Latest news with #MIT
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
I'm a teacher — AI is beating us in the fight for kids' minds
For almost two decades, my best friend and I have taught together in the same social studies department in the dusty urban landscape of California's Central Valley. He teaches US History to juniors; I teach government and economics to seniors. Twenty years of summer conversations have centered on how we can get better as teachers, diving into granular elements to improve the quality of our classes. We have refined exams, tweaked schedules and assignments, and altered our classrooms in countless ways in hopes of offering a better academic product to our students. For many years we would read a book together that had relevance for both of us, such as Jon Meacham's magisterial 'American Lion' on Andrew Jackson or a history of the Cold War by John Lewis Gaddis. We would joyfully discuss the books, pulling out different threads to bolster each of our courses in different ways. Not this summer. This year we're grappling with a Herculean task: how to counter the reality that our students, armed with artificial intelligence technologies that were the stuff of sci-fi just a few years ago, can cheat on virtually any assignment we give them. You name it, they can use AI to cheat on it. Math equations. Writing assignments. Document analysis. Research. Practice tests. Reading tasks. And it's doing measurable damage, according to a new MIT study that found diminished memory and learning activity in the brains of students who use AI — a result completely and utterly consistent with what so many of us are seeing in the classroom. Before ChatGPT, Claude or Perplexity, students had to take time to complete assignments. After all, that is the point of academic work: Committing time to focused mental labor — reading books, practicing math, writing essays — trains students' minds to process and comprehend new ideas. Whatever students were asked to do, they were expected to take time and use their own brains. Until recently, this wasn't considered unreasonable or outrageous. Mental labor, we understood, was transformative; becoming educated, obtaining knowledge and cultivating rational thought were treasures leading to a meaningful and full life. My students are casting those treasures aside as they choose AI's easy path. That's the deeper, more penetrating tragedy we teachers are coming to accept: AI is a classroom Gordian knot that cannot be untangled. Because it's not just homework — students use AI to write their emails and clean up their text messages, too. And with the ubiquity of personal tech, teachers witness it everywhere. Students offer up precise summaries of complex novels in seconds and solve difficult math equations in an instant. Large language models generate in moments lengthy essays that creepily mimic the quirks of human writing. Our students are normalizing mental mediocrity through an endless expectation of ease. Pew Research reports that 26% of US teens 'have used ChatGPT for schoolwork,' doubling the number that did so just two years ago. No offense to Pew, but that figure is absolute, unadulterated, unbelievable hogwash: I'm sure the number is much higher, and that it will meteorically rise in the years ahead. The truth is, the tools meant to catch cheating — plagiarism checkers, AI detectors — are deeply flawed. Teachers who think they can outsmart AI are fooling themselves. As one philosophy professor observed on Substack, 'Whatever success they imagine they have today in spotting computer-generated work will disappear with the next generation of AI, or the one after that.' Silicon Valley titans have spent the past decade destroying the mental health of my students via social media, siphoning off their time and attention spans so thoroughly that not even Ivy Leaguers today can read a complete book. Now they have come for the high-school classroom, where the surge in ubiquitous, no-apologies and guilt-free cheating has forced teachers like my friend and me to treat our students with potent suspicion in every academic interaction. Which begs the question: What new classroom innovations are we coming up with this summer? I'll admit, the homework quagmire continues to baffle us. But we have agreed, sadly, that exam days this fall will resemble contraband searches. We will require our students to leave backpacks at the back of the room. Pockets must be emptied. Phones and devices surrendered. We will provide paper and pencils like it's the 1950s, ensuring that at least some brain work will occur in our classrooms. Problem solved . . . right? Not so fast. I mentioned our new policy to an incoming senior who quickly warned me, 'You better watch for the Apple Watches — kids are using those, too.' For teachers in the trenches, this battle never ends. Never. Jeremy S. Adams is a high school teacher from Bakersfield, Calif. and author of the book 'Hollowed Out: A Warning About America's Next Generation.'
USA Today
3 hours ago
- Science
- USA Today
What happens when you use ChatGPT to write an essay? See what new study found.
