If it wasn't for studies like this, you'd still think arsenic is a great way to produce a vibrant green color to paint your house in the color of nature!

Because of studies like this we know the burning of fossil fuels is a dead-end for us and our climate, and due to that have developed alternative methods of generating energy.

And the study actually proved that LLM usage reprograms your brain and makes you a dumbass. Social media usage does as well, those two things are not exclusive, if anything, their effects compound on an already pretty dumb and gullible population. So if your argumemt is 'but what about reddit', thats a non argument called 'whataboutism'. Look it up and hopefully it might give you a hint why you are getting downvoted.

There have been three recent studies showing that:

- 1. 95% LLM projects fail in the enterprise https://fortune.com/2025/08/18/mit-report-95-percent-generat...

- 2. Experienced developers get 19% less productive when using an LLM https://metr.org/blog/2025-07-10-early-2025-ai-experienced-o...

- 3. LLM usage makes you dumber https://publichealthpolicyjournal.com/mit-study-finds-artifi...

We reached a stage where people on the internet mistake their opinion on a subject to be as relevant as a study on the subject.

If you don't have another study or haven't done the science to disprove this study, how come you dismiss so easily a study that actually took time, data and the scientific method to reach to a conclusion? I feel we gotta actively and firmly call out that kind of behavior and ridicule it.

1. Wait, in a category where the general failure rate is traditionally 75%, using a bleeding edge technology adds 20% more risk, what a shock. 2. This is an interesting study, but perhaps limited. Draws conclusions from a set of 16 developers on very large projects, many of whom did not have previous experience with the editor used in the study or LLMs in general. The study did conclude it added time in these cases. There is a reason for the large sense of value, this would be the thing of note to uncover based on these results. Study notes 79% continued to use the AI tools. Speed is not the only value to be gained, but it was the only value measured. (Study notes this.) 3. Author didn't read or used AI to poorly summarize the poorly thought out study it is based on. Also, it seems you didn't read the study.