Matti Vuorre
LightNews LightNews
banner
matti.vuorre.com
Matti Vuorre
@matti.vuorre.com
2.1K followers 590 following 1.4K posts

I am an associate professor at Tilburg University's Department of Social Psychology.

I have a website at https://vuorre.com.

All posts are posts.

Videos
Psychology 44%
Neuroscience 13%
Posts Replies Media Videos

matti.vuorre.com
Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 1d
Oh and also the answer is mrp

matti.vuorre.com
Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 1d
This is what I take home every time after reading into it.

Reposted by Matti Vuorre

improvingpsych.org
Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science (SIPS) @improvingpsych.org · 1d
We would like to thank 31 currently active PsyArXiv moderators and the leadership team who volunteer their time and energy to ensure that important psychological research is made available to the research community as quickly as possible.

buff.ly/htX5xM0
OSF
buff.ly

matti.vuorre.com
Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 2d
Indeed. Very frustrating that NHB rejected your commentary. I think it speaks to their actual quality (yet nobody cares and everyone's rushing to send their work to NHB... sigh)

matti.vuorre.com
Matti Vuorre @matti.vuorre.com · 2d
On the Consequences of Cognitive Offloading, Experimental Design, and University Press Releases
carlbergstrom.com Carl T. Bergstrom @carlbergstrom.com · 2d
Oh, that didn't take much digging.

They asked people to solve stupid fraction problems. One group got to ask AI, the other group didn't.

Then they took the AI away from the AI group.

Those people started fucking off. The non-AI group didn't magically know it was time to start fucking off.
For the first experiment with 354 participants, one group was tasked with solving 15 basic fraction problems without help, while another had ChatGPT open on the side to use for assistance and to even ask for the answer. The group with AI access started off more accurate than the group without it. Then, after 12 problems, researchers took away the AI tool. Almost immediately, the people in that group stopped solving questions accurately. A similar thing happened when they ran the experiment on a second, larger group of 667 participants. Whereas the AI users got answers wrong or gave up entirely when the AI assistance was withdrawn, the group without AI stuck with the task and were more successful at the end.

Reposted by Matti Vuorre

carlbergstrom.com
Carl T. Bergstrom @carlbergstrom.com · 2d
Oh, that didn't take much digging.

They asked people to solve stupid fraction problems. One group got to ask AI, the other group didn't.

Then they took the AI away from the AI group.

Those people started fucking off. The non-AI group didn't magically know it was time to start fucking off.
For the first experiment with 354 participants, one group was tasked with solving 15 basic fraction problems without help, while another had ChatGPT open on the side to use for assistance and to even ask for the answer. The group with AI access started off more accurate than the group without it. Then, after 12 problems, researchers took away the AI tool. Almost immediately, the people in that group stopped solving questions accurately. A similar thing happened when they ran the experiment on a second, larger group of 667 participants. Whereas the AI users got answers wrong or gave up entirely when the AI assistance was withdrawn, the group without AI stuck with the task and were more successful at the end.