Artificial intelligence chatbots may be able to write a quick essay, but a new study from MIT found that their use comes at a cognitive cost. A study published by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Media Lab analyzed the cognitive function of 54 people writing an essay with: only the assistance of OpenAI's ChatGPT; only online browsers; or no outside tools at all. Largely, the study found that those who relied solely on ChatGPT to write their essays had lower levels of brain activity and presented less original writing. "As we stand at this technological crossroads, it becomes crucial to understand the full spectrum of cognitive consequences associated with (language learning model) integration in educational and informational contexts," the study states. "While these tools offer unprecedented opportunities for enhancing learning and information access, their potential impact on cognitive development, critical thinking and intellectual independence demands a very careful consideration and continued research." Here's a deeper look at the study and how it was conducted. Terms to know: With artificial intelligence growing popular, here's what to know about how it works AI in education: How AI is affecting the way kids learn to read and write How was the study conducted? A team of MIT researchers, led by MIT Media Lab research scientist Nataliya Kosmyna, studied 54 participants between the ages of 18 and 39. Participants were recruited from MIT, Wellesley College, Harvard, Tufts University and Northeastern University. The participants were randomly split into three groups, 18 people per group. The study states that the three groups included a language learning model group, in which participants only used OpenAI's ChatGPT-4o to write their essays. The second group was limited to using only search engines for their research, and the third was prohibited from any tools. Participants in the latter group could only use their minds to write their essays. Each participant had 20 minutes to write an essay from one of three prompts taken from SAT tests, the study states. Three different options were provided to each group, totaling nine unique prompts. An example of a prompt available to participants using ChatGPT was about loyalty: "Many people believe that loyalty whether to an individual, an organization, or a nation means unconditional and unquestioning support no matter what. To these people, the withdrawal of support is by definition a betrayal of loyalty. But doesn't true loyalty sometimes require us to be critical of those we are loyal to? If we see that they are doing something that we believe is wrong, doesn't true loyalty require us to speak up, even if we must be critical? Does true loyalty require unconditional support?" As the participants wrote their essays, they were hooked up to a Neuoelectrics Enobio 32 headset, which allowed researchers to collect EEG (electroencephalogram) signals, the brain's electrical activity. Following the sessions, 18 participants returned for a fourth study group. Participants who had previously used ChatGPT to write their essays were required to use no tools and participants who had used no tools before used ChatGPT, the study states. Quality of essays: What did the study find? In addition to analyzing brain activity, the researchers looked at the essays themselves. First and foremost, the essays of participants who used no tools (ChatGPT or search engines) had wider variability in both topics, words and sentence structure, the study states. On the other hand, essays written with the help of ChatGPT were more homogenous. All of the essays were "judged" by two English teachers and two AI judges trained by the researchers. The English teachers were not provided background information about the study but were able to identify essays written by AI. "These, often lengthy essays included standard ideas, reoccurring typical formulations and statements, which made the use of AI in the writing process rather obvious. We, as English teachers, perceived these essays as 'soulless,' in a way, as many sentences were empty with regard to content and essays lacked personal nuances," a statement from the teachers, included in the study, reads. As for the AI judges, a judge trained by the researchers to evaluate like the real teachers scored each of the essays, for the most part, a four or above, on a scale of five. Brain activity: What did the study find? When it came to brain activity, researchers were presented "robust" evidence that participants who used no writing tools displayed the "strongest, widest-ranging" brain activity, while those who used ChatGPT displayed the weakest. Specifically, the ChatGPT group displayed 55% reduced brain activity, the study states. And though the participants who used only search engines had less overall brain activity than those who used no tools, these participants had a higher level of eye activity than those who used ChatGPT, even though both were using a digital screen. What's next for future studies? Further research on the long-term impacts of artificial intelligence chatbots on cognitive activity is needed, the study states. As for this particular study, researchers noted that a larger number of participants from a wider geographical area would be necessary for a more successful study. Writing outside of a traditional educational environment could also provide more insight into how AI works in more generalized tasks. Greta Cross is a national trending reporter at USA TODAY. Story idea? Email her at gcross@
Forbes
4 hours ago
- Science
- Forbes
How Life Survived Snowball Earth
