Ai stupid makes us? ncvrs.com

Researchers at Microsoft and Carnegie Mellon University Recently published a study If we examine how the use of geneative AI affects the critical thinking capabilities of the work.

“In the wrong way, they can result in deterioration of technologies and cognitive arms that need to be preserved,” the article says.

When people rely on the generative AI during work, their efforts are to justify the AI ​​response to whether it is good enough to use, instead of using higher critical thinking skills, such as creating, evaluating and analyzing information. If people only intervene, if the AI ​​answers are not sufficient, the article says that workers are deprived of “routine opportunities to practice judgment and strengthen their cognitive muscle, so they are atrophy and unprepared when the exceptions occur.”

In other words, when we rely too much on AI to think of us, we will become even worse in solving problems when AI fails.

In this 319 study, who reported at least once a week on the use of Geneative AI, respondents were asked to share three examples of how to use Generative AI, which belongs to three main categories: creation (one formal e -Mail, for example, a colleague); information (research on a topic or summary of a long article); and advice (asking for guidance or making a chart from existing data). They were then asked if they were practicing critical thinking skills when performing the task, and if the use of Generative AI would make it any more efforts to think about critical thinking. For every task the respondents mentioned, they were also asked to share how confident they are in themselves, in generative AI, and being able to evaluate the AI ​​outputs.

Participants are approx. 36% reported that critical thinking skills were used to alleviate possible negative results of AI. One of the participants said he used ChatGPT to write a performance, but Double checked the AI ​​output, fearing that he could accidentally submit something to suspend it. Another respondent reported that he should edit the AI-generated emails, which the culture of his boss is to put more emphasis on hierarchy and age, so as not to commit genre PAS. And in many cases, the participants checked the AI ​​-generated answers, with more general resources such as YouTube and Wikipedia, probably overcoming the purpose of using AI.

In order for employees to compensate for the generative AI deficiencies, they need to understand how these shortcomings occur. But not all participants know the AI ​​boundaries.

“Damage to the potential downstream of Gena can motivate critical thinking, but only if the user is consciously aware of such damage,” the article reads.

In fact, the study found that participants in AI had less critical thinking efforts than those who reported their own abilities.

While researchers claim that generative AI devices are disturbed, the study shows that an excessive connection of generative AI devices can weaken the ability to solve independent problems.