this post was submitted on 07 May 2026
239 points (85.7% liked)
Technology
84478 readers
3657 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Wow. Now do this with a calculator.
A calculator is not the same problem, it doesn't reduce our general ability to think critically.
As the study defines critical thinking: yes it does.
The study claims, essentially, relying on a machine that solves a Problem for you, lessens your critical thinking skills.
Their Definition of "critical thinking" is just, at least to me, way Off.
Just because i can conprehend Stuff i read for example, does not show critical thinking. It just shows i can repeat shit i read adequately.
It's just bad science.
Oooooh have they done religion yet?
The studies referenced are about calculations, reading comprehension and work performance, not critical thinking.
The article is, like many, a bad one. It generalises what it should not.
As I said, this is a bad article. The experiment does not suggest that at all. The study does not mention critical thinking.
I'd say, however, that the proliferation of shitty news websites has caused readers to lose their critical thinking.
In academia it is normal not to directly spell out things that are obvious to a person with academic knowledge on the subject, research papers are meant for scholars, and they are supposed to be able to read and understand the consequences for themselves.
So you can't use it as an argument that it isn't spelled out, if it can be easily derived by a person who understands the subject.
Research papers do not spell out every possible consequence of their findings.
It isn't spelled out because it is not a logical conclusion at all. Nothing in this test requires critical thinking to achieve.
Why are you defending an obviously terribly written article?
Because AI bad!