Latest news with #MediaLab
Time of India
2 days ago
- Science
- Time of India
Brains on autopilot: MIT study warns AI is eroding human thought, Here's how to stay intellectually alive
AI-generated representative image Inventions have redefined the very existence of humankind, challenging us to alter the way we think, learn, and live. The printing press etched history in bold letters. Calculators reshaped arithmetic. Now, artificial intelligence has entered the scene, permeating every niche of human life and painting it with a palette of new possibilities. Yet, like every groundbreaking invention, this too carries its fair share of repercussions. But what happens when the very tools built to extend the human mind begin to replace it? The answer is unsettling: it produces a generation with crippled thinking abilities. A profound transition is already underway, one that, like an asymptomatic disease, may erupt into a full-blown cognitive pandemic in the years ahead. Generative AI systems like ChatGPT promise instant answers, elegant prose, and streamlined tasks. But we now stand on the precipice of bidding adieu to creativity. Beneath the sheen of this alluring technology lies a deeper question: Are we keeping our thinking abilities on the shelf, and completely forgetting how to think? A striking study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) has surfaced some troubling trends. And no, it's not good news for the next generation. Inside the MIT study: The brain on ChatGPT Computer scientist Nataliya Kosmyna and her team at MIT's Media Lab set out to investigate whether heavy reliance on AI tools like ChatGPT alters the way our brains function. The experiment involved 60 college students aged 18 to 39, who were assigned to write short essays using one of three methods: ChatGPT, Google Search, or no external tools at all. Equipped with EEG headsets to monitor their neural activity, participants crafted essays in response to prompts like 'Should we always think before we speak?' The results? Students who wrote without any assistance demonstrated the highest levels of cognitive engagement, showing strong neural connectivity across brain regions responsible for memory, reasoning, and decision-making. They thought harder and more deeply. By contrast, ChatGPT users showed the lowest neural activity. Their thinking was fragmented, their recall impaired, and their essays often lacked originality. Many participants could not even remember what they had written, clear evidence that the information had not been internalised. AI hadn't just helped them write. It had done the writing for them. Their brains had taken a backseat. The risk of outsourcing thought The cognitive offloading, as the researchers have named it, is not about the convenience, it is about the control. The more we allow machines to handle the hard segments of thinking, the less frequently we are exercising our brain muscles for critical thinking, creativity, and memory formation. Over time, these muscles can weaken. When participants who initially used ChatGPT were later asked to write without it, their brain activity increased, but it never met the levels of those who had worked independently from the start. It provided a clear inference that the potential for deep thinking is on the verge of erosion. Tools reflect intent, not intelligence It is usually the invention that is treated as a scapegoat, but more than that, it depends on the way we use it. The problem is not the tool, but how we decide to put it to use. As one teacher once said, 'Every tool carries with it a story, not of what it is, but how it is used.' AI, like a pair of scissors, is brilliant in design, but only when built with everyone in mind. For decades, scissors excluded left-handed children, not because the tool was faulty, but because its design lacked inclusivity. AI shares no different story. There are two roads: it can either democratise education or further deepen inequality. It can hone creativity or dull it. Our actions will decide which road we are pushing our next generation to traverse. According to the World Bank, students from disadvantaged backgrounds are 50% less likely to access AI-powered learning tools compared to their peers (World Bank, 2024). And as UNESCO's 2024 Global Education Monitoring Report reveals, nearly 40% of teachers worldwide fear being replaced by machines. But those outcomes are not the fault of AI. They're the result of how we've chosen to implement it. Used well, AI can elevate learning When utilised cautiously, AI can still elevate the quality of education. A study by Mc Kinsey Global Institute has shown that personalised learning with the help of AI tools can bolster a student's performance by 30%. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD 2022) study shared similar findings, adding weight to the stance by stating that it can mitigate teacher workloads, critical, given that educators spend 50% of their time on administrative duties. In rural India, digital initiatives like National Digital Education Architecture (NDEAR) aim to use AI to reach over 250 million school-age children who lack access to quality teachers. However, even in a world driven and dominated by artificial intelligence, the human element in learning cannot be substituted. The struggle for reflection, the delight of discovery dwell at the heart of human learning. As it is said, we must begin with the end in mind. Are we cultivating a cohort of students to complete the tasks, or ones who can think beyond limits and add meaning? 'AI is already born. We must learn to co-exist.' In a conversation with The Times of India, Siddharth Rajgarhia, Chief Learner and Director of DPS, said it emphatically: 'AI is already born; we cannot keep it back in the womb. It is important to learn to co-exist with the guest and keep our human element alive.' That co-existence begins by redefining the role of AI, not as a shortcut, but as a companion in the learning journey. Here's how educators and students can stay intellectually alive in the age of automation: Think before you prompt : Encourage students to brainstorm ideas independently before turning to AI. Reclaim authorship : Every AI-assisted draft should be critically revised and fully owned by the student. Foster metacognition : Teach learners to reflect on how they think, not just what they produce. Center equity in design : Ensure tools are accessible to all learners, not just the digitally privileged few. Use AI to deepen, not replace, curiosity : Let it challenge assumptions, not hand out ready answers. Final thought: Let AI assist, but let humans lead The brain was never meant to idle. It was designed to wrestle with complexity, to stumble and reframe, to wonder and imagine. When we surrender that process to machines—when we allow AI to become the default setting for thought—we risk losing more than creativity. We risk losing cognitive ownership. The human brain was never made to sit idle. It is designed to grapple with complexity, to stumble and reframe, to wonder and imagine. When we hand over that task to machines, we allow AI to become the default setting for thought; we are losing more than creativity. We are keeping at stake our cognitive ownership, our voices, and our opinions. When we forget to think, we let go of the very power of being human. AI is not the negative protagonist or a bane here. We need to understand that it amplifies our intentions, good or bad, lazy or inspired. The future of learning and the workplace does not depend on the fastest prompt or smartest algorithm. It stands on the shoulders of the brightest minds who have kept their curiosity intact and who resist easy answers. At the core of learning lie educators who remind us that the goal of education is not just knowledge, it is wisdom. We so wish that prompts could generate wisdom and a human element. Alas, they cannot. It needs to be developed by the vanguards of imagination. Is your child ready for the careers of tomorrow? Enroll now and take advantage of our early bird offer! Spaces are limited.
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Science
- Yahoo
ChatGPT could affect your critical thinking skills, study finds
MIT researchersconducted a study analyzing the impact using ChatGPT in writing tasks can have on brain activity. The study is part ofMIT's Media Lab project called"Your Brain on ChatGPT," which is designed to assess the cognitive effect of relying on large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT when authoring essays. Dig deeper Approximately 54 people between the ages of 18 and 39 participated in the study. The individuals were divided into three groups to compose several essays. RELATED: ChatGPT may be smart enough to graduate law school One group was allowed to use ChatGPT; the second, Google search; and the third, no AI tools at all. An electroencephalography (EEG) headset was used by the participants while writing to measure the participants' brain activity across 32 regions of the brain. Each patient drafted essays in three sessions and in a fourth session, some participants were reassigned. The individuals who used ChatGPT transitioned to writing unaided (called "LLM-to-Brain") while some who started the brain-only exercise used the LLM ("Brain-to-LLM") RELATED: ChatGPT outperformed doctors in diagnostic accuracy, study reveals The participants' essays were scored by both human teachers and an AI judge, and at the conclusion of the assignment, each person was interviewed following the sessions with researchers asking them about how much they felt they owned their writing. Researchers determined that of the three groups in the study, the ChatGPT users experienced the lowest brain engagement. The team concluded that their study has limitations that they document in their report and website and that more research is needed to better understand the use of ChatGPT in various parts of daily life. The Source Information for this story was provided by an MIT study, which is part of the MIT Media project "Your Brain on ChatGPT." This story was reported from Washington, D.C.
