Why are textbooks relevant here? Even if you repeated the experiment with a textbook instead of the AI and got the same result, what conclusion would you draw from this? The general conclusion of the study seems to be "giving people access to authoritative-seeming but wrong tools for answering questions outside their area of expertise reduces their ability to say they don't know the answer, even when the answer is wrong". So yeah, don't buy bad textbooks for your employees if you don't want them to give you bad textbook answers - but also don't give them AI for things they don't know, perhaps.

I'll also add that even in these simple experimental conditions, I'd bet that having access to a textbook wouldn't have nearly as much of an effect, for a very simple reason: looking up an answer in a textbook is a lot more work than asking an LLM. So when you don't know and aren't forced to answer, I'd bet it's a lot less likely you'd spend the time to look up the answer in the text book. Even more so if the textbook had "this may contain wrong answers!" printed on the cover, like the AIs do.

I've used LLMs to bootstrap successfully in a decent amount of things at this point.

Anyone trusting AI as the single authoritative source of information is stupid - but this follows from the fact that trusting anyone as a "singular point" as a source of information is stupid. You corroborate, you intervene on the world to test your mental model, you discuss with other people. That's what learning is. I've never learned from start to back to a textbook before as the single source of information (besides one philosophy of science textbook; in which I spent a month digging around adjacent fields, and then it just so happened that that one textbook synthesized every piece of information I looked up, and it was mostly a consolidating review).

If your study pre-supposes certain courses of action and artificially constrains the action space for the sake of "reproducibility", you may get a result, and a "scientifically rigorous one". But it's not going to say anything about reality in any meaningful way. While anecdotes and the complexity of real life isn't "science" (in that it's a controlled, repeatable, interventional experiment that's subject to a community of critics who want to hold you up to standards of rigor), there's far more truth in how people actually proceed and engage with these tools.

> but also don't give them AI for things they don't know, perhaps

The study doesn't show that at all. It didn't test actual AI.

They could have tested a cohort of subjects with access to actual ChatGPT. Ask yourself why they didn't.