The top image shows the final results of the recent U.S. presidential election, won by Trump with a score of 312 to 226. Remarkably, no human could predict this outcome—not experts, super-forecasters, exit polls, prediction markets, nor even psychics. But the AI model ChatGPT-4o did, as shown in the bottom image, where it accurately forecasted a 309 to 229 outcome back in September at Wuhan University (yes, once again China and once again Wuhan).
The precision of this prediction is rooted in an extraordinary foundation. Instead of relying on real human opinions, the AI analyzed simulated “social replicas.” Two years ago, a breakthrough technology emerged, enabling the creation of algorithmic replicas of any social group. Astonishingly, these algorithms proved indistinguishable from real people in surveys. This discovery, sitting at the intersection of natural language processing, cognitive science, and sociology, offers enormous potential for social hacking.
In 2023, this technology evolved to create algorithmic replicas of citizens from any nation. While still far from achieving AGI, these systems now simulate the collective unconscious of entire societies. From this, I formulated two key hypotheses:
✔️ A paradigm shift transforming psychohistory into a practical science—one akin to Asimov’s fictional discipline that mathematically examines societal processes to accurately forecast the future.
✔️ A cultural phase shift ushering in a new era: algocognitive culture.
Now, just three months later—at a pace unimaginable before the age of technological singularity—researchers in Wuhan have provided experimental support that these hypotheses are not mere futurist speculation; they may indeed reflect reality.
In other words, it’s likely that our world has already undergone a profound transformation. The roles of humans and algorithms in science, culture, individual lives, and the “algorithmically enriched societies” of today will never be the same. What’s next? Let’s find out!
#AIRevolution #CognitiveScience #FutureSociety
#science
The precision of this prediction is rooted in an extraordinary foundation. Instead of relying on real human opinions, the AI analyzed simulated “social replicas.” Two years ago, a breakthrough technology emerged, enabling the creation of algorithmic replicas of any social group. Astonishingly, these algorithms proved indistinguishable from real people in surveys. This discovery, sitting at the intersection of natural language processing, cognitive science, and sociology, offers enormous potential for social hacking.
In 2023, this technology evolved to create algorithmic replicas of citizens from any nation. While still far from achieving AGI, these systems now simulate the collective unconscious of entire societies. From this, I formulated two key hypotheses:
✔️ A paradigm shift transforming psychohistory into a practical science—one akin to Asimov’s fictional discipline that mathematically examines societal processes to accurately forecast the future.
✔️ A cultural phase shift ushering in a new era: algocognitive culture.
Now, just three months later—at a pace unimaginable before the age of technological singularity—researchers in Wuhan have provided experimental support that these hypotheses are not mere futurist speculation; they may indeed reflect reality.
In other words, it’s likely that our world has already undergone a profound transformation. The roles of humans and algorithms in science, culture, individual lives, and the “algorithmically enriched societies” of today will never be the same. What’s next? Let’s find out!
#AIRevolution #CognitiveScience #FutureSociety
#science
👍62👀43🔥23🕊7😁4
🧠 Just 10 Minutes With AI Can Make You Give Up More Easily
AI makes us faster.
But what happens when we suddenly have to think without it?
A newly peer-reviewed study involving 1,222 participants suggests something uncomfortable: after just 10–15 minutes of AI-assisted problem-solving, people performed worse on their own — and were more likely to give up.
Researchers conducted three randomized experiments involving mathematics and reading comprehension. Some participants solved problems independently, while others had access to ChatGPT. Initially, the AI-assisted group performed better. But when researchers unexpectedly removed the chatbot, the advantage disappeared. In the first experiment, participants who had used AI correctly solved just 57% of subsequent problems, compared with 73% among those who had worked independently. They also skipped nearly twice as many questions: 20% versus 11%.
The researchers identified an especially interesting pattern. Participants who used AI primarily to obtain complete answers struggled more afterward than those who used it for hints or explanations. That comparison was observational, not a separate randomized experiment, but it suggests an important distinction: AI that helps you think may be very different from AI that thinks for you.
The possible explanation is a psychological shift. When answers arrive instantly, independent effort begins to feel unnecessarily difficult. Researchers call attention to the loss of productive struggle — the mental work through which we develop skills and persistence.
Important caveat: The experiments measured immediate effects during short online tasks. They do not establish permanent cognitive damage or show that regular AI use necessarily makes people less intelligent. Whether these effects persist over weeks or months remains unknown.
But the implication is fascinating.
We may be building machines that make us extraordinarily productive while quietly changing how willing we are to solve problems ourselves.
Perhaps the smartest AI assistant isn’t the one that always gives you the answer.
It’s the one that sometimes makes you figure it out.
Would you prefer an AI that solves everything instantly — or one that occasionally forces you to think?
#AI #ChatGPT #Psychology #Neuroscience #CognitiveScience #ArtificialIntelligence #Science
https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.04721
AI makes us faster.
But what happens when we suddenly have to think without it?
A newly peer-reviewed study involving 1,222 participants suggests something uncomfortable: after just 10–15 minutes of AI-assisted problem-solving, people performed worse on their own — and were more likely to give up.
Researchers conducted three randomized experiments involving mathematics and reading comprehension. Some participants solved problems independently, while others had access to ChatGPT. Initially, the AI-assisted group performed better. But when researchers unexpectedly removed the chatbot, the advantage disappeared. In the first experiment, participants who had used AI correctly solved just 57% of subsequent problems, compared with 73% among those who had worked independently. They also skipped nearly twice as many questions: 20% versus 11%.
The researchers identified an especially interesting pattern. Participants who used AI primarily to obtain complete answers struggled more afterward than those who used it for hints or explanations. That comparison was observational, not a separate randomized experiment, but it suggests an important distinction: AI that helps you think may be very different from AI that thinks for you.
The possible explanation is a psychological shift. When answers arrive instantly, independent effort begins to feel unnecessarily difficult. Researchers call attention to the loss of productive struggle — the mental work through which we develop skills and persistence.
Important caveat: The experiments measured immediate effects during short online tasks. They do not establish permanent cognitive damage or show that regular AI use necessarily makes people less intelligent. Whether these effects persist over weeks or months remains unknown.
But the implication is fascinating.
We may be building machines that make us extraordinarily productive while quietly changing how willing we are to solve problems ourselves.
Perhaps the smartest AI assistant isn’t the one that always gives you the answer.
It’s the one that sometimes makes you figure it out.
Would you prefer an AI that solves everything instantly — or one that occasionally forces you to think?
#AI #ChatGPT #Psychology #Neuroscience #CognitiveScience #ArtificialIntelligence #Science
https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.04721
arXiv.org
AI Assistance Reduces Persistence and Hurts Independent Performance
People often optimize for long-term goals in collaboration: A mentor or companion doesn't just answer questions, but also scaffolds learning, tracks progress, and prioritizes the other person's...
😁21👍17⚡11🔥4