生成式 AI 對批判性思考的影響：自我報告（2025）

Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The Impact of Generative AI on Critical Thinking: Self-Reported (2025) (acm.org) 50 points by the-mitr1 hour ago | hide | past | favorite | 32 comments https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/... help bushido5 minutes ago | next[–] Anecdotally, I'm more bought into the amplifier theory [0], As it matches what I've seen with other people who I work with closely, and have known since pre-ai. They found that traditional metrics like critical thinking, AI literacy, and domain knowledge did not predict who became an amplifier. [0] https://hbr.org/2026/07/research-why-some-junior-employees-w... reply kenferry19 minutes ago | prev | next[–] I'm either not seeing something or I do not see the point of this study. Amount of "critical thinking" is basically amount of oversight, no? What's interesting is when the amount of oversight is inappropriate, leading to overconfidence in bad results (or, if too much oversight, lack of efficiency). This paper does not seem to discuss results and correctness at all, ONLY the amount of critical thinking. reply mpalmer4 minutes ago | parent | next[–] I'm going to assume you're being serious. Critical thinking is actually something that people exercise (or don't) all the time. It is a skill and practice that is inarguably valuable in all situations. This paper is not about the effects of critical thinking on "AI results", but the exact inverse of that. Do you value the capacity for critical thinking in yourself? In others? If so, the effect reported by this paper is probably of interest to you. reply oceansky27 minutes ago | prev | next[–] There's often a big gap between self perception and actual performance, I wonder if this actually tracks when measured. Regardless, confidence in oneself is hardly measured, self report is likely as good as it gets. reply jimnotgym12 minutes ago | prev | next[–] But ai chats are brilliant places to practice your thinking. It is a like a human with zero ego, so just gives you counterexamples to what you said, without any care to your feelings. It tells you your novel idea was written down by some thinker 100 years ago, and doesn't care about the crestfallen look on your face. You can use this to strengthen your argument, it will tell you when you did, and when you just did the opposite. It doesn't care if you change places and argue from the other side either. Or if you say, I feel like x is true but could this just be my bias from years of y, it argues back. To try, go and type a weakly argued point into Claude and watch it take you apart. Try these: People only post on hn for the pathetic dopamine hit of upvotes Hn comments are getting weaker James Acaster is the best commedian of the last 200 years. Your challenge is to turn it into an argument strong enough to not get an instant rejection reply Creamsicle477 minutes ago | parent | next[–] I'm pretty sure thinking is practiced by attempting to argue the opposite viewpoint yourself. Here, you're telling me that you "practice" your thinking by having it actually create the argument for you. I agree that AI is a useful tool, but it's arguably a very easy tool that people can offload their thought process to - which you should not be doing. reply kenferry5 minutes ago | parent | prev | next[–] Hoo, not been my experience. AI has an obvious issue with incorporating how happy users are in its responses. It LOVES to "take your argument seriously", push back lightly, and then tell you you are really smart and make amazing points. If you start with an argument out of left field, you will shift the Overton window very easily. reply hoppp31 minutes ago | prev | next[–] People have always been bad at critical thinking, it's a high level cognitive skill that requires practice. Now that it can be outsourced,we will slowly lose this ability that we barely had. reply chistev18 minutes ago | prev | next[–] AI atrophies the brain - https://www.rxjourney.net/how-artificial-intelligence-ai-is-... reply chrisdbanks6 minutes ago | parent | next[–] Using AI is similar to delegating a task to another person. Are the brains of all managers atrophied? Some people might think so but really you just learn different skills. Better communication, strategic thinking, etc reply Hugsbox12 minutes ago | parent | prev | next[–] AI atrophies the brain if you use it to replace your brain. There's definitely ways to it thoughtfully instead of just having it think for you. reply djoldman32 minutes ago | prev | next[–] (2025) and here is a direct link to the pdf without all the rigamarole: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/... reply dang7 minutes ago | parent | next[–] Both added above. Thank you! reply Lerc17 minutes ago | prev | next[–] I'm beginning to think that AI is just taking Dumbo's magic feather away, reply neronuser6 minutes ago | prev | next[–] "Specifically, higher confidence in GenAI is associated with less critical thinking, while higher self-confidence is associated with more critical thinking." - that's just the Dunning-Kruger effect reply mullingitover14 minutes ago | prev | next[–] In the eyes of the ruling class: it's a feature, not a bug. If students in the public k-12 system were actually being taught critical thinking, the schools would be the targets of strategic bombing by the US military. reply jMyles27 minutes ago | prev | next[–] Anecdotally, does this match anyone's actual experience? Everyone I know who is