[Sol-]

Maybe I'm nitpicking here, but in their abstract

> "Greater levels of AI use were associated with modest increases in depressive symptoms"

to me ever so slightly implies causality via "increases ...", even though, as they are also very transparent about, this paper isn't about any causal mechanism. I feel like "associated with higher rates of depressive symptoms" might have read more neutrally and would have been in line with the results of their paper.

Not suggesting something intentional by the authors, of course, I just found it interesting how verbs subtly influence the meaning of things, at least for me.

But perhaps I'm also biased because I kind of intuitively believe that the causation is that depressive people enjoy talking to the AI, rather than AI being the cause of anything. I worry that any reverse interpretations will lead to an over-regulation of AI in such contexts.

[Sharlin]

It's standard academic use of "increased", so I can't fault the authors for using it. Few in the intended target audience would read that as implying causation. One could of course argue that abstracts should be written with a larger audience in mind, but the job of a researcher is first and foremost to communicate as effectively as possible to other researchers.

[mwigdahl]

I don't think replacing "increased" with "greater" or "higher" would compromise communication to researchers at all, but it could cut down on misinterpretation and miscommunication in the wider science reporting world.

Seems like it would be overall beneficial.

[_kulang]

Sure— but that is different to “increases” which makes it seem as though they experienced increases due to AI use. The academic use of “increased” is more standard and in line with what you said, is kind of fine.

[armoredkitten]

To me, the wording doesn't necessarily imply causality, but it does imply a repeated-measures design. Something being "associated with an increase in symptoms" is different than something being "associated with higher symptoms"; the former suggests that participants were measured at multiple time points, and there is a factor that could explain that change over time. But reading through the study, it was just a single time point.

Regardless, you're correct that it also shouldn't be taken to imply a causal relationship.

[troosevelt]

I noticed how much basic stuff is getting upvoted that confirms people's priors. I guess HN has always been this way, but it doesn't speak well of a community that views itself as thoughtful.

It's frustrating watching this topic turn into culture war.

[wat10000]

It would imply that if used as a verb, but it’s used as a noun here.