In this transcript, neuroscientist Ashley and psychologist Cat critically analyze a controversial paper titled "Your Brain On Chat GPT" that claims to show negative brain effects from using large language models (LLMs).
Key Issues With the Paper:
Misleading EEG Analysis:
The paper uses EEG (electroencephalography) to claim it measures "brain connectivity" but misuses technical methods
EEG is a blunt instrument that measures thousands of neurons simultaneously, not direct neural connections
The paper confuses correlation of brain activity with actual physical connectivity
Poor Research Design:
Small sample size (54 participants with many dropouts)
Unclear time intervals between sessions
Vague instructions to participants
Controlled conditions don't represent real-world LLM use
Overstated Claims:
Invented terms like "cognitive debt" without defining them
Makes alarmist conclusions not supported by data
Jumps from limited lab findings to broad claims about learning and cognition
Methodological Problems:
Methods section includes unnecessary equations but lacks crucial details
Contains basic errors like incorrect filter settings
Fails to cite relevant established research on memory and learning
No clear research questions or framework
The Experts' Conclusion:
"These are questions worth asking... I do really want to know whether LLMs change the way my students think about problems. I do want to know if the offloading of cognitive tasks changes my own brain and my own cognition... We need to know these things as a society, but to pretend like this paper answers those questions is just completely wrong."
The experts emphasize that the paper appears designed to generate headlines rather than provide sound scientific insights, with potential conflicts of interest among authors who are associated with competing products.
Nothing beats Maccy.app for clipboard management, but DoubleMemory does look great.
For me, DoubleMemory falls between the cracks:
- bookmarks in multiple browsers on multiple devices
- Maccy.app for clipboard management on MacOS
- Bear.app for notes on MacOS, iOS and iPad
"hCaptcha now ruins fifteen percent of the internet"
I loathe captchas, especially Googles who seems to punish my use of privacy extensions (ie ublock origin, Ghostery Lite).
Captcha is a ok tool when you have valid reasons to assume the user is a bot (multiple failed logins, unusual traffic, password resets etc.). Used as a default it only antagonizes users.
I have the exact same experience as you, and even after using Linux om multiple machines for 20+ years (desktops, laptops and servers) I still prefer Macs and MacOS.
Changed work recently and went back to my late 2013 MacBook Pro for a few months. It still works great with Big Sur - try that on a 7 years old PC...
And I love my 2 days old MacBook Pro m1, the keyboard is perfect and the esc-key is as God intended it (yeah, for emacs...).
"Your Brain On Chat GPT" Paper Analysis
In this transcript, neuroscientist Ashley and psychologist Cat critically analyze a controversial paper titled "Your Brain On Chat GPT" that claims to show negative brain effects from using large language models (LLMs).
Key Issues With the Paper:
Misleading EEG Analysis:
The paper uses EEG (electroencephalography) to claim it measures "brain connectivity" but misuses technical methods EEG is a blunt instrument that measures thousands of neurons simultaneously, not direct neural connections The paper confuses correlation of brain activity with actual physical connectivity Poor Research Design:
Small sample size (54 participants with many dropouts) Unclear time intervals between sessions Vague instructions to participants Controlled conditions don't represent real-world LLM use Overstated Claims:
Invented terms like "cognitive debt" without defining them Makes alarmist conclusions not supported by data Jumps from limited lab findings to broad claims about learning and cognition Methodological Problems:
Methods section includes unnecessary equations but lacks crucial details Contains basic errors like incorrect filter settings Fails to cite relevant established research on memory and learning No clear research questions or framework The Experts' Conclusion:
"These are questions worth asking... I do really want to know whether LLMs change the way my students think about problems. I do want to know if the offloading of cognitive tasks changes my own brain and my own cognition... We need to know these things as a society, but to pretend like this paper answers those questions is just completely wrong."
The experts emphasize that the paper appears designed to generate headlines rather than provide sound scientific insights, with potential conflicts of interest among authors who are associated with competing products.