This also works in anything related to health, diet, etc.
"Studies say" is a phrase worth looking for the counter-argument or dissenting studies. Because the media frequently over-hypes them.
Nowadays, all news media reports need to be examined for the counter-argument, since one has to extract the limited truth kernel from the government- or corporate-sponsored lies.
Example: Everything you think you know about the Ukraine war is a lie. And everything you think you know about Iran is a lie.
Thank you, Richard. That's the point of the post - take the time to consider the counter perspective. Admittedly, that can be exhausting with everything we see in the news, but still, my goal is to encourage people to tackle the ones that call to them.
The challenge here is the correlation-based logic in both the studies and the searches. There are many far more determinant factors than whether the person used an AI tool or traditional search. How skilled are they in using either? What topics did they search for? Is the domain in question dominated by known facts or is it mostly opinion?
MIT in particular should be embarrassed by the logic leaps made in that “study.” Used correctly to build intellectual rigor and analytical strength, there’s no way a person would see cognitive impairment. It’s when the use is exclusively geared to short cutting an activity that things go downhill.
Thank you Mark, well said. Really good seeing you (again), now on Substack! I look forward to your posts.
This also works in anything related to health, diet, etc.
"Studies say" is a phrase worth looking for the counter-argument or dissenting studies. Because the media frequently over-hypes them.
Nowadays, all news media reports need to be examined for the counter-argument, since one has to extract the limited truth kernel from the government- or corporate-sponsored lies.
Example: Everything you think you know about the Ukraine war is a lie. And everything you think you know about Iran is a lie.
Thank you, Richard. That's the point of the post - take the time to consider the counter perspective. Admittedly, that can be exhausting with everything we see in the news, but still, my goal is to encourage people to tackle the ones that call to them.
Onward!
The challenge here is the correlation-based logic in both the studies and the searches. There are many far more determinant factors than whether the person used an AI tool or traditional search. How skilled are they in using either? What topics did they search for? Is the domain in question dominated by known facts or is it mostly opinion?
MIT in particular should be embarrassed by the logic leaps made in that “study.” Used correctly to build intellectual rigor and analytical strength, there’s no way a person would see cognitive impairment. It’s when the use is exclusively geared to short cutting an activity that things go downhill.