Post #2389446

2026-03-26 23:06 UTC

@n_dimension@infosec.exchange @wifsten@mas.to Fine work. It's good to research the inadequacy also of results one is agreement with! That's the true scientific spirit. It is in looking for actual facts with a non-self-asure attitude that we can get to genuine insights. Fake papers are not worth quoting even though their results are something one is in agreement of. By the way, there has been an MIT study (ie, a _real_ study) some months ago that pointed in same direction--that overhelpful computers make brains dumb.

Replies (1)

@n_dimension@infosec.exchange 2026-03-27 02:14

@i_dont_like_ai@mastodon.social @wifsten@mas.to I like your approach of leaning into points of view that challenge yours. Refreshing atitude to see. More mutually beneficial that #block I had a good go at finding an AI critical study from MIT in the last 12 months. I found Demirer et al. (2024), "The Effects of Generative AI on High Skilled Work": MIT Sloan + Microsoft/Princeton/UPenn. Who found that junior developers were up to 39% more productive and experienced developers were up to 13% output increase. You could spin it negative. The one a little bit negative was the METR study, cited by Neil Thompson (MIT CSAIL/FutureTech), February 2026: Experienced open-source developers wrote code faster with AI but took 19% longer on the overall task. Developers self-estimated a 20%+ speedup. Maybe it was an older study. Or just the Kosmya study, it was everywhere for a while. #Ai #education #psychology

Open ##2389447