Study: ChatGPT is Bad for Your Brain

Post Reply New Topic

I'm not saying there aren't valid use cases, only that a lot of how people are currently using it isn't very worthwhile and that there are negative consequences to over-reliance upon it.

This conversation has already demonstrated quite efficiently how "googling" might give you a handy retort to hurl back at people, but it certainly doesn't make you "smarter", or know what you're talking about.

Awkwardly fumbling a concept like Bloom's Taxonomy, in this particular conversation, is particularly ironic - as Bloom's work is directly related to the learning process. I daresay if you actually knew Bloom's work, you'd probably understand why "students" seem to focus so much on memorization and recitation.

Quick recap - If I'm going to teach someone to rebuild an engine, teach them to be competent and knowledgeable, and not just a trained monkey, rather than simply dive right in and say "ok, remove the oil pan, cylinder heads, and con-rod caps", it behooves me to first teach you what those things even are, and what they do, and how they interact. Else you get "supersmart" people who stupidly put rotatory engines back together with RTV instead of carbon seals, and wonder what went wrong.

Suffice to say, the reason "students" seem to focus so much on simply memorizing and reciting, is because that's where learning starts. First you learn the basic concepts, then you learn to reiterate them correctly. THEN you move on to more advanced operations. According to Bloom, "knowledge" is where comprehension STARTS, not ends. If all you're doing is "knowing things", you're still in the shallow end of the intellectual pool.

Each tier of college is designed to address the various levels of Bloom's work. Associate's main goal is the acquisition of knowledge. "You know and understand the words". Bachelor's is designed to work more with application. "You know the words, now you can apply them and use them". Master's works with analysis and predictions. "You know the words, can apply them, and can find new ways to utilize them." Doctorates deal with synthesis and evaluation. Using existing ideas to (accurately and correctly) come up with new ideas, and the ability to evaluate the effectiveness of the outcomes.

And all that is aside from the fact that google isn't always right, and even when it is right, that doesn't mean the person reading it understands it correctly. And the fact that google has a way of telling people what they want to hear, regardless of whether it's true or not.

Google doesn't make you smart. It just lets you pretend to be smart. It's a great parlor trick that allows trained monkeys to impress untrained monkeys. Kinda like how the dude from the bar in Good Will Hunting looked smart, till Matt Damon came along with even more memorized facts and looked even smarter. Until Robin Williams put him in his place, and reminded him that he can quote books and cite references, and put on a clever show, but he still didn't know a fkkn thing.

I suspect the eager finger-pointing at students and professionals is a red-herring to keep the attention off of the fact that the average person at large also does the same thing - use google to look smart, while being intellectually lazy. Except rather than use google to think for them to write a paper or report, they use google to think for them to validate their personal views or argue their perspectives.

You have basically repeated what I have already said (minus the finger waving and long winded definition of Bloom's taxonomy )
People already have a propensity for intellectual laziness without the need for attributing this to LLMs.

Let me indulge in a little education for you.

As of 2025 30% of humans don't attend school and 60% of humanity never go on to do further study beyond middle/highschool. this proportion of the planet largely end up in unskilled or learn hands-on skills through trial and error.

Next a large of proportion of school leavers go on to vocational/technical education. Again focus here is hands-on skills. So far we are probably talking about 75% of the planet for whom chatgpt is useless.

So out of the remaining 25% of the world who go to college or university, Of this group, 80-85% will finish their studies at college or bachelors. A basic degree largely represents the base of bloom's pyramid. Young people here choose not to apply critical thinking, not necessarily because they are intellectually lazy, but because they gamify the system. Memorisation and regurgitating is typical because it requires less effort and chatgpt is a useful tool for all types of assessment. Students in college have competing activities - socialising, part-time work, recreation, hobbies, sport and travel. Smarter students in 2025 are simply more adept at using LLMs more efficiently > mediocre students.

Only a tiny proportion of the planet (2.5-5%) do postgraduate studies. Applying the highest level of bloom's taxonomy. But having a PhD hardly makes one a deep thinker. Again gamification of the system.

Categorising people into so called "shallow" and "deep" ends of the intellectual pool based on a qualification or piece of paper is a form of cognitive bias and just a little condescending to your fellow humans. It ignores socioeconomic factors, cultural, gender and motivation. Human beings are motivated to learn and individual inherent factors dictate why certain people become deep thinkers.

At the rate AI is going, you can't believe much of what you read or watch on the Internet. The AI programs are often just making it up as they go and should never be believed without additional evidence. But when other AI programs are the evidence, then it should all be flushed down the drain.

For example, if I'm watching a Youtube video and suspect that it is produced by AI, I now click on the "Don't Recommend Channel" option. I have done this with a number of channels and don't miss any of them.

Yes there's a lot of AI content on the "tube", some of it admittedly is very funny and creative. Not too long from now it should be possible to create full blown movies from your home computer.

Youtube needs a "NO AI" option.

