AI reduces human capacity to think, says research

It was only a matter of time, but it did come too soon. A study by MIT’s Research Lab recently conducted a study on 54 individuals who were between 18 and 39 years old. Each was asked to write a couple of essays in the style of the SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test), a common exam in the United States.

Some randomly selected subjects were asked to write without access to the Internet, others using only the Google search engine, and the rest using OpenAI’s ChatGPT. The researchers used EEG to record brain activity across 32 regions of the brain.

Unsurprisingly, they found that those who were using GhatGPT got lazier as the study went on, using cut-and-paste tactics more often.

Those who had limited access to the Internet were more engaged with the essay, thought about it more, deliberated on the ideas and even took ownership of the arguments presented. Those who used ChatGPT almost stopped caring for the ideas they were generating by the end of the study. When asked to re-write their essay, this group did not remember most of the ideas which they had previously used.

This is a preliminary study with few participants but the head researcher, Nataliya Kosmyna, went ahead to share the findings. According to her, “Developing brains are at their highest risk”. She meant that the younger the learners are, the more dangerous the implications of continuous use of Artificial Intelligence.

The findings seem intuitive after all. Continuously using generative AI to do all our tasks, from answering all our queries on trivia to planning out budgeted holidays, can only make us think less.

It is not only that we are resorting to the easiest option but that these choices are making our capacity to make any choice seem redundant. This could be the end of critical thinking as we know it.

Arguments against this scenario have already filled the research space. The most common argument is that everything depends on how we use AI – whether is it used as a supplement to just help with our work but not replace it, or even show us alternatives from which we could choose.

But there are also other concerns. Beyond making us ‘lazier’, using generative AI has already indicated other social implications. For one, it is making people lonelier. There is very little use for companionship if the screen is fulfilling most of our needs, especially for youngsters who are already comfortable growing up with screens of different sizes.

So common is the use of AI for personal needs that it is also replacing counselling, whether academic or personal, for students. Although this may sound like a good option, as it makes counselling free and always available, it does not give advice on individual situations and priorities. Depending on AI for life decisions may take more time.

We cannot wish AI away, but we can learn more about it and its judicious use. Too much of it coming too soon may harm us more than we may know.