←back to thread

648 points bradgessler | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.215s | source
Show context
don_neufeld ◴[] No.44009004[source]
Completely agree.

From all of my observations, the impact of LLMs on human thought quality appears largely corrosive.

I’m very glad my kid’s school has hardcore banned them. In some class they only allow students to turn in work that was done in class, under the direct observation of the teacher. There has also been a significant increase in “on paper” work vs work done on computer.

Lest you wonder “what does this guy know anyways?”, I’ll share that I grew up in a household where both parents were professors of education.

Understanding the effectiveness of different methods of learning (my dad literally taught Science Methods) were a frequent topic. Active learning (creating things using what you’re learning about) is so much more effective than passive, reception oriented methods. I think LLMs largely are supporting the latter.

replies(6): >>44009388 #>>44010296 #>>44010436 #>>44010768 #>>44011460 #>>44011653 #
johnisgood ◴[] No.44010436[source]
You can learn a lot from LLMs though, same with, say, Wikipedia. You need curiosity. You need the desire to learn. If you do not have it, then of course you will get nowhere, LLMs or no LLMs.
replies(5): >>44010465 #>>44010488 #>>44011049 #>>44011406 #>>44011771 #
1. creata ◴[] No.44011406[source]
Honestly, I doubt that LLMs are great for learning. Too often, they output plausible-sounding things that turn out to be completely wrong. I know Wikipedia can have its problems with factuality, but this is on an entirely different level. (And yes, they do this even when they're allowed to do web searches and "reason".)

The effort of verifying everything it claims may or may not outweigh the effort of other means of learning.