You're being misleading. You never said any of that. You mumbled something about "bloom's taxonomy pyramid" and hand-waved it away as "mental gymnastics", before moving away from it entirely. Most of what you're trying to "educate" me about is what I already said, with some stats thrown in for garnish to make it less obvious you just copied my work.

And it is obvious, cos the first time I told you you were wrong, when I left you no clues as to how you were wrong, you had no response. It wasn't until I corrected you with details that you were like "oh, I knew that already" and then proceeded to tell me what I already said, but change just enough that it was still wrong.

If by "long winded" you mean actually capable of defining and explaining it, then sure - but that's not my fault, that's Bloom's fault, cos it's his idea, and however long it is, is how long it's liable to be if someone explains it. I notice you seem reluctant to talk about it in any detail yourself, other than to claim you already said it and knew it - after I already conveniently explained it for you, of course.

You're funny though. Complains about me being long-winded, writes an equally "long-winded" response. Complains about being condescended to, acts condescending in response. Complains about finger-waggling, finger-waggles in return. Acts cocky about having supposedly already known what I said, still gets it wrong. Task failed successfully. Your stats are probably correct, but I suspect I should credit google for the contribution.

And you are correct, some people certainly don't need an LLM to be intellectually lazy. Some people are very much already intellectually lazy - google just makes it even easier for them to do so, while still pretending to be smart or knowledgeable. Even the slowest crayon in the drawer can successfully parry the accusation of "I bet you don't even know what so-and-so is!", and in a matter of seconds they can google it, and act like they did.

Claiming that I categorized people by a qualification or piece of paper is a strawman. I categorized them based on how far up or down the hierarchy of learning they've progressed, regardless of degree or credential. You really should stop saying things that aren't true.

It's worth noting that even though you claim to already know all this stuff, you still don't seem too keen on explaining it in any detail. Like, you've added distractions like statistics or your own opinions, but still have spoken very little about the specifics of Bloom's work, or the concept of "gamifying the system", which you name-drop, but don't explain anything. You just say they're doing it, but don't explain how, or to what end, or even what it is. It's almost as if you're still using words and concepts you don't really understand, and are trying to talk about them as little as possible so it doesn't show even more, but still trying to name-drop them so you look like you're keeping up.

Which seems on-topic with the discussion. Google can give you smart things to say, it can make you feel smart, it might even make you look smart to some people, but it can't actually make you smart. Knowing a thousand recipes for a cake doesn't mean you can actually bake one. Memorizing a thousand Haynes manuals doesn't mean you can actually fix a car.

As for the "smarter" students using LLMs more efficiently, a nice claim, but it's usually the mediocre students that leverage LLMs so they can keep up with the work. Either way, if a student is having a bot write a paper for them, give the grade and the diploma to the bot. The student may have turned it in, but the bot did all the work.

As for being "long winded", you'll have to forgive me, I am still sufficiently un-evolved even in 2025, that I do many things the old-fashioned way - as a result, both reading and writing long texts are extremely easy for me, and as such, my definition of "long" is measured in pages, not paragraphs. Are the kids calling it "long winded" these days? I always thought it was simply being literate.

It's fact I'm afraid. Remember the students are simply gamifying the system to work smart. Students who choose to not use LLMs may achieve high grades but they have to put in an order of magnitude effort to get there.

It's a fact I'm afraid. Remember the students are simply gamifying the system to work smart. Students who choose to not use LLMs may achieve high grades but they have to put in an order of magnitude effort to get there.

I'm always baffled by how much people know these days

I always forget that all you have to do is ask the internet

I'm still pre-enlightenment me

I just make it up as I go along

I might be unusual, but I've always found AI stimulates my brain rather than rotting it.

I suppose it could have bad effects on somebody who just copied and pasted its output and passed it off as an original essay or whatever, without bothering to think about what it meant. But in my case I wouldn't do that. I just use it like I'd use a paper library if I had the time - to get information, to get answers to my questions. I don't particularly trust it any more than I particularly trust the authors of books to always be right. But to develop a line of thought or inquiry you have to get some info from somewhere.

Without information coming in about the questions that occur to me, the questions just sit there unanswered. With answers coming in quickly, those answers lead to further questions, I get answers to those, then further questions occur, and so on. So it's a bit like having a renaissance. AFAIK nobody told those folks that their brains would rot if they took advantage of all those newly-available books instead of working it all out for themselves from first principles. I don't think people with active minds just put their feet up when a step in a process gets easier. More often, I think they use it as a spur to more mental activity.

But maybe I have an unusual mind, and the average student may be nothing like me for all I know.

Everything is bad for my brain. It's a wonder I can still remember my ABC's or use the potty because of internet and video games and rock music and Road Runner cartoons and comic books and phones and getting vaccinated for measles and etc etc etc...

There's a difference between baseless claims and claims that are supported by evidence. Of course, that requires one to evaluate claims critically instead of treating all claims as equally valid and getting worked up before evaluating them.

Wait until people are too stupid to come to this conclusion. Then come to this conclusion.

Before the internet came along, I read a lot of books.

I played out