IzzyScissor

Because there's no "wrong" answer in an experiment. AKA no accountability.

Yeah, and they act like learning about a new skin cream on the street is going to be subjected to the same level of scrutiny as learning about a new study on "gun bans", even though people have been studying this for decades and the results largely don't change, only the public perception of them.

It's like if they showed people a new study for "Earth gravity" vs "Moon gravity" and act surprised when people don't immediately catch on when their numbers say the moon makes you weigh more. You wouldn't be expecting that result OR trust a random person on the street to change your view of gravity with a chart of 4 numbers.

Yes, they found bias. Cool.

Alternate title: A single "study" presented from someone on the street is typically not enough to change anyone's perspective on a subject, especially if that "study" presents "facts" that are contradictory to the listener's previous knowledge.

Humans aren't rational. Humans are rationalizing. If someone on the street giving you a basic chart with 4 numbers on it is enough to change your mind, you likely didn't have much of an opinion to begin with.

I remember getting a hand-me-down digital 'black book' to store phone numbers during the age of the palm pilot. It had a 'dial' button and a speaker on the back. You could pick up the phone, put the speaker against the phone's mouthpiece and it would 'dial' by playing the correct tones. Blew. My. Mind.

Seriously. Someone never clicked on the "you are an idiot" popup that auto-played music, moved around the screen, prevented task manager from opening and cloned itself if it was closed.

Didn't the guy who originally posted the "1:1 model comparisons" later admit that he stretched and scaled the models to fit better?

It's derivative, but not a ripoff.

If only something allowed you to use the typing system you already know, was able to be rolled up, doesn't require you to already own a 3D printer and have knowledge of modeling software, and cost less than $50.

If only...

Badger badger badger badger badger badger Badger badger badger badger badger badger Mushroom mushroom

That's not the fault of the user/students, though. They're different tools. One is outright worse than not using it. Neither produce lasting benefits.

Headline: Screwdrivers better than hammers for screws.

Text: When craftspeople were trained using hammers with screwdriver bits duct-taped to them, they were able to perform the task, but were not able to keep pace with people using screwdrivers. Another team was given power drills, which were effective in practice. However, these did not produce any benefit once all people were given screwdrivers.

The study shows that once you remove the LLM though, the benefit disappears. If you rely on an LLM to help break things down or add context and details, you don't learn those skills on your own.

I used it to learn some coding, but without using it again, I couldn't replicate my own code. It's a struggle, but I don't think using it as a teaching aid is a good idea yet, maybe ever.

You skipped the paragraph where they used two different versions of LLMs in the study. The first statement is regarding generic ChatGPT. The second statement is regarding an LLM designed to be a tutor without directly giving answers.

"Always"? None.

Any time I have found a brand like this, they start enshitifying right after I decide to be loyal to them. If you stop shopping around, they have less incentive to make a good product to create loyal customers.

The problem is capitalism, not the individual companies. Enshitification comes for them all eventually.