MIT Study Finds AI Use Reprograms the Brain, Leading to Cognitive Decline

Re:MIT Study Finds AI Use Reprograms the Brain, Leading to C... by Bender on Wednesday September 03, 2025 @09:56AM (#45115867)

I would also add, how often are peer reviews the same group of buddy-bro back-scratchers that know if they help that person with a positive peer review that person will return the favor. How many peer reviewers actually reproduce the results? How many peer reviewers would approve a paper if their credentials were on the line?

Ironically, I am waiting for AI to start automating the process of teasing apart obvious pencil whipping, back scratching, buddy-bro behavior. Some believe its in the 1% range of falsified papers and pencil whipped reviews. I expect it to be significantly higher based on reading NIH papers for a long time in the attempt to actually learn things. I've reported the obvious shenanigans and sometimes papers are taken down but there are so many bad incentives in this process I predict it will only get worse.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:MIT Study Finds AI Use Reprograms the Brain, Leading to C... by genewitch on Wednesday September 03, 2025 @12:39PM (#45117840)

who says it's "1%"? i'd reckon it's closer to 50% than 1%; that could mean 27%, it could mean 40%. I always have this at the back of my mind when i say something, and someone rejects it by citing a paper (or two). I doubt they even read the paper they're telling me to read as proof i am wrong, to start with. And then the "what are the chances this is repro?" itches a bit.

This also ignores the fact that you can find a paper to support nearly everything if one is willing to link people "correlative" studies.

[ Parent | on HN ]