<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Cognition on Lynx Tech Blog</title><link>https://blog.lynxflow.co/en/tags/cognition/</link><description>Recent content in Cognition on Lynx Tech Blog</description><generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Sat, 29 Aug 2026 08:00:00 +0800</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://blog.lynxflow.co/en/tags/cognition/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>After 4 Weeks of Using AI to Check Fake News, Turning It Off Leaves You Worse Than When You Started — MIT's "Dependency Paradox"</title><link>https://blog.lynxflow.co/en/posts/mit-ai-dependency-paradox-fake-news/</link><pubDate>Sat, 29 Aug 2026 08:00:00 +0800</pubDate><guid>https://blog.lynxflow.co/en/posts/mit-ai-dependency-paradox-fake-news/</guid><description>&lt;img src="https://blog.lynxflow.co/images/mit-ai-dependency-paradox-fake-news.png" alt="Featured image of post After 4 Weeks of Using AI to Check Fake News, Turning It Off Leaves You Worse Than When You Started — MIT's "Dependency Paradox"" /&gt;In week one, people using an AI assistant to identify fake news were 21% more accurate than the control group. By week four, when the AI was taken away, their accuracy didn&amp;rsquo;t rise — it fell, ending up 15 percentage points below where they started before the experiment. Stranger still, about one in five participants &amp;ldquo;felt they had gotten better.&amp;rdquo;
This comes from a study published on August 25, 2026 by Pattie Maes&amp;rsquo;s team at the MIT Media Lab (covered the same day by MIT Tec</description></item></channel></rss>