this post was submitted on 09 Feb 2026
421 points (99.5% liked)
Technology
80916 readers
4863 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
People always say this on stories about "obvious" findings, but it's important to have verifiable studies to cite in arguments for policy, law, etc. It's kinda sad that it's needed, but formal investigations are a big step up from just saying, "I'm pretty sure this technology is bullshit."
I don't need a formal study to tell me that drinking 12 cans of soda a day is bad for my health. But a study that's been replicated by multiple independent groups makes it way easier to argue to a committee.
Yeah you're right, I was just making a joke.
But it does create some silly situations like you said
I figured you were just being funny, but I'm feeling talkative today, lol
A critical, yet respectful and understanding exchange between two individuals on the interwebz? Boy, maybe not all is lost...
I get that this thread started from a joke, but I think it's also important to note that no matter how obvious some things may seem to some people, the exact opposite will seem obvious to many others. Without evidence, like the study, both groups are really just stating their opinions
It's also why the formal investigations are required. And whenever policies and laws are made based on verifiable studies rather than people's hunches, it's not sad, it's a good thing!
The thing that frustrates me about these studies is that they all continue to come to the same conclusions. AI has already been studied in mental health settings, and it's always performed horribly (except for very specific uses with professional oversight and intervention).
I agree that the studies are necessary to inform policy, but at what point are lawmakers going to actually lay down the law and say, "AI clearly doesn't belong here until you can prove otherwise"? It feels like they're hemming and hawwing in the vain hope that it will live up to the hype.
It's also important to have for its own merit. Sometimes, people have strong intuitions about "obvious" things, and they're completely wrong. Without science studying things, it's "obvious" that the sun goes around the Earth, for example.
Without those studies, you cannot know whether it's bad for your health. You can assume it's bad for your health. You can believe it's bad for your health. But you cannot know. These aren't bad assumptions or harmful beliefs, by the way. But the thing is, you simply cannot know without testing.
Or how bad something is. "I don't need a scientific study to tell me that looking at my phone before bed will make me sleep badly", but the studies actually show that the effect is statistically robust but small.
In the same way, studies like this can make the distinction between different levels of advice and warning.
I remember discussing / doing critical appraisal of this. Turns out it was less about the phone and more about the emotional dysregulation / emotional arousal causing delay in sleep onset.
So yes, agree, we need studies, and we need to know how to read them and think over them together.
Also, it's useful to know how, when, or why something happens. I can make a useless chatbot that is "right" most times if it only tells people to seek medical help.