Against "Brain Damage"
- Source
- oneusefulthing.org
- Author
- Ethan Mollick
- Date
Context
Ethan Mollick proposes a concrete way to retain your own contribution when writing with AI: finish an independent draft before asking the model for criticism. In his account of his writing process, he drafts and revises first, then asks AI to identify confusing passages or suggest alternative endings.
The sequence gives the model something to challenge after the writer has worked out an argument. Mollick's concern is that starting with generated suggestions can anchor subsequent thinking around them. This is a recommendation about arranging creative work, not a medical finding or proof that one sequence is optimal for every writer.
- In the Turkey high-school experiment, students handed plain GPT-4 for homework scored 17% worse on the final exam than students without it, and believed they had learned more. The model's default is to hand over the answer, skipping the effort that creates learning.
- A World Bank randomized trial in Nigeria paired a GPT-4 tutor with teacher guidance in a six-week after-school program and measured more than twice the effect of the most effective known education interventions, at very low cost.
- AI beats most individuals at ideation. GPT-4 topped 91% of humans on a variant of the Alternative Uses Test, and Wharton judges preferred its product ideas to students'. But it produces one person's range, circling back to VR, blockchain, environment, and AI.
- The ideation paradox: what you want is a diverse pool to choose from, and AI gives you variations on a theme. Worse, once you have seen its suggestions, anchoring makes it harder to reach ideas outside them.
“Ultimately, it is how you use AI , rather than use of AI at all, that determines whether it helps or hurts your brain when learning.”
“AI doesn't damage our brains, but unthinking use can damage our thinking.”
“Your brain is safe. Your thinking, however, is up to you.”
Checking sign-in…
Loading comments…