Comment by blackqueeriroh

Did you even read the abstracts of these papers?

The first one has four important phrases: “negative correlation,” “mediated by increased cognitive offloading,” “higher educational attainment was associated with better critical thinking skills, regardless of AI usage,” and “potential costs.”

The second paper has two: “students using GenAI tools score on average 6.71 (out of 100) points lower than non-users,” and “suggesting an effect whereby GenAI tool usage hinders learning.”

I ask you, sir, where exactly do you get “AI over-reliance will make us worse…because it’s true” from TWO studies that go out of their way to make it clear there is no causative link, only correlation, point out significant mediations of the effect, identify only potentiality, and also show only half a letter grade difference, which when you’re dealing with students could be down to all sorts of things. Not to mention we’re dealing with one preprint and some truly confounding study design.

If you don’t understand research methods, please stop presenting papers as if they are empirical authorities on truth.

It diminishes trust in real academic work.