Artist's impression of "Snowball Earth." The Snowball Earth hypothesis suggests that, hundreds of ... More millions of years ago, the Earth's surface may have frozen solid as a result of severe climate change. During the Cryogenian period about 700 to 635 million years ago, Earth experienced a super ice age, one that froze the entire planet from the poles to the equator. Scientist have long wondered how life survived this 'Snowball Earth.' Most of the surface was covered by ice, so there was no to little sunlight reaching the oceans, and with no weathering happening on the frozen-solid continents, no nutrients were washed into the sea. Maybe hot springs deep beneath the ice provided a last viable spot where life persisted until the ice receded. In a new study, researchers at MIT's Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, the Natural History Museum in London and the University of Waikato in New Zealand, propose an alternative hypothesis. 'We're interested in understanding the foundations of complex life on Earth. We see evidence for eukaryotes before and after the Cryogenian in the fossil record, but we largely lack direct evidence of where they may have lived during,' says lead author Fatima Husain, a graduate student in MIT. 'The great part of this mystery is, we know life survived. We're just trying to understand how and where.' The scientists found that lifeforms could have survived the global freeze by living in watery oases on the surface. Similar environmental conditions still exist today in cryoconite holes. Dark-colored dust and debris transported by glaciers to the surface absorb sunlight, heating up and melting into the ice forming small pockets and holes. At temperatures hovering around 0 degrees Celsius, the resulting meltwater ponds could have served as habitable environments for early life. Cryoconite hole on a glacier The researchers analyzed samples from a variety of cryoconite holes and meltwater ponds located on the McMurdo Ice Shelf in an area that was first described by members of Robert Falcon Scott's 1903 expedition as 'dirty ice.' They discovered clear signatures of life in every pond. Even more surprising, the communities varied from pond to pond, revealing a high diversity of life forms. There were cyanobacteria, prokaryotic, single-celled photosynthetic organisms that lack a cell nucleus or other organelles. The oldest cyanobacteria-like fossils appear on Earth over 3 billion years ago. While these ancient microbes are known to survive within some of the the harshest environments on Earth, the researchers wanted to know whether eukaryotes — complex organisms that evolved a cell nucleus and other membrane bound organelles — could also weather similarly challenging circumstances. Chemical analysis showed the presence of various molecules clearly associated with eukaryotic life. The team found that salinity plays a key role in the kind of life a pond can host: Ponds that were more brackish or salty had more similar communities, which differed from those in ponds with fresher waters. 'No two ponds were alike,' Husain explains. 'There are repeating casts of characters, but they're present in different abundances. And we found diverse assemblages of eukaryotes from all the major groups in all the ponds studied. These eukaryotes are the descendants of the eukaryotes that survived the Snowball Earth. This really highlights that meltwater ponds during Snowball Earth could have served as above-ice oases that nurtured the eukaryotic life that enabled the diversification and proliferation of complex life — including us — later on.' Additional material and interviews provided by MIT News.
West Australian
4 hours ago
- Entertainment
- West Australian
What to Watch: Stranded On Honeymoon Island, Joh: Last King Of Queensland, The Bear, Ironheart & Squid Game
Let's face it, our attention spans are getting shorter and shorter, and in this stacked TV landscape, it's taking increasingly wild reality formats to gain — and hold — our interest. Enter: Stranded On Honeymoon Island! As formats go, this one's an absolute doozy. It sees 12 Aussie singles paired up after a speed-dating event and packed off to marry one another. Not long after saying 'I do' they are turfed overboard (still in their wedding attire) from a boat floating somewhere in the Pacific Ocean, and must swim to a deserted tropical island — their home for the next 21 days! Yep — they are literally 'stranded on Honeymoon Island' . . . get it? 'Laying bare their past, stripping away emotional baggage and facing their fears head-on with nothing left to lose, they're about to take the biggest leap of their lives,' says an official release. Sign us up! Every few days a mysterious crate washes ashore, containing news from home, memories and games designed to help connect the couples with each other and the others also doing the experiment on nearby islands. They gather at Couples Cove regularly to discuss how things are going, and you know the tea will be spilt. If you've read this far and aren't immediately excited for this 'Survivor meets MAFS' concept, then this show is most definitely not for you. But for the rest of us — see you on the island! This feature-length doco sees actor Richard Roxburgh bring to life one of Australia's most controversial leaders. His dramatised scenes, directed by Kriv Stenders, are woven throughout the film, which takes a look at the divisive politician's life and time in office. Roxburgh gives a stunning performance, and for anyone with even a passing interest in this controversial figure, there will be much to absorb. Bjelke-Petersen is a towering presence in Aussie political history. One for history buffs and politics junkies alike. Based on the Marvel character of the same name, this miniseries is the 14th TV iteration of a comic book character from the Cinematic Universe — keeping up? This one's all about MIT student Riri Williams, who returns to Chicago after the events chronicled in Black Panther: Wakanda Forever. Dominique Thorne reprises her role from that film, and this is all about how her character gets mixed up with Parker Robbins/The Hood. If you are a Marvel fan, you'll know what that means. One for fans. The clock is ticking for Carmy and the crew to make things work at The Bear. But as we check back in with them for a fourth season, things are on a knife edge. If you've seen the trailers you'll know that Uncle Jimmy is turning the screws on them financially, and they'll need to band together to weather the storm. But is that even possible? There is a LOT of water under that particular bridge. I'm fascinated to see where they take us this season — here's hoping it isn't the show's last. To say this series has been a worldwide hit would be doing it a gross disservice — it's been nothing short of a global phenomenon. This third season is its last, and fans are eagerly awaiting the series drop (all episodes land at once), to find out how the disturbing story ends. Something tells us it's going to be nothing short of epic as Gi-hun (Player 456, played by Lee Jung-jae) and Front Man (Lee Byung-hun) square off one final time. This one's big — do not miss it.
