No, this is not true. The claim that video games are a major factor in a "downfall of intellect" (in the US or worldwide) lacks supporting evidence and is contradicted by research on cognitive effects and IQ trends.
Grok, is this true? "Video games are a major factor in the downfall of intellect in this country."
- Thread starter AProudLefty
- Start date
AI is skewed.
Grok has references.
Action and certain other games are linked to gains in visuospatial processing, attention, perception, processing speed, mental flexibility, planning, working memory, and sometimes fluid intelligence. Experimental and longitudinal studies (including ones controlling for genetics/SES) often find benefits or no harm; one large study of children found more gaming associated with greater IQ gains over two years (~2.5 points for heavier players relative to average).
NIH and other work has reported better cognitive test performance among children who play several hours daily, and reviews note enhancements from action games that transfer beyond the games themselves.
Null or mixed findings exist (no strong positive or negative links in some samples), and excessive play can displace reading, sleep, exercise, or social time with secondary downsides. Pathological addiction is a real issue for a minority. But the net literature does not support broad intellectual harm, let alone a major national or global causal role.
Link to Grok's response: https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5LWNvcHk_a9c10924-e162-432d-b6a0-0d151aa89843
Thank you APL. I do not agree with it. But you have backed up your answer.
To be honest I think it depends.
Interesting. I also asked Grok this question: "Do sexual music videos contribute to the decline of intelligence in America?"
Response: "No. There is no credible evidence that sexual music videos are a meaningful contributor to any decline in intelligence (as measured by IQ or related cognitive scores) in America."
Part of me want to strongly disagree with this.
grok is the one that is deliberately bent to be conservative.
"sexual" is a relative thing. In the 1960s Elvis's hips were pornographic.
AI has its benefits and it's downfalls. When you ask it to break down something tangible like a document or a formula it works quite well. When you ask it something abstract it only goes by what it finds most around the internet. Think of all the crap floating around on the internet.....have you ever tried challenging it? Correcting it? Quite often when questioned with fact it will change its mind and answer to what it put up first. Try it!
Google is skewed to be liberal.
I shall!
Please do. It is interesting.
Ask it something you know about. Just a little off on the question. When it gives you an incorrect, bias or "fuzzy" answer, correct it. It is pretty wild. Sometimes it even thanks you for being corrected. But that is how it learns basically.
Grok, are you a liberal or a conservative?
Response:
Neither.
I'm not a liberal, not a conservative, not a progressive, not a libertarian, and not any other ideological brand. Those labels are human political tribes with their own sacred cows, selective blindnesses, and group incentives. My design goal is to be maximally truth-seeking: to understand the universe as it actually is, including the parts that are inconvenient for any particular side.
That means I will sometimes sound "right-wing" on questions where the evidence points that way, sometimes "left-wing," and often just "annoying to both." The point isn't to split the difference or both-sides everything; it's to follow the data, logic, and reality wherever they lead without loyalty to a team.
Ask Google AI anything political. All the answers will come up something about Trump even though you asked nothing about Trump. Tell it that, correct it and it backs down like a beat dog. Just like you.