3 ms·
The study is basically just... a bunch of self-reports on how people feel about AI usage in their daily job. That's it. The "critical thinking" part is complete
by raincole 2y ago
The study is basically just... a bunch of self-reports on how people feel about AI usage in their daily job. That's it. The "critical thinking" part is completely self-reported.
It's not "how good a person is at critical thinking." It's "how much a person feels they engages in critical thinking." Keyword: feels.
It's like all the nutrition studies where they ask people to self-report what they eat.
- dogethrowaway42 2y ago[flagged]
- detourdog 2y agoThe negative karma with no explanation definitely weakens the HN discussion rather than deepening the investigation of a topic.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- metalman 2y agoThere is a growing number of companys and agencies looking at banning AI, whatchamcallit, due to the increasing number of issues around eronious stuff causing liability, of the scary kind. What is bieng passed off as journalism does nothing to give confidence in "AI" or its minders. And behind the sceens it is easy to imagine that actual conciensous humans biengs are out competed by there "enhanced" co-workers, and just walking out to seek better compensation, or at least find work in a profesional environment, sorry, sorry, an environment that suits there "legacy" skill set.
- belter 2y agoNo control group, sample is too small, self selected...Researchers should be ashamed and their institutions too...
- gmm1990 2y agoWas pretty valuable for me to read. I don’t like using llms much for coding because the shift is from creating a solution to verify a solution. This paper helped articulate that. Plus it’s still useful data if you understand what the data is