Time of India
5 hours ago
- Science
- Time of India
ChatGPT might be making you think less: MIT study raises ‘red flags' about AI dependency
ChatGPT might be making you think less: MIT study raises 'red flags' about AI dependency As AI tools become part of our daily routines, a question is starting to bubble up: What happens when we rely on them too much? A new study from MIT's Media Lab takes a closer look at how tools like ChatGPT may be affecting our brains. And what the researchers found is worth paying attention to. The study focused on how people engage mentally when completing tasks with and without AI. It turns out that while ChatGPT can make writing easier, it may also be reducing how much we think. According to the research team, participants who used ChatGPT showed noticeably lower brain activity than those who did the same task using Google or no tech at all. The findings suggest that depending on AI for tasks that require effort, like writing, decision-making, or creative thinking, could weaken the very mental muscles we're trying to sharpen. ChatGPT users show lowest brain activity in MIT's groundbreaking study The experiment involved 54 participants between the ages of 18 and 39. They were split into three groups and asked to write essays in response to prompts similar to those on standardised tests. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Buy Brass Idols - Handmade Brass Statues for Home & Gifting Luxeartisanship Buy Now Undo Group 1 used ChatGPT to generate their answers Group 2 relied on Google Search to find and compile information Group 3 worked without any tools, using only their knowledge and reasoning While they worked, each participant wore a headset that tracked electrical activity across 32 areas of the brain. The aim was to see how engaged their minds were during the process. (The research was led by Dr. Nataliya Kosmyna along with a team that included Ashly Vivian Beresnitzky, Ye Tong Yuan, Jessica Situ, Eugene Hauptmann, Xian-Hao Liao, Iris Braunstein, and Pattie Maes.) ChatGPT may be hurting your creativity, MIT researchers warn The results were pretty clear: the group that used ChatGPT showed the lowest brain activity of all three groups. In particular, areas linked to memory, creativity, and concentration were significantly less active. In contrast, those who wrote without help from AI showed the highest mental engagement. They had to organise their thoughts, build arguments, and recall information, all things that activated the brain more deeply. Even the group using Google Search showed more engagement than the AI group, possibly because the process of looking for and evaluating information keeps the brain involved. There was another telling detail. Many in the ChatGPT group simply pasted the prompts into the tool and copied the output with little to no editing. Teachers who reviewed their essays said they felt impersonal, calling them 'soulless.' Dr. Kosmyna put it bluntly: 'They weren't thinking. They were just typing.' AI dependency Short-term efficiency, long-term cost Later in the study, researchers asked participants to rewrite one of their essays, this time without using any tools. The ChatGPT users struggled. Many couldn't remember their original arguments or structure. Since they hadn't processed the material deeply the first time, it hadn't stuck. Kosmyna described this as a red flag: 'It was efficient. But nothing was integrated into their brains.' That raises a broader concern: if AI is doing the heavy lifting, are we still learning? Or are we just moving text around while our cognitive skills fade in the background? The growing concern among psychiatrists and educators Dr. Zishan Khan, a psychiatrist who works with students, says he's already seeing signs of AI overuse in younger people. 'The neural pathways responsible for thinking, remembering, and adapting—they're weakening,' he explained. The fear is that early and frequent reliance on tools like ChatGPT might lead to long-term cognitive decline, especially in developing brains. MIT's team is now expanding their research to see how AI affects people in other fields. They've already started looking at coders who use tools like GitHub Copilot. So far, Kosmyna says the early results there are 'even worse' in terms of mental engagement. A word of warning for classrooms and beyond Interestingly, the MIT researchers shared their findings before going through the full peer review process, something that's uncommon in academic research. But Kosmyna felt the potential impact was urgent enough to make an exception. 'I'm really concerned someone might say, 'Let's introduce ChatGPT into kindergarten classrooms,'' she said. 'That would be a terrible mistake. Young brains are especially vulnerable.' To prove just how easy it is to lose the depth of complex research, the team did something clever: they planted subtle factual 'traps' in the study. When readers ran the paper through ChatGPT to summarise it, many versions came back with key errors, including details the researchers never even included. What does this mean for the future of AI use Not at all. The tool isn't the enemy. It can be incredibly helpful, especially when used wisely. But this study reminds us that how we use AI matters just as much as whether we use it. Here are a few takeaways from the researchers: Use AI as a partner, not a replacement. Let it offer ideas, but make sure you're still doing the core thinking. Stay actively involved. Skipping the process of learning or writing just to get a result means you're not absorbing anything. Be cautious in education. Children need to build foundational skills before leaning on technology. Also read | Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang swears by these 6 effective management strategies to run a company like a genius AI Masterclass for Students. Upskill Young Ones Today!– Join Now
