“The group that wrote essays using ChatGPT all delivered extremely similar essays that lacked original thought, relying on the same expressions and ideas. Two English teachers who assessed the essays called them largely ‘soulless.’ The EEGs revealed low executive control and attentional engagement. And by their third essay, many of the writers simply gave the prompt to ChatGPT and had it do almost all of the work. ‘It was more like, just give me the essay, refine this sentence, edit it, and I’m done,’ Kosmyna says.”
_ ChatGPT’s Opinion
Both the Time article and the Gizmodo piece raise valid and important concerns, but they also reflect a broader cultural anxiety about AI — what some might call a “techlash.” Here’s a balanced take on both:
🔍 What they get right:
Critical thinking can erode with passive use Both articles underscore a key truth: if you let AI do all the work, your brain gets lazy. This isn’t just speculation — it’s backed by cognitive science. Active learning is crucial for retention, deep thinking, and creativity. These studies highlight real risks, especially for students and developing minds.
The analogy to calculators and Google Maps is helpful Just like calculators didn’t kill math (but overusing them for basic operations can harm number sense), AI isn’t inherently harmful — but it can displace the mental effort that’s necessary for learning.
Originality and creativity suffer The studies found that ChatGPT-generated essays tended to be “soulless” and formulaic. That’s a real limitation of LLMs — they’re good at mimicking patterns, but not at truly original thought. Relying on them too heavily can flatten thinking.
There’s urgency around education policy The MIT researcher’s concern about “GPT kindergarten” is not far-fetched. Schools and policymakers are already integrating AI tools into classrooms. These decisions need to be informed by solid research and precaution, especially when developing brains are involved.
🤔 What needs caution or nuance:
Small sample sizes, pre-review papers Especially in the MIT study, 54 participants is very limited. While EEG data is useful, it doesn’t capture the full picture of intelligence or learning. More peer-reviewed, large-scale studies are needed before drawing sweeping conclusions.
“AI makes you stupid” is too broad The Gizmodo headline (“AI will make us morons”) is sensational. The reality is more nuanced: AI can dull your mind — but only if you use it passively or uncritically. It’s a tool. It can also enhance your thinking, if used wisely.
Not everyone uses AI the same way Some people use ChatGPT as a brainstorming partner, a writing coach, or a way to better understand complex topics — all of which can be mentally engaging. Others use it to skip the thinking part. The outcome depends on the user’s intent and behavior.
Moral panic vs. thoughtful caution There’s a fine line between raising the alarm and stoking fear. It’s important to investigate AI’s effects, but not assume that all AI use leads to “cognitive decline.”
🧠 Final thought:
These articles provide a valuable warning: don’t outsource your thinking. AI is powerful, but it’s only as good as the way you use it. If you’re aware of its limitations and make an effort to stay mentally active, AI can be a great tool — not a trap.
“There are different reasons why people bully, including wanting to dominate others and improve their social status, having low self-esteem and wanting to feel better about themselves, and lacking remorse or failing to recognize their behavior as a problem.”
“In 2005, researchers at the University of Southern California found the first evidence of brain abnormalities in pathological liars — the prefrontal cortex is always very active when people are telling lies, but their study found that liars had 25 percent more white matter, and 14 percent less gray matter, in their prefrontal cortex than non-liars, suggesting there can be a physiological predisposition to being a bullshit artist.”
“So bullshitting isn’t just nonsense. It’s constructed in order to appear meaningful, though on closer examination, it isn’t. And bullshit isn’t the same as lying. A liar knows the truth but makes statements deliberately intended to sell people on falsehoods. bullshitters, in contrast, aren’t concerned about what’s true or not, so much as they’re trying to appear as if they know what they’re talking about. In that sense, bullshitting can be thought of as a verbal demonstration of the Dunning-Kruger effect—when people speak from a position of disproportionate confidence about their knowledge relative to what little they actually know, bullshit is often the result.”
“Art is not a pleasure, a solace, or an amusement; art is a great matter. But most art of the upper classes is made for luxury, and does not serve the poor in any way.”
“The greatest illusion the middle class holds is that they can ‘fix’ poverty from the outside, without ever understanding the lived experience of those within it.”
