• Randomgal@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Your “study” is based on self-reported opinions, funded by a company with serious conflict of interests and not peer reviewed.

    Damn, you got me .

    • prototype_g2@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      The classic Ad Hominem. Instead of actually refuting the arguments, you instead attack the ones making them.

      So, tell me, which part of "As Bainbridge [7] noted, a key irony of automation is that by mechanising routine tasks and leaving exception-handling to the human user, you deprive the user of the routine opportunities to practice their judgement and strengthen their cognitive musculature, leaving them atrophied and unprepared when the exceptions do arise.” is affected by the conflict of interests with the company? This is a note made by Bainbridge. The argument is as follows

      If you use the machine to think for you, you will stop thinking.

      Not thinking leads to a degradation of thinking skills

      Therefore, using machine to think for you will lead to a degradation of thinking skills.

      It is not too hard to see that if you stop doing something for a while, your skill to do that thing will degrade overtime. Part of getting better is learning from your own mistakes. The AI will rob you those learning experiences.

      What is the problem with the second quote? It is not an opinion, it is an observation.

      Other’s have noticed this already:

      https://www.darrenhorrocks.co.uk/why-copilot-making-programmers-worse-at-programming/

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DdEoJVZpqA

      https://nmn.gl/blog/ai-illiterate-programmers

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQNyYx2fZXw


      This, of course, only happens if you use the AI to think for you.

      • Randomgal@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        That’s a lot of bon-scientific blogs to talk about the non-scientific study I pointed out. Still no objective evidence.

        I didn’t say much about the “hominem” but I think you’re defining Microsoft? They don’t need you to dot shit buddy.