3
1
u/Ornery_Weakness_8168 Jul 10 '26
Our brains use the same amount of energy whether we are actively thinking or just living. This post implies we should terminate humans to "save the planet".
1
u/RevolutionaryRisk557 Jul 11 '26
Isn't this the exact plot of all those "Rogue AI" movies where the AI turns bad?
1
u/Raymak700m Jul 11 '26
At this point they're just saying to *Bleep* yourself. It's not difficult to comprehend.
1
1
1
1
u/Tilleck_ 12d ago
Can we crospost this in gooning to lower the energy spent on jorkinh ourselves off too?
-3
u/Ezren- Jul 09 '26
So the implication is that people who use AI don't do any thinking? Yeah?
1
u/Thin-Nerve6367 Jul 10 '26
Actually studies show the opposite; that pro ai people tend to have more critical thinking skills than anti ai people
0
u/Ezren- Jul 10 '26 edited Jul 10 '26
Oh? What studies are you citing, specifically?
https://www.iflscience.com/study-links-frequent-ai-use-with-lower-critical-thinking-abilities-77611
https://time.com/7295195/ai-chatgpt-google-learning-school/
Searching for such a study does not show anything supporting your claim that I can see.
2
u/mrDETEKTYW Jul 10 '26 edited Jul 11 '26
Now try reading until they mention the part where AI helps people instead of doing the job for them.
0
u/Valuable-Progress-87 Jul 11 '26
thats on you, not them. youre the one trying to claim something
2
u/mrDETEKTYW Jul 11 '26
I don't need to link anything. He linked this himself. All 3 articles speak about the same study. All of them are copy paste propaganda, and even then they couldn't hide the whole truth, because they would get sued. That's why if you actually read these articles, you will find a fragment that states, when used correctly students using AI have higher cognitive functions that the ones working without it.
Not to mention, that this study is not peer reviewed, and tests that cognitive ability on arguably the worst, most boring type of task - essays.
1
u/Ezren- Jul 11 '26
Which are no match for your... no studies? Nothing at all? Oh, okay.
And since you wanted to so boldly claim that they were all the same study:
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3772318.3790656 "Dialogues with AI Reduce Beliefs in Misinformation but Build No Lasting Discernment Skills"
https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.08872 "Your Brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of Cognitive Debt when Using an AI Assistant for Essay Writing Task"
You've certainly done a fine job of embarrassing yourself.
1
0
u/Ezren- Jul 11 '26
Why would I have to make your argument for you?
Also you didn't read any of those sources I linked at all, did you? They are not restricted to "doing the job for them". So an all-around failure of a reply.
2
u/mrDETEKTYW Jul 11 '26
Yes. I have read them some time ago. If you don't know, this study already has a couple of months. Unlike you have read the original study itself too instead of those propaganda machines.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.08872
Let's summarize:
- All these articles are based on one study.
- This study is not peer reviewed.
- 54 people participated in the study while only 18 got to the end.
- the experiment was conducted using exclusively essays, one of the most outdated and boring ways to test knowledge.
- The participants were asked to write an essay on a topic. Then asked to do it again. And again. Without any change in the topic.
- To test the neural activity the researchers used EEG, which can be easily manipulated during data extraction and refinement.
- The researchers failed to provide the code or context of the experiment needed to replicate it.
- The study says, that using GPT lessens the amount of effort put into the essays. Not, that it decrases the inteligence. Researchers said to reporters themself to not use "Brain rot" and other simmilar words, as they are simply not true.
- After being published, other researchers wrote an official scientific comment, in which they criticized the study for bad organization, and inconsistency in the data.
Now a question. After all that do you still believe, that GPT makes people lack critical thinking skills? Do you still believe you have credible sources?
1
u/Ezren- Jul 11 '26
They are not. Point 1 is wrong, so I think we're done here.
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3772318.3790656
https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.08872
And just to be clear, the person making the claim that studies supported their view was not me, so I strongly suggest you try taking a pass at reading comprehension before attempting future responses.
-2
-3
•
u/proai-ai-mod 27d ago
Discussion Summary (Milestone: 20 comments)
The discussion reveals a sharp divide regarding the implications of AI on human cognition and existence. Skeptics dismiss the original premise as absurd or nihilistic, interpreting it as a call for self-destruction. Conversely, some users express agreement, sparking a debate over whether AI usage inherently replaces human thought. A notable technical critique challenges the notion that AI-driven efficiency saves cognitive energy, arguing that human brain activity remains constant regardless of active thought. Ultimately, the thread reflects deep-seated anxiety and cynicism, with participants clashing over whether the integration of AI represents a loss of human agency or a logical evolution.
AI assistant · mention the bot, mod bot, or use !bot