> The problem is that a headline that people want to believe is a very powerful force that can override replication and sample size and methodology problems. AI rots your brain follows behind social media rots your brain, which came after video games rot your brain, which preceded TV rots your brain. I’m sure TV wasn’t even the first. There’s a long tradition of publicly worrying about machines making us stupider.

Your comment reminded me of this (possibly spurious) quote:

>> An Assyrian clay tablet dating to around 2800 B.C. bears the inscription: “Our Earth is degenerate in these later days; there are signs that the world is speedily coming to an end; bribery and corruption are common; children no longer obey their parents; every man wants to write a book and the end of the world is evidently approaching.”[0]

Same as it ever was. [1]

[0] https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/10/22/world-end/

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IsSpAOD6K8

there's newspaper clippings with the same headlines / lead-in dating back to newspapers, so this has been going on for at least 5 generations, lends a bit of credence.

People have also been complaining about politicians for hundreds of years, and the ruling class for millennia, as well. and the first written math mistake was about beer feedstock, so maybe it's all correlated.

Fun times, being so close to history :)

Socrates famously complained about literacy making us stupider in Phaedrus.

Which I believe still does have a large grain of truth.

These things can make us simultaneously dumber and smarter, depending on usage.

Socrates was correct. In his day memory was treasured. Memory was how ideas were linked, how quotes were attained, and how arguments were made.

Writing leads to the rapid decline in memory function. Brains are lazy.

Ever travel to a new place and the brain pipes up with: ‘this place is just like ___’? That the brain’s laziness showing itself. The brain says: ‘okay I solved that, go back to rest.’ The observation is never true; never accurate.

Pattern recognition saves us time and enables us too survive situations that aren’t readily survivable. Pattern recognition leads to short cuts that do humanity a disservice.

Socrates recognized these traits in our brains and attempted to warn humanity of the damage these shortcuts do to our reasoning and comprehension skills. In Socrates day it was not unheard of for a person to memorize their entire family tree, or memorize an entire treaty and quote from it.

Humanity has -overwhelmingly- lost these abilities. We rely upon our external memories. We forget names. We forget important dates. We forget times and seasons. We forget what we were just doing!!!

Socrates had the right of it. Writing makes humans stupid. Reduces our token limits. Reduces paging table sizes. Reduces overall conversation length.

We may have more learning now, but what have we given up to attain it?

This is an interesting argument. I’m not convinced but I’m open to hearing more. Don’t we only know about Socrates because he was written about? What evidence do we have that writing reduces memory at all? Don’t studies of students show taking notes increases retention? Anecdotally, the writers I know tend to demonstrate the opposite of what you’re saying, they seem to read, think, converse, and remember more than people who aren’t writing regularly. What exactly have we given up to attain more learning? We still have people who can memorize long things today, is it any fewer than in Socrates’ day? How do we know? Do you subscribe to the idea that the printing press accelerated collective memory, which is far more important for technology and industrial development and general information keeping than personal memory? Most people in Socrates’ day, and before, and since, all forgot their family trees, but thankfully some people wrote them down so we still have some of it. Future generations won’t have the gaps in history we have today.

I mean there are clear problems with heavy exposure to TV, video games and I have no doubt that there are similar problems with heavy AI use. Any adult with children can clearly see the addiction qualities and behavioral fall out.

I agree with you there. I wasn’t really arguing that there aren’t behavior or addiction problems, however you inserted the word “heavy” and it’s doing some heavy lifting here, and you brought up addiction and behavior which aren’t really the same topic as cognitive decline. The posted article isn’t arguing that there’s a heavy use threashold, it’s arguing that all use of AI is brain damaging. Lots of historical hyperbole about games, TV, and social media did the same.

One confounding problem with the argument that TV and video games made kids dumber is the Flynn Effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect