3 ms·

> In the context of human-AI interaction, we define metacognitive laziness as learners’ dependence on AI assistance, offloading metacognitive load, and less eff

> 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 "laziness" is reductive. "Dependence on [_____] assistance" is the point of all technology.

amrocha 2y ago
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.
- diggan 2y ago
  > AI doesn’t provide directions, it navigates for you. LLMs (try to) give you what you're asking for. If you ask for directions, you'll get something that resembles that, if you ask it to 100% navigate, that's what you get. > and this paper demonstrates that people are likely to take answers for granted. Could you point out where exactly this is demonstrated in this paper? As far as I can tell from the study, people who used ChatGPT for the studying did better than the ones that didn't, with no different in knowledge retention.
  - amrocha 2y ago
    Page 18 first paragraph, it talks about how ChatGPT users engaged less with the editing process compared to other methods. Sorry, copy and paste isn’t working for some reason.
  - MetaWhirledPeas 2y ago
    > Could you point out where exactly this is demonstrated in this paper? As far as I can tell from the study, people who used ChatGPT for the studying did better than the ones that didn't, with no different in knowledge retention. This is what I observed as well. For the "metacognitive laziness" bit they had to point to other studies.
- danielbln 2y ago
  If I use Google Maps I ain't navigating. I follow the instructions until I arrive.
  - amrocha 2y ago
    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.
aylmao 2y ago
> "Dependence on [_____] assistance" is the point of all technology. I will note two things though. 1. Not all technology creates "dependence". Google Maps removes the need of carrying bulky maps, or buy new ones to stay updated, but someone who knows how to read Google Maps will know how to read a normal map, even if they're not as quick at it. 2. The best technology isn't defined by the "dependence" it creates, or even the level of "assistance" it provides, but for what it enables. Fire enabled us to cook. Metalworking enabled us to create a wealth of items, tools and structures that wouldn't exist if we only had wood and stone. Concrete enabled us to build taller and safer. Etc. It's still unclear what AI chatbots are enabling. Are LLM's big claim to fame allowing people to answer problem sets and emails with minimal effort? What does this unlock? There's a lot of talk about allowing better data analysis, saving time, and vague claims of an ai revolution, but until we see X, Y and Z, and can confidently say "yeah, X, Y and Z are great for mankind, and they couldn't have happened without chatbots", it's fair for people to keep complaining about the change and downsides AI chatbots are bringing about.

amrocha 2y ago

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.

diggan 2y ago
> AI doesn’t provide directions, it navigates for you. LLMs (try to) give you what you're asking for. If you ask for directions, you'll get something that resembles that, if you ask it to 100% navigate, that's what you get. > and this paper demonstrates that people are likely to take answers for granted. Could you point out where exactly this is demonstrated in this paper? As far as I can tell from the study, people who used ChatGPT for the studying did better than the ones that didn't, with no different in knowledge retention.
- amrocha 2y ago
  Page 18 first paragraph, it talks about how ChatGPT users engaged less with the editing process compared to other methods. Sorry, copy and paste isn’t working for some reason.
- MetaWhirledPeas 2y ago
  > Could you point out where exactly this is demonstrated in this paper? As far as I can tell from the study, people who used ChatGPT for the studying did better than the ones that didn't, with no different in knowledge retention. This is what I observed as well. For the "metacognitive laziness" bit they had to point to other studies.
danielbln 2y ago
If I use Google Maps I ain't navigating. I follow the instructions until I arrive.
- amrocha 2y ago
  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.

aylmao 2y ago

> "Dependence on [_____] assistance" is the point of all technology. I will note two things though. 1. Not all technology creates "dependence". Google Maps removes the need of carrying bulky maps, or buy new ones to stay updated, but someone who knows how to read Google Maps will know how to read a normal map, even if they're not as quick at it. 2. The best technology isn't defined by the "dependence" it creates, or even the level of "assistance" it provides, but for what it enables. Fire enabled us to cook. Metalworking enabled us to create a wealth of items, tools and structures that wouldn't exist if we only had wood and stone. Concrete enabled us to build taller and safer. Etc. It's still unclear what AI chatbots are enabling. Are LLM's big claim to fame allowing people to answer problem sets and emails with minimal effort? What does this unlock? There's a lot of talk about allowing better data analysis, saving time, and vague claims of an ai revolution, but until we see X, Y and Z, and can confidently say "yeah, X, Y and Z are great for mankind, and they couldn't have happened without chatbots", it's fair for people to keep complaining about the change and downsides AI chatbots are bringing about.