Ofc you pick the AI answer when you don't know the answer yourself, when given this option.Why not try this suggestion, guessing.

this was my thought as well, seems like the study set subjects up to fail if they used AI. confidence in AI is interesting, but so is confidence in the study. maybe it says more about a subject’s ability to discern AI models than anything else.

I like this. One could argue that AI is a Dunning-Kruger Club enabler. And as others have pointed out, 'the first rule of Dunning-Kruger Club is that you don't know you are in Dunning-Kruger Club'.

I agree on narrative, but I fail to see "research"

When two humans discuss something there is thinking time, moments when neither says anything. AI just keeps offering to take you further into what may or may not be facts. None of it stays permanently in your head.

AI thus serves as a pseudo-religious higher authority, replacing one’s own expertise and knowledge with a belief in an omniscient power.

A modern god is born, so to speak.

My interpretation: The belief in the accuracy of AI is so strong that independent research is deemed unnecessary, and any emerging doubts about the correctness of an AI’s response are ignored or suppressed. At the same time, the AI’s responses – which are always phrased in an affirmative manner – dispel personal uncertainties and thus reinforce the impression of possessing truth and knowledge – and therefore of being in the right.

Is it surprising that the AI that people use is mostly developed in the United States, whose schoolkids consistently score low on basic skills like math and reading, but high on self-confidence?