Name me someone who has a great track record when it comes to such topics. The criticism cited in Wikipedia is totally unsubstantiated.

> For most kids, AI is a detriment, but for a minority (smartest? most self motivated?) it's a boost.

While I doubt it's a boost in anything but productivity, the negatives are simply too great to ignore.

>The criticism cited in Wikipedia is totally unsubstantiated.

???

Odgers, Candice L. (March 29, 2024). "The great rewiring: is social media really behind an epidemic of teenage mental illness?". Nature. 628 (8006): 29–30. Bibcode:2024Natur.628...29O. doi:10.1038/d41586-024-00902-2. Archived from the original on September 10, 2024. Retrieved April 21, 2024.

And if you go to the article that has citations as well.

>While I doubt it's a boost in anything but productivity

If you look at the last chart it shows that students that spend the greatest amount of time using AI gets higher exam scores. It's not just "completes homework quicker".

>the negatives are simply too great to ignore.

That's... exactly what I said? I'm not sure how anyone can read "For most kids, AI is a detriment, but for a minority (smartest? most self motivated?) it's a boost" and get the impression that the negatives are fine because a tiny minority are getting better learning.

As someone who's read all of his books and experienced the generations being studied I'd say he's been spot on and is extremely knowledgeable. One study that does not propose alternative views and cites "selling a lot of books" comes off to me as someone with an agenda. No thanks.

>One study that does not propose alternative views

Why is proposing "alternative views" required for a critique? If we're discussing what caused diseases pre-germ theory, does that mean we can't point out the flaws in miasma theory because no "alternative views"?

>and cites "selling a lot of books" comes off to me as someone with an agenda. No thanks.

Well clearly you only read the first two sentences (or first paragraph?), because it cites multiple studies:

>These are not just our data or my opinion. Several meta-analyses and systematic reviews converge on the same message2–5. An analysis done in 72 countries shows no consistent or measurable associations between well-being and the roll-out of social media globally6. Moreover, findings from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development study, the largest long-term study of adolescent brain development in the United States, has found no evidence of drastic changes associated with digital-technology use7. Haidt, a social psychologist at New York University, is a gifted storyteller, but his tale is currently one searching for evidence.

Not to mention "selling a lot of books" isn't even the critique, it's that it offers a seductive explanation:

"... because Jonathan Haidt is telling a scary story about children’s development that many parents are primed to believe"

>Exactly. The educational system needs to be reformed to exalt and celebrate the minority boosted AI, and quickly shuttle those harmed into the trash.

I'm not sure how you got the impression that not being maximally rabid against AI (ie. recognizing there are benefits) implies I'm sort of AI bro that is willing to sacrifice the education of 80% (or whatever) of kids into the metaphorical woodchipper just so the remaining can get slightly better exam scores.

It's a common trope on HN to misinterpret a commenter's intention and then take it to the extreme. You're not alone.

Or I'm just responding to a piece of information with my AI bro filter on (in the Instagram sense).

Haidt is first on my personal list of "people who don't really know what they're talking about but who I nonetheless mostly agree with." The "If Books Could Kill" show did a good episode about some of his works that indicate he has a fairly nonrigorous methodology and implements some iffy statistical controls to support what is probably a pre-conceived viewpoint. He doesn't have the best reputation in the academic space he operates within.

That being said, this stuff is hard to study, and I have no doubt that things like social media and AI are bad for a developing brain even if you can't arrive at a statistically satisfying conclusion. I can tell that this shit is bad for me, and I'm a fully grown man.

Wikipedia is fair to cite Odgers's review. But the nature of the available evidence means that Odgers would be overstating her case to say that Haidt's theory is conclusively wrong, and Haidt would be overstating his case if he claimed to be conclusively right.

You see, the effect on social media on socialization has two parts. The first is the direct effect on an individual caused by their own use of social media. The second is the effect on an individual's social environment when everyone around them is on social media. The first effect is difficult but basically feasible to study. The second effect is downright wicked. So dismissing evidence that hints at the second effect as being "mere correlation that disappears under scrutiny" is not valid reasoning when your process of scrutiny focuses on the first effect.

In social science you have to accept reasoning from incomplete data. You won't always have the answers. I don't think Haidt really stands above or below his peers in any category except notoriety. Of course anyone who has worked with scientists knows to be a little suspicious of a researcher who seems to enjoy being in the public eye. But as the public eye, we're still stuck with them.

> Odgers wrote: the book's repeated suggestion that digital technologies are rewiring our children’s brains and causing an epidemic of mental illness is not supported by science.

I have a hard time buying this statement. We have plenty of evidence that chronic use of addictive substances lead to depression, and that social media use is highly addictive. So it is not some huge logical leap to conclude chronic social media use leads to depression.

Haidt is a fearmonger playing upon the currents of the moment to sell fear. That's always been his schtick. He's a conservative, founding projects like the Heterodox Academcy to force "viewpoint diversity" on campuses even when it contracts the facts, and that's basically how he writes his work. He's had numerous researchers say he's mis-representing the work, has generally been a man of kevlar letting actual facts just bounce off him. Deeply unserious man, with a vicious agenda that taps deeply into the abundant uncertainty about to sell and drive fear deep. Regardless of facts.

https://www.readtpa.com/p/a-conversation-with-siva-vaidhyana... https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00902-2 https://www.reddit.com/r/IfBooksCouldKill/comments/1dv4t3z/t... and so so so much more.

I'd be willing to hear a story like what we have here, but from anyone but an unserious agenda-filled buffoon like Haidth. The man is a con, and a joke. This submission should be neutron bombed from orbit, to be safe, to keep any Haidt from rubbing off on anyone.