Comment on Microsoft Study Finds Relying on AI Kills Your Critical Thinking Skills

OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

• ChapulinColorado@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Not sure if sarcasm…

  source
• OhVenus_Baby@lemmy.ml ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  I agree with the output for legitimate reasons but it’s not black and white wrong or right. I think it’s wildly misjudged and while there plenty of valid reasons behind that I still think there is much to be had for what AI in general can do for us on a whole and individual basis.

  Today I had it analyze 8 medical documents, told it to provide analysis, cross reference its output with scientific studies including sources, and other lengthy queries. These documents are dealing with bacterial colonies and multiple GI and bodily systems on a per document basis in great length. Some of the most advanced testing science offers.

  It was able to not only provide me with accurate numbers that I fact checked from my documents side by side but explain methods to counter multi faceted systemic issues that matched multiple specialty Dr.s. Which is fairly impressive given to see a Dr takes 3 to 9 months or longer, who may or may not give a shit, over worked and understaffed, pick your reasoning.

  While I tried having it scan from multiple fresh blank chat tabs and even different computers to really test it out for testing purposes.

  Overall some of the numbers were off say 3 or 4 individual colony counts across all 8 documents. I corrected the values, told it that it was incorrect and to reasses giving it more time and ensuring accuracy, supplied a bit more context about how to understand the tables and I mean broad context such as page 6 shows gene expression use this as reference to find all underlying issues as it isnt a mind reader. It managed to fairly accurately identify the dysbiosis and other systemic issues with reasonable accuracy on par with physicians I have worked with. Dealing with antibiotic gene resistant analysis it was able to find multiple approaches to therapies to fight antibiotic gene resistant bacteria in a fraction of the time it would take for a human to study.

  I would not bet my life solely on the responses as it’s far from perfected and as always with any info it should be cross referenced and fact checked through various sources. But those who speak such ill towards the usage while there is valid points I find unfounded. My 2 cents.

  source

  • alteredracoon@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Totally agree with you! I’m in a different field but I see it in the same light. Let it get you to 80-90% of whatever that task is and then refine from there. It saves you time to add on all the extra cool shit that that 90% of time would’ve taken into. So many people assume you have to use at 100% face value. Just take what it gives you as a jumping off point.

    source

    • OhVenus_Baby@lemmy.ml ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      I think specifically Lemmy and just the in general anti corpo mistrust drives the majority of the negativity towards AI. Everyone is cash/land grabbing towards anything that sticks. Trying to shove their product down everyone’s throat.

      People don’t like that behavior and thus shun it. Understandable. However don’t let that guide your entire logical thinking as a whole, it seems to cloud most people entirely to the point they can’t fathom an alternative perspective.

      I think the vast majority of tools/software originate from a source of good but then get transformed into bad actors because of monetization. Eventually though and trends over time prove this, things become open source or free and the real good period arrives after the refinement and profit period. It’s very parasitic even to some degree.

      source