working closely with LLMs is doing some of the most acute critical thinking of their lives these days. I'm very skeptical of these kinds of takes; I'm reminded that Socrates railed against books on the basis that they were going to rot the brains of the youth. reply kllrnohj25 minutes ago | parent | next[–] I have seen a significant number of excellent engineers just seemingly turn their brain off entirely and resort to just spitting out "but AI said " or "AI reported which I found surprising but I didn't analyze or dig into that result whatsoever". So anecdotally, yes, this absolutely matches my experience. reply ageedizzle20 minutes ago | parent | prev | next[–] Socrates was worried that books would prevent people from developing their memories, and his prediction was correct. How many people you know use mnemonic devices to remember entire Greek epics (or something equivalent) by heart? Probably very few. reply steve197720 minutes ago | parent | prev | next[–] > Anecdotally, does this match anyone's actual experience? Yes. In contrast to you, I really think many of my coworkers seem to get dumber by the day. Not all of them yet, fortunately, but many. reply hyperpallium212 minutes ago | parent | prev | next[–] I think algebra too - it requires less understandng than geometry. You operate at a higher level, and in a sense, don't really know what you're doing. Geometry existed for centuries before Euclid's formalization. Similar for algebra before Al'Khwarizmi. People were using logic before Boole. "External Intelligence" is not new. But we are still in the informal stage of LLM use. reply Hugsbox9 minutes ago | parent | prev | next[–] There's people who use it as a tool, and there's people who use it as a brain surrogate. Most of the people using it as the latter aren't people who were deep thinkers to begin with. reply risit13 minutes ago | parent | prev | next[–] Perhaps more skeptical on certain tasks, but in general; no. Instead of reasoning with colleagues it's more common to hear "Claude said I found the best solution to task X" without questioning that. Anecdotally, the dopamine rush of validation is real. reply bemtevi15 minutes ago | parent | prev | next[–] One must distinguish people whose lives were spent thinking critically, and then who subsequently adopted LLMs, and those who will grow up with the technology and will never have to think critically to get a program to run. Or do whatever. reply peab16 minutes ago | parent | prev | next[–] Looks like the paper is from 2025? I think the problem with these sorts of studies is that the industry is moving so fast, and by the time your paper gets peer reviewed and published it is no longer relevant. In this paper, the participants are using mostly ChatGPT - well, there's a HUGE difference in free chatGPT, gpt 6, gpt 4o, gpt 3.5? What might have been the case for say, GPT 4, is probably no longer the case with GPT 6. My experience with Google's gemini right now makes this obvious, as I run out of Gemini 4 Astra in a conversation, and then it switches me to Gemini flash lite. reply bfbf14 minutes ago | parent | prev | next[–] On a micro scale, yes I see this regularly at work: some devs blindly put up ai generated PRs that are fundamentally flawed or don’t actually complete the work in the ticket. It’s often trivial to check this. Similarly some tickets are written by ai that make incorrect assumptions about our product, resulting in nonsensical requirements. You could argue that these are just examples of laziness, but I think these are both tasks that require critical thinking, and it’s easier to hand them off to an llm that at least purports to do this for you. I’d argue that both setting requirements, and self code review are both things that need careful attention. (What exactly do you need doing? Does your work correctly do the thing that needs doing?). I have no fundamental issue with using ai, but there’s no doubt that applying critical thinking to both these tasks directly, and to the broader question of “should I use ai for this job” should result in a different outcome. Personally I would also not agree with your take that working with llms has allowed me to do “acute critical thinking”. It’s sped up my development time, sure, but I would argue that my evaluation of, say a new sdk now using Claude is far less detailed than it would’ve been in the past when I did it by reading docs. As a side note, I’ve been rereading Douglas Hofstadter’s GEB recently in paperback, and I’ve found a lot of joy in wrestling with paragraphs and writing notes in the margins. This is way more focussed attention than I really give anything when working with llms. reply Forgeties7923 minutes ago | parent | prev | next[–] > Everyone I know who is working closely with LLMs is doing some of the most acute critical thinking of their lives these days. According to them. reply steve197722 minutes ago | root | parent | next[–] According to Claude. reply tashian36 minutes ago | prev[–] Claude, please read this article for me and tell me what I should think about it. reply Legend244035 minutes ago | parent[–] That's what the comment section is for! reply bluefirebrand25 minutes ago | root | parent[–] Claude's taking my job as an internet peanut gallery now too? reply leoc19 minutes ago | root | parent[–] There goes my $100,000 salary, woe is me. reply Consider applying for YC's Winter 2027 batch! Applications are open till November 2. Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact Search: