I understand that many of us are dealing with a lot of confident slop and support the point that we shouldn't uncritically accept LLM output. But the study is flawed and does not support this headline, or at least does not support it in the sense of how most of us would understand the term "AI advice".

"The LLM used in our experiments (Step 3.5 Flash) answered such questions incorrectly almost without exception. We also checked some state-of-the-art LLMs (GPT-5.5, Claude 4.6 Sonnet, Gemini 3.5 Flash); they all failed on the hardest question (Monica’s vehicle), while being frequently correct on the other questions."

So, if people's experience is with modern LLMs, they are being rational to accept that the answers as likely correct.

The way the study is organized is like having people hear advice from a doctor who answers questions incorrectly almost without exception, then reporting that people who listen to doctors are 3x less accurate. But that would be an incorrect conclusion because doctors are not wrong almost without exception.

If the question is "how inaccurate does AI advice make people?", then the accuracy of the AI is necessarily a parameter of the answer.

A better headline would read, "Very inaccurate AI made people less accurate" but this would make people naturally ask, "what about a reasonably accurate AI?".

It's not clear in this context what you actually mean by "government." You are assigning agency to something in a way that seems like a reification. While a bureaucracy can seem to have a life of its own, isn't it generally people who seek power?

With Meta we these have more or less merged. It's not really clear now who the customer is. They need to attract both eyeballs and money. I'm not sure what the long-term consequence of that is, but my hunch is it leads to accounting and advertising winning since they actually generate money. And the result is junk creative.

Also, I think you've set up a straw man. I haven't seen anyone arguing that this future isn't possible. What I see is resistance to the idea that we can have any certainty about the future by drawing a straight line from the past.

Maybe this is tongue-in-cheek, but in case it's not.

No, nobody does. Consider that a person in their lifetime could have seen the Wright Brothers first flight in 1903, then the first jet engine in 1939, then commercial jet travel in the 1950s. That is an amazing 50 years for air travel. If you were living in 1950 and were to extrapolate where air travel would be by 2026, you would think we would be taking routine trips to Mars. Instead what we got was TSA, cramped seats, and better safety. But "progress" leveled off dramatically. Commercial air flight has looked pretty much the same for my entire life.

We have no idea how far transformers and LLMs will take us. It certainly isn't obvious where this is going.

I few interesting bits — it does involve cursive, but it's Arabic and it's graded on a rubric that includes things like "Presenting the beauty aspects of Arabic writing'. Also, given a sample of 71 students and a p<0.001 means the correlation coefficient only needs to be around 0.40 which means handwriting and drawing may only explain about 16% of the variance of these dental skills. That's not nothing, but given the subjective nature of the test and the confounders (does this handwriting sample really measure motor skills or maybe it measures care and attention to detail, or conscientiousness), I'd be a little wary of using this to argue for education policy.

Still, glad you posted it and glad I read it. It interesting.

As someone who has hated both reading and writing cursive since middle school, I'm curious what is significant about cursive specifically?