undefined | Better HN

0 pointsgreggoB3mo ago0 comments

> And how exactly is that surprising?

Isn't the point of a lot of science to empirically demonstrate results which we'd otherwise take for granted as intuitive/obvious? Maybe in AI-literature-land everything published is supposed to be novel/surprising, but that doesn't encompass all of research, last I checked.

0 comments

DocTomoe3mo ago

If the title of your study both makes a neurotoxin reference ("This is your brain on drugs", egg, pan, plus pearl-clutching) AND introduces a concept stolen and abused from IT and economics (cognitive debt? Implies repayment and 'refactoring', that is not what they mean, though) ... I expect a bit more than 'we tested this very obvious common sense thing, and lo and behold, it is just as a five year old would have predicted.'

greggoBOP3mo ago

I struggle to see how you're linking your complaint about the wording of the title to your issue with the obviousness of the result - these seem like two completely independent thought processes.

Also, re cognitive debt being stolen: I'm pretty sure this is actually a modification of sleep debt, which would be a medical/biological term [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_debt

Miraste3mo ago

You are right about the content, but it's still worth publishing the study. Right now, there's an immense amount of money behind selling AI services to schools, which is founded on the exact opposite narrative.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse