> Analysing 936 real-world GenAI tool use examples our participants shared, we find that knowledge workers engage in critical thinking primarily to ensure the q

> Analysing 936 real-world GenAI tool use examples our participants shared, we find that knowledge workers engage in critical thinking primarily to ensure the quality of their work, e.g. by verifying outputs against external sources. The researchers appear to be saying that a lot of people perceive LLM outputs to be superior to whatever they could generate themselves, so users accept the LLM's logical premises uncritically and move on. Sort of a "drive by" use of chatbots. The researchers are not wrong, but intuitively I don't think this is a fair critique of most LLM tasks, or even most users. One of the most compelling LLM use cases is individualized learning or tutoring, and LLM's can support a much deeper dive into arcane scientific or cutting-edge topics than traditional methods. I don't see anything here that suggests the researchers balanced these scenarios against one another.