Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Your brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of cognitive debt when using an AI assistant

media.mit.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 529 posts

Re: Your brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of cognitive debt when using an AI assistant

#251

Post by notanastronaut »

vidarh wrote: post #167
mcv wrote: post #98

This seems to confirm my feeling when using AI too much. It's easy to get started, but I can feel my brain engaging less with the problem than I'm used to. It can form a barrier to real understanding, and keeps me out of my flow. I recently worked on something very complex I don't think I would have been able to tackle as quickly without AI; a hierarchical graph layout algorithm based on the Sugiyama framework, using…

My "actual job" isn't to write code, but to solve problems. Writing code has just typically been how I've needed to solve those problems. That has increasingly shifted to "just" reviewing code and focusing on the architecture and domain models. I get to spend more time on my actual job.

I'm in the same boat. There's a lot of things I don't know and using these models help give direction and narrow focus towards solutions I didn't know about previously. I augment my knowledge, not replace.

Some people learn from rote memorization, some people learn through hands on experience. Some people have "ADHD brains". Some people are on the spectrum. If you visit Wikipedia and check out Learning Styles, there's like eight different suggested models, and even those are criticized extensively.

It seems a sort of parochial universalism has coalesced, but people should keep in mind we don't all learn the same.

ETA: I'd also like to say learning from LLMs are vastly similar, and some ways more useful, than finding blogs on a subject. A lot of time, say for Linux, you'll find instructions that even if you perform them to a tee, something goes pear shaped, because of tiny environment variables or a single package update changes things. Even Photoshop tutorials are not free of this madness. I'm used to mostly correct but just this side of incorrect instructions. LLMs are no different in a lot of ways. At least with them I can tailor my experience to just what I'm trying to do and spend time correcting that versus loading up a YT video trying to understand why X doesn't work. But I can understand if people don't get the same value as I do.

Re: Your brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of cognitive debt when using an AI assistant

#252

Post by gambiting »

foxes wrote: post #164
mcv wrote: post #98

This seems to confirm my feeling when using AI too much. It's easy to get started, but I can feel my brain engaging less with the problem than I'm used to. It can form a barrier to real understanding, and keeps me out of my flow. I recently worked on something very complex I don't think I would have been able to tackle as quickly without AI; a hierarchical graph layout algorithm based on the Sugiyama framework, using…

Is this a copilot ad?

It does read like one.

Re: Your brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of cognitive debt when using an AI assistant

#253

Post by wiseowise »

vidarh wrote: post #167
mcv wrote: post #98

This seems to confirm my feeling when using AI too much. It's easy to get started, but I can feel my brain engaging less with the problem than I'm used to. It can form a barrier to real understanding, and keeps me out of my flow. I recently worked on something very complex I don't think I would have been able to tackle as quickly without AI; a hierarchical graph layout algorithm based on the Sugiyama framework, using…

My "actual job" isn't to write code, but to solve problems. Writing code has just typically been how I've needed to solve those problems. That has increasingly shifted to "just" reviewing code and focusing on the architecture and domain models. I get to spend more time on my actual job.

So what happens when LLM provider and/or internet is down or you're out of credits?

Re: Your brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of cognitive debt when using an AI assistant

#254

Post by HumblyTossed »

hluska wrote: post #203
Difwif wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This statement feels like a farmer making a case for using their hands to tend the land instead of a tractor because it produces too many crops. Modern farming requires you to have an ecosystem of supporting tools to handle the scale and you need to learn new skills like being a diesel mechanic. How we work changes and the extra complexity buys us productivity. The vast majority of software will be AI generated, tool…

I’ll be honest with you pal - this statement sounds like you’ve bought the hype. The truth is likely between the poles - at least that’s where it’s been for the last 35 years that I’ve been obsessed with this field.

I feel like we are at the crescendo point with "AI". Happens with every tech pushed here. 3DTV? You have those people who will shout you down and say every movie from now on will be 3D. Oh yeah? Hmmm... Or the people who see Apple's goggles and yell that everyone will be wearing them and that's just going to be the new norm now. Oh yeah? Hmmm...

Truth is, for "AI" to get markedly better than it is now (0) will take vastly more money than anyone is willing to put into it.

(0) Markedly, meaning it will truly take over the majority of dev (and other "thought worker") roles.

