I'm still reading through the article, but as a teacher, I'm highly skeptical of the results of this meta study. My own observations do not support that ChatGP

I'm still reading through the article, but as a teacher, I'm highly skeptical of the results of this meta study. My own observations do not support that ChatGPT et al improve learning performance and especially thinking. As you can imagine, discussing AI in education is a huge topic. But seeing a study like this that just says "Yep, it's all good." I'm stupidly skeptical of this sort of meta-study. I very much believe the jury is out, and especially in terms of long term performance. I don't care if my students are able to use ChatGPT to "do better" in my classes if the results are short-lived. A short review of my experiences; my bias, I am very much skeptical of the generative LLM's on the whole. I do fear it will become a crutch rather than a teaching tool. But I also use them, and I think it's amazing technology. I see it as a tool that will be used. And as it's a tool, like all tools, it can be used for good or bad. For every amazing anecdote I have of a student using ChatGPT to do something amazing or using it as a personal tutor (and I have seen this and it's awesome.), I also have anecdotes about students relying on nothing but ChatGPT output, taking it as gospel, and imo, losing their research problem solving capabilities. I've taken to calling it the "Death of Research." "Why bother reading or looking for anything, ChatGPT will just give it to me." I will say that I deal with STEM education, work mostly at a Community College in a trade, and as such, I'm exposed to a very different cohort of students that tend to be less computer literate, and are different in many ways than your traditional students. But I also work with high school students, who are very computer literate, and ironically, these are the students I see the problems with. I'm not trying to say "AI Bad." But I sure don't buy the argument "AI Good."