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Science
- Yahoo
Is Using ChatGPT to Write Your Essay Bad for Your Brain?
TIME reporter Andrew Chow discussed the findings of a new study about how ChatGPT affects critical thinking with Nataliya Kosymyna. Kosymyna was part of a team of researchers at MIT's Media Lab who set out to determine whether ChatGPT and large language models (LLMs) are eroding critical thinking, and the study returned some concerning results. The study divided 54 subjects into three groups, and asked them to write several essays using OpenAI's ChatGPT, Google's search engine, and nothing at all, respectively. Researchers used an EEG to record the writers' brain activity. What they found was that of the three groups, the ChatGPT users had the lowest brain engagement and consistently underperformed at neural, linguistic and behavioral levels. Over the course of several months, the ChatGPT users got lazier with each subsequent essay, often resorting to copy and paste. Contact us at letters@
Time Magazine
5 days ago
- Science
- Time Magazine
Is Using ChatGPT to Write Your Essay Bad for Your Brain?
TIME reporter Andrew Chow discussed the findings of a new study about how ChatGPT affects critical thinking with Nataliya Kosymyna. Kosymyna was part of a team of researchers at MIT's Media Lab who set out to determine whether ChatGPT and large language models (LLMs) are eroding critical thinking, and the study returned some concerning results. The study divided 54 subjects into three groups, and asked them to write several essays using OpenAI's ChatGPT, Google's search engine, and nothing at all, respectively. Researchers used an EEG to record the writers' brain activity. What they found was that of the three groups, the ChatGPT users had the lowest brain engagement and consistently underperformed at neural, linguistic and behavioral levels. Over the course of several months, the ChatGPT users got lazier with each subsequent essay, often resorting to copy and paste.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
5 days ago
- Business Standard
Thinking capped: How generative AI may be quietly dulling our brains
It has been barely three years since generative artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots such as ChatGPT appeared on the scene, and there is already concern over how they might be affecting the human brain. The early prognosis isn't good. The findings of a recent study by researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Media Lab, Wellesley College, and MassArt indicate that tools such as ChatGPT negatively impact the neural, linguistic, and cognitive capabilities of humans. While this study is preliminary and limited in scope, involving barely 54 subjects aged 18 to 34, it found that those who used ChatGPT for writing essays (as part of the research experiment) showed measurably lower brain activity than their peers who didn't. 'Writing without (AI) assistance increased brain network interactions across multiple frequency bands, engaging higher cognitive load, stronger executive control, and deeper creative processing,' it found. Various experts in India, too, reiterate the concerns of overdependence on AI, to the extent where people outsource even thinking to AI. Those dealing with the human brain define this as 'cognitive offloading' which, they caution, can diminish critical thinking and reasoning capability while also building a sense of social isolation – in effect, dragging humans into an 'idiot trap'. Training the brain to be lazy 'We now rely on AI for tasks we used to do ourselves — writing essays, solving problems, even generating ideas,' says Nitin Anand additional professor of clinical psychology, National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences (Nimhans), Bengaluru. 'That means less practice in critical thinking, memory recall, and creative reasoning.' This dependence, he adds, is also weakening people's ability to delay gratification. 'AI tools are designed for speed. They answer instantly. But that trains people to expect quick solutions everywhere, reducing patience and long-term focus.' Anand warns that this behavioural shift is feeding into a pattern of digital addiction, which he classifies as the 4Cs: craving, compulsion, loss of control, and consequences (see box). 'When someone cannot stop checking their phone, feels restless without it, and suffers in real life because of it — that's addiction,' he says, adding that the threat of addiction towards technology has increased multifold by something as adaptive and customisable as AI. Children and adolescents are particularly at risk, says Pankaj Kumar Verma, consultant psychiatrist and director of Rejuvenate Mind Neuropsychiatry Clinic, New Delhi. 'Their prefrontal cortex — the brain's centre for planning, attention, and impulse control — is still developing,' he explains. 