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

Metacognitive laziness: Effects of generative AI on learning motivation

bera-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 308 posts

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

#271

Post by henriquemaia »

sanderjd wrote: post #268
henriquemaia wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a subtle, yet important point. Putting themselves out there is not easy for some. LLMs can take that pressure away. The 'but' in that lies with how much freedom is given to the LLM. If constrained, its refusal to answer may become a somewhat triggering possibility.

I think this "refusal to answer" thing is so overblown. I have been using this technology every day for over two years now and have not one single time run into this.

You might be right. From my experience, it depends. The edgier your exploration, the more that can happen.

It's important to note that not everyone abide by the same morals. And a narrowly constrained model may end up refusing genuine inquiries just because.

In any case, if anything, this is a small 'but'. OP's point is the gold nugget here. That is, LLMs allowing exploring subjects without the fear of being judged for one's natural curiosity.

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

#272

Post by meindnoch »

yard2010 wrote: post #195
awongh wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

*but most people will not do that* LLMs will definitely be a technology that widens the knowledge gap at the same time that it improves access to knowledge. Just like the internet. 30 years ago people dreamed about how smart everyone would be with humanity's knowledge instantly accessible. We've had wikipedia for a while, but what's the take-up rate of this infinite amount of information? Most people prefer to scroll…

Anecdotal, but I for one despise the youtube/instagram etc. rabbidholes. When I'm in the mood for a good one I scroll wikipedia. I had the best random conversations about what I read there and it feels like I remember this forever

It's because Wikipedia is non-profit, and has very strict editorial control. YouTube and Instagram is the opposite in both.

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

#273

Post by cosmic_cheese »

sanderjd wrote: post #154
ankit219 wrote: post #55

There are two aspects to this from my pov. And I think it might be controversial. When i have a question about any topic, and I ask Chatgpt, i usually chat about more things, coming up with questions based on the answer, and mostly stupid questions. I feel like I am taking in the information, analyzing, and then diving deeper because I am curious. This is based on how I learn about stuff. I know i need to check a few…

I really think the ability to ask questions entirely free from all judgment is an under-emphasized aspect of the power of these tools. Yes, some people are intellectually secure enough to ask the "dumb" questions of other humans, but most people are not, especially to an audience of strangers. I don't think I ever once asked a question on Stack Overflow, because it was easy to see how the question I worried might be…

The other thing is that it will make an earnest attempt to answer the question. On the other hand with places like SO, many questions will be incorrectly marked as duplicate with the “answer” link pointing to a post that might seem similar at first glance but is different enough to not actually be the same, which is supremely unhelpful.

You can also ask it to explain the subject like you’re 5, which might not feel appropriate when interacting with a human because that can feel burdensome.

All of this is heavily caveated by how dramatically wrong LLMs can be, though, and can be rendered moot if the individual in question is too trusting and/or isn’t aware of the tendency of LLMs to hallucinate, pull from bad training data, or match the wrong patterns.

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

#274

Post by sanderjd »

henriquemaia wrote: post #271
sanderjd wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this "refusal to answer" thing is so overblown. I have been using this technology every day for over two years now and have not one single time run into this.

You might be right. From my experience, it depends. The edgier your exploration, the more that can happen. It's important to note that not everyone abide by the same morals. And a narrowly constrained model may end up refusing genuine inquiries just because. In any case, if anything, this is a small 'but'. OP's point is the gold nugget here. That is, LLMs allowing exploring subjects without the fear of being judged f…

Yeah, I'm in no way claiming that this isn't a thing, or even that it isn't a problem.

But it isn't a problem for most people. The kind of edgelords that run into this are overrepresented on internet forums, including HN, but it's actually a pretty small group of people.

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

#275

Post by pharrington »

jazzyjackson wrote: post #253
65 wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps we're going technologically backwards. Oral tradition compared to writing is clearly less accurate. Speakers can easily misremember details. Going from writing/documentation/primary sources to AI to be seems like going back to oral tradition, where we must trust the "speaker" - in this case the AI, whether they're truthful with their interpretation of their sources.