Re: Your brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of cognitive debt when using an AI assistant

#256

Post by ZpJuUuNaQ5 »

sdoering wrote: post #111

This reminds me of the recurring pattern with every new medium: Socrates worried writing would destroy memory, Gutenberg's critics feared for contemplation, novels were "brain softening," TV was the "idiot box." That said, I'm not sure "they've always been wrong before" proves they're wrong now. Where I'm skeptical of this study: - 54 participants, only 18 in the critical 4th session - 4 months is barely enough time…

>TV was the "idiot box."

Still is.

Re: Your brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of cognitive debt when using an AI assistant

#257

Post by ETH_start »

It takes real effort to maintain a solid understanding of the subject matter when using AI. That is the core takeaway of the study to me, and it lines up with something I have vaguely noticed over time. What makes this especially tricky is that the downside is very stealthy. You do not feel yourself learning less in the moment. Performance stays high, things feel easy, and nothing obviously breaks. So unless someone is actively monitoring their own understanding, it is very easy to drift into a state where you are producing decent-looking work without actually having a deep grasp of what you are doing. That is dangerous in the long run, because if you do not really understand a subject, it will limit the quality and range of work you can produce later. This means people need to be made explicitly aware of this effect, and individually they need to put real effort into checking whether they actually understand what they are producing when they use AI.

That said, I also think it is important to not get an overly negative takeaway from the study. Many of the findings are exactly what you would expect if AI is functioning as a form of cognitive augmentation. Over time, you externalize more of the work to the tool. That is not automatically a bad thing. Externalization is precisely why tools increase productivity. When you use AI, you can often get more done because you are spending less cognitive effort per unit of output.

And this gets to what I see as the study's main limitation. It compares different groups on a fixed unit of output, which implicitly assumes that AI users will produce the same amount of work as non-AI users. But that is not how AI is actually used in the real world. In practice, people often use AI to produce much more output, not the same output with less effort. If you hold output constant, of course the AI group will show lower cognitive engagement. A more realistic scenario is that AI users increase their output until their cognitive load is similar to before, just spread across more work. That dimension is not captured by the experimental design.

Re: Your brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of cognitive debt when using an AI assistant

#258

Post by wiseowise »

scyzoryk_xyz wrote: post #177
Archer6621 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a nice anecdote, and I agree with the sentiment - skill development comes from practice. It's tempting to see using AI as free lunch, but it comes with a cost in the form of skill atrophy. I reckon this is even the case when using it as an interactive encyclopedia, where you may lose some skill in searching and aggregating information, but for many people the overall trade off in terms of time and energy savin…

If the computer was the bicycle for the mind, then perhaps AI is the electric scooter for the mind? Gets you there, but doesn't necessarily help build the best healthy habits. Trade offs around "room to do more of other things" are an interesting and recurring theme of these conversations. Like two opposites of a spectrum. On one end the ideal process oriented artisan taking the long way to mastery, on the other end…

> perhaps AI is the electric scooter for the mind

More like mobility scooter for disabled. Literally Wall-E in the making.

Re: Your brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of cognitive debt when using an AI assistant

#259

Post by ETH_start »

spongebobstoes wrote: post #73

the article suggests that the LLM group had better essays as graded by both human and AI reviewers, but they used less brain power this doesn't seem like a clear problem. perhaps people can accomplish more difficult tasks with LLM assistance, and in those more difficult tasks still see full brain engagement? using less brain power for a better result doesn't seem like a clear problem. it might reveal shortcomings in…

Bingo. Overall it's a massive plus.

Re: Your brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of cognitive debt when using an AI assistant

#260

Post by ramraj07 »

blackqueeriroh wrote: post #79

I encourage folks to listen to brilliant psychologist for software teams Cat Hicks [1] and her wife, teaching neuroscientist Ashley Juavinett [2] on their excellent podcast, Change, Technically discussing the myriad problems with this study: https://www.buzzsprout.com/2396236/episodes/17378968 1: https://www.catharsisinsight.com 2: https://ashleyjuavinett.com

Dont even need that podcast. Anyone who's done real research in any field, if they try to sit down and read the paper (if you can call it that), can immediately see that its just self aggrandizing, unscientific, biased garbage written by people who think theyre way smarter than they are. Not unlike wolframs new grand unified theory but even worse maybe.

Unfortunately, its also being used by a lot of people who also think theyre smarter than they are to confirm their pre-existing biases with bad research.

Im not saying ChatGPT doesnt make people stupid. It very well might (my hypothesis is that it just accelerates cognition change; decline for many, incline for some). But this garbage is not how you prove it.

Post reply on HN