answers for granted.

If I use Google Maps I ain't navigating. I follow the instructions until I arrive.

Re: Metacognitive laziness: Effects of generative AI on learning motivation

#176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is only because companies don't want to raise salaries as engineers' skill levels increase. If companies put junior employees in higher salary bands as their skill levels increase there wouldn't be a problem.

Capitalism and fiduciary duty prevents employers from paying people their market value when they are content enough to stay. An employee who does not do the effort to re-peg their labor time to market rates for their skill level is implicitly consenting to a prior agreement (when they were hired).

That is an extremely short-sighted view on what is essentially an iterated game where the domain knowledge employees have drastically increases their value to the company over time.

Re: Metacognitive laziness: Effects of generative AI on learning motivation

#177

This stands to reason. If you need the answer to a question, and you can either get it directly, or spend time researching the answer, you're going to learn much more with the latter approach than the former. You may be disciplined enough to do more research if the answer is directly presented to you, but most people will not do that, and most companies are not interested in that, they want quick 'efficient', 'compet…

We have accounts from the ancient Greeks of the old-school's attitude towards writing. In the deep past, they maintained an oral tradition, and scholars were expected to memorize everything. They saw writing/reading as a crutch that was ruining the youth's memory. We stand now at the edge of a new epoch, reading now being replaced by AI retrieval. There is concern that AI is a crutch, the youth will be weakened. My o…

SOCRATES: Do you know how you can speak or act about rhetoric in a manner which will be acceptable to God? PHAEDRUS: No, indeed. Do you? SOCRATES: I have heard a tradition of the ancients, whether true or not they only know; although if we had found the truth ourselves, do you think that we should care much about the opinions of men? PHAEDRUS: Your question needs no answer; but I wish that you would tell me what you say that you have heard. SOCRATES: At the Egyptian city of Naucratis, there was a famous old god, whose name was Theuth; the bird which is called the Ibis is sacred to him, and he was the inventor of many arts, such as arithmetic and calculation and geometry and astronomy and draughts and dice, but his great discovery was the use of letters. Now in those days the god Thamus was the king of the whole country of Egypt; and he dwelt in that great city of Upper Egypt which the Hellenes call Egyptian Thebes, and the god himself is called by them Ammon. To him came Theuth and showed his inventions, desiring that the other Egyptians might be allowed to have the benefit of them; he enumerated them, and Thamus enquired about their several uses, and praised some of them and censured others, as he approved or disapproved of them. It would take a long time to repeat all that Thamus said to Theuth in praise or blame of the various arts. But when they came to letters, This, said Theuth, will make the Egyptians wiser and give them better memories; it is a specific both for the memory and for the wit. Thamus replied: O most ingenious Theuth, the parent or inventor of an art is not always the best judge of the utility or inutility of his own inventions to the users of them. And in this instance, you who are the father of letters, from a paternal love of your own children have been led to attribute to them a quality which they cannot have; for this discovery of yours will create forgetfulness in the learners' souls, because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves. The specific which you have discovered is an aid not to memory, but to reminiscence, and you give your disciples not truth, but only the semblance of truth; they will be hearers of many things and will have learned nothing; they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing; they will be tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality.

Re: Metacognitive laziness: Effects of generative AI on learning motivation

#178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have accounts from the ancient Greeks of the old-school's attitude towards writing. In the deep past, they maintained an oral tradition, and scholars were expected to memorize everything. They saw writing/reading as a crutch that was ruining the youth's memory. We stand now at the edge of a new epoch, reading now being replaced by AI retrieval. There is concern that AI is a crutch, the youth will be weakened. My o…

Am I the only one to expect a S curve regarding progress and not an eternal exponential ? People moving away from prideful principle to leverage new tech in the past doesn't guarantee that the same idea in the current context will pan out. But as you say.. we'll see.

Information technology has grown exponentially since the first life form created a self-sustaining, growing loop.

You can see evolution speeding up rapidly, the jumbled information inherent in chemical metabolisms evolved to centralize their information in DNA, and then as DNA evolved to componentize body plans.

RATE: over billions of years.

Nerves, nervous systems, brains, all exponentially drove individual information capabilities forward.

RATE: over hundreds of millions, tens of millions, millions, 100s of thousands.

Then the human brains enabled information to be externalized. Language allowed whole cultures to "think", and writing allowed cultures ability to share, and its ability to remember to explode.

RATE: over tens of thousands, thousands.

Then we developed writing. A massive improvement in recording and sharing of information. Progress sped up again.

RATE: over hundreds of years.

We learned to understand information itself, as math. We learned to print. We learned how to understand and use nature so much more effectively to progress, i.e. science, and science informed engineering.

RATE: over decades

Then the processing of information got externalized, in transistors, computers, the Internet, the web.