'Constant exposure to fast-changing AI content overstimulates neural circuits, leading to short attention spans, poor impulse control, and difficulty with sustained focus.' The effects don't stop at attention 'We're seeing a decline in memory retention and critical thinking, simply because people don't engage deeply with information anymore,' Verma adds. Even basic tasks like asking for directions or speaking to others are being replaced by AI, increasing social isolation, he says. Much of this harks back to the time when landlines came to be replaced by smartphones. Landline users rarely needed a phonebook — numbers of friends, family, and favourite shops were memorised by heart. But with mobile phones offering a convenient 'contacts' list, memory was outsourced. Today, most people can barely remember three-odd numbers unaided. With AI, such cognitive shifts will likely become more pronounced, the experts say. What looks like convenience today might well be shaping a future where essential human skills quietly fade away. Using AI without losing ourselves Experts agree that the solution is not to reject AI, but to regulate its use with conscious boundaries and real-world grounding. Verma advocates for structured rules around technology use, especially in homes with children and adolescents. 'Children, with underdeveloped self-regulation, need guidance,' he says. 'We must set clear boundaries and model balanced behaviour. Without regulation, we risk overstimulating developing brains.' To prevent digital dependence, Anand recommends simple, yet effective, routines that can be extended to AI use. The 'phone basket ritual', for instance, involves setting aside all devices in a common space at a fixed hour each day — usually in the evening — to create a screen-free window for family time or rest. He also suggests 'digital fasting': unplugging from all screens for six to eight hours once a week to reset attention and reduce compulsive use. 'These habits help reclaim control from devices and re-train the brain to function independently,' he says. Perhaps, digital fasting can be extended to 'AI fasting' during work and school assignments to allow the brain to engage in cognitive activities. Pratishtha Arora, chief executive officer of Social and Media Matters, a digital rights organisation, highlights the essential role of parental responsibility in shaping children's digital lives. 'Technology is inevitable, but how we introduce it matters,' she says. 'The foundation of a child's brain is laid early. If we outsource that to screens, the damage can be long-term.' She also emphasises the need to recognise children's innate skills and interests rather than plunging them into technology at an early age. Shivani Mishra, AI researcher at the Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, cautions against viewing AI as a replacement for human intelligence. 'AI can assist, but it cannot replace human creativity or emotional depth,' she says. Like most experts, she too advises that AI should be used to reduce repetitive workload, 'and free up space for thinking, not to avoid thinking altogether'. The human cost According to Mishra, the danger lies not in what AI can do, but in how much we delegate to it, often without reflection. Both Anand and Verma share concerns about how its unregulated use could stunt core human faculties. Anand reiterates that unchecked dependence could erode the brain's capacity to delay gratification, solve problems, and tolerate discomfort. 'We're at risk of creating a generation of young people who are highly stimulated but poorly equipped to deal with the complexities of real life,' Verma says. The way forward, the experts agree, lies in responsible development, creating AI systems grounded in ethics, transparency, and human values. Research in AI ethics must be prioritised not just for safety, but also to preserve what makes us human in the first place, they advise. The question is not whether AI will shape the future; it is already doing so. It is whether humans will remain conscious architects of that future or passive participants in it. Writing without AI assistance leads to higher cognitive load engagement, stronger executive control, and deeper creative processing Writing with AI assistance reduces overall neural connectivity and shifts the dynamics of information flow Large language model (LLM) users noted a diminishing inclination to evaluate the output critically Participants who were in the brain-only group reported higher satisfaction and demonstrated higher brain connectivity, compared to other groups Essays written with the help of LLM carried less significance or value to the participants as they spent less time on writing and mostly failed to provide a quote from their essays
