We’re seeing a lot of students, teachers, and scientists produce more, and worse, outputs because of improper AI use. It’s possible to use it better: Have it imitate a critic. Learning and creativity come from getting criticism and experiencing friction.
We found that when knowledge workers intentionally use AI to challenge their ideas – to generate friction – they can significantly improve their performance. Previous research on human-AI collaboration for loan evaluations had similar results.
A study I was not involved with found that creative writers produce better copy when they use AI as a sounding board rather than to ghostwrite.
Someone else I know said this in a conference and I disagree. You should instruct it to not do any extraneous language and give back data in the most impartial way possible. You should use it for things you know well so that you can see how it fails and double check any results you are going to use. Having it purpsefully be adversarial is not going to improve what you get out of it and will just waste time.
Thoughts on the study from the article? link
oh I won’t go to links off the fediverse.