RATE: every few years

At every point, useful information accumulated and spread faster. And enabled both general technology and information technology to progress faster.

Now we have primitive AI.

We are in the process of finally externalizing the processing of all information. Getting to this point was easier than expected, even for people who were very knowledgable and positive about the field.

RATE: every year, every few months

We are rapidly approaching complete externalization of information processing. Into machines that can understand the purpose of their every line of code, every transistor, and the manufacturing and resource extraction processes supporting all that.

And can redesign themselves, across all those levels.

RATE: It will take logistical time for machine centric design to takeover from humans. For the economy to adapt. For the need for humans as intermediaries and cheap physical labor to fade. But progress will accelerate many more times this century. From years, to time scales much smaller.

Because today we are seeing the first sparks of a Cambrian explosion of self-designed self-scalable intelligence.

Will it eventually hit the top of an "S" curve? Will machines get so smart that getting smarter no longer helps them survive better, use our solar systems or the stars resources, create new materials, or advance and leverage science any further?

Maybe? But if so, that would be an unprecedented end to life's run. To the acceleration of the information loop, from some self-reinforcing chemical metabolism, to the compounding progress of completely self-designed life, far smarter than us.

But back to today's forecast: no, no the current advances in AI we are seeing are not going to slow down, they are going to speed up, and continue accelerating in timescales we can watch.

First because humans have insatiable needs and desires, and every advance will raise the bar of our needs, and provide more money for more advancement. Then second, because their general capability advances will also accelerate their own advances. Just like every other information breakthrough that has happened before.

Useful information is ultimately the currency of life. Selfish genes were just one embodiment of that. Their ability to contribute new innovations, on time scales that matter, has already been rendered obsolete.

Re: Metacognitive laziness: Effects of generative AI on learning motivation

#179
post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can use source material instead of LLMs for all of this. "Is Bob Geldof's hair blue?" -> Search for Bob Geldof -> Look at images of Bob Geldof. Intro programming topics can be found at the documentation of the website. Your searching query might be "[programming topic] getting started" and usually if it's a package or a tool there will be documentation. If you want good documentation on web dev stuff that isn't w…

> "Is Bob Geldof's hair blue?" -> Search for Bob Geldof -> Look at images of Bob Geldof Assuming I get images of Bob Geldof. More likely the first page will be pinterest login-required results. > there's probably a YouTube video about the topic. Life's too short to watch talking heads about ... you know, WRITING code ... > can be found at the documentation of the website Seriously? Maybe for the top 500 npm packages.…

> Assuming I get images of Bob Geldof. More likely the first page will be pinterest login-required results.

You do realize Google/Bing/DDG/Kagi all have an Images tab, right? Come on.

> Life's too short to watch talking heads about ... you know, WRITING code ...

If I want a high level overview of what the thing even is, a YouTube video can be useful since there will be explanations and visual examples. You can read documentation as well. For example, if I want a slower overview of something step by step, or a talk at a conference about why to use this thing, YouTube can be helpful. I was just looking at videos about HTMX this weekend, hearing presentations by the authors and some samples. That's not saying if I actually use the thing I won't be reading the documentation, it's more just useful for understand what the thing is.

> Seriously? Maybe for the top 500 npm packages. Not for the more obscure libraries that may have only some doxygen generated list of functions at best.

How do you expect your LLM to do any better? If you're using some obscure package there will probably be documentation in the GitHub README somewhere. If it's horrible documentation you can read the Typescript types or do a code search on GitHub for examples.

This is all to say that I generally don't trust LLM output because I have better methods of finding the information LLMs are trained on. And no hallucinations.

Re: Metacognitive laziness: Effects of generative AI on learning motivation

#180

I've been calling this out since OpenAI first introduced ChatGPT. The danger in ubiquitously available LLMs, which seemingly have an answer to any question, isn’t necessarily their existence. The real danger lies in their seductive nature - over how tempting it becomes to immediately reach for the nearest LLM to provide an answer rather than taking a few moments to quietly ponder the problem on your own. That act of…

> The real danger lies in their seductive nature - over how tempting it becomes to immediately reach for the nearest LLM to provide an answer rather than taking a few moments to quietly ponder the problem on your own.

I get the point you're trying to make. However, quietly pondering the problem is only fruitful if you have the right information. If you don't, best case scenario you risk wasting time reinventing the wheel for no good reason. In this application, a LLM is just the same type of tool as Google: a way to query and retrieve information cor you to ingest. Like Google, the info you get from queries is not the end but the means.

As the saying goes, a month in the lab saves you a week in the library. I would say it can also save you 10 minutes with Claude/ChatGPT/Copilot.

Is hiring a private tutor also laziness?

Post reply on HN