> And how exactly is that surprising?

Isn't the point of a lot of science to empirically demonstrate results which we'd otherwise take for granted as intuitive/obvious? Maybe in AI-literature-land everything published is supposed to be novel/surprising, but that doesn't encompass all of research, last I checked.

▲

DocTomoe 13 hours ago | parent [-]

If the title of your study both makes a neurotoxin reference ("This is your brain on drugs", egg, pan, plus pearl-clutching) AND introduces a concept stolen and abused from IT and economics (cognitive debt? Implies repayment and 'refactoring', that is not what they mean, though) ... I expect a bit more than 'we tested this very obvious common sense thing, and lo and behold, it is just as a five year old would have predicted.'

	▲	greggoB an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I struggle to see how you're linking your complaint about the wording of the title to your issue with the obviousness of the result - these seem like two completely independent thought processes. Also, re cognitive debt being stolen: I'm pretty sure this is actually a modification of sleep debt, which would be a medical/biological term [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_debt
	▲	Miraste 13 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		You are right about the content, but it's still worth publishing the study. Right now, there's an immense amount of money behind selling AI services to schools, which is founded on the exact opposite narrative.