Walter J. Ong's Orality and Literacy is an illuminating read. One benefit of orality is that the speaker can defend or clarify their words, whereas once you've written something, your words are liable to be misinterpreted by readers without the benefit of your rebuttal. Consider too that courts (in the US at least) prefer oral arguments than written, perhaps we consider it more difficult to lie in person than in writ…

I can definitely attempt to clarify something I've already said in writing! But yes, interactivity is vital for healthy communication.

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

#276

Post by shakna »

engineer_22 wrote: post #68
roydivision wrote: post #45

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…

> 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.

Not exactly.

We have accounts from figures who became famous by going against popular opinion, who aired those thoughts. It probably was not the mainstream belief, in that place, at that time. Don't try and judge Ancient Greece by Socrates or Plato - they were celebrities of the controversial.

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

#277

Post by fn-mote »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #234
cognaitiv wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“The ratio of literacy to illiteracy is constant, but nowadays the illiterates can read and write.” Alberto Moravia, London Observer, 14 Oct. 1979

It’s a pretty interesting point. If a large fraction of the population can’t even hold five complex ideas in their head simultaneously, without confusing them after a few seconds, are they literate in the sense of e.g. reading Plato?

> can’t even hold five complex ideas in their head

As an aside, my observation of beginning programmers is that even two (independent) things happening at the same time is a serious cognitive load.

Amusingly enough, I remember having the same trouble on the data structures final in college, so “people in glass houses”.

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

#278

Post by amrocha »

danielbln wrote: post #175
amrocha wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You still need to map the real world to the map and actually follow the instructions. It’s the difference between navigating and having a driver navigate for you.

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

#279

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

65 wrote: post #250
engineer_22 wrote: post #68

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…

Perhaps we're going technologically backwards. Oral tradition compared to writing is clearly less accurate. Speakers can easily misremember details. Going from writing/documentation/primary sources to AI to be seems like going back to oral tradition, where we must trust the "speaker" - in this case the AI, whether they're truthful with their interpretation of their sources.

> Oral tradition compared to writing is clearly less accurate.

I used to think this. Then I moved to New Mexico 6 years and had to confront the reality that the historical cultures and civilizations of this area (human habitation goes back at least 20k years) never had writing and so all history was oral.

It seemed obvious to me that writing was superior, but I reflected on the way in which even written news stories or movie reviews or travelogues are not completely accurate and sometimes actually wrong. The idea that the existence of a written historical source somehow implies (better) fidelity has become less and less convincing.

On the other hand, even if the oral histories have degenerated into actual fictions, there's that old line about "the best way to tell the truth is with fiction", and I now feel much more favorably inclined towards oral histories as perhaps at least as good, if not better, as their written cousins.

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

#280

Post by gcanyon »

1. Socrates criticized writing itself: in Plato's Phaedrus he said it would "create forgetfulness in the learners' souls, because they will not use their memories" (274e-275b)

2. Leonard Euler criticized the use of logarithm tables in calculating: in his 1748 "Introductio in analysin infinitorum" he insisted on deriving logarithms from first principles

3. William Thomson (Lord Kelvin) initially dismissed mechanical calculators, stating in an 1878 lecture at Glasgow University that they would make students "neglect the cultivation of their reasoning powers"

4. Henry Ford in his autobiography "My Life and Work" (1922) quoted a farmer who told him in 1907 that gasoline tractors would "make boys lazy and good for nothing" and they'd "never learn to farm"

5. In 1877, the New York Times published concerns from teachers about students using pencils with attached erasers, claiming it would make them "careless" because they wouldn't have to think before writing. The editorial warned it would "destroy the discipline of learning"

6. In "Elements of Arithmetic," (1846) Augustus De Morgan criticized the use of pre-printed multiplication tables, saying students who relied on them would become "mere calculative mechanism" instead of understanding numbers

7. In his 1906 paper "The Menace of Mechanical Music," John Philip Sousa attacked the phonograph writing that it would make people stop learning instruments because "the infant will be taught by machinery" and musical education would become "unnecessary"

8. In his 1985 autobiography "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!" Richard Feynman expressed concern about pocket calculators and students losing the ability to estimate and understand mathematical relationships

I could go on (Claude wrote 15 of them!). Twenty years from now (assuming AI hasn't killed us all) we'll look back and think that working with an LLM isn't the crutch people think it is now.

Post reply on HN