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, Gautam Rajgarhia, Pro Vice Chairman ,Delhi Public School Nashik, Lava Nagpur, Hinjawadi Pune, Varanasi, 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:
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.
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, Gautam Rajgarhia, Pro Vice Chairman ,Delhi Public School Nashik, Lava Nagpur, Hinjawadi Pune, Varanasi, 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.
You may also like
'Time to scale up': Over 14 million people could die due to slashing of US aid cuts, study reveals
Eamonn Holmes unveils pricey new project as he faces off against Ruth in divorce
97 Covid deaths: Delhi CM slams previous AAP govt for under-reporting pandemic fatalities
1st Test: Corbin Bosch's All-round Contribution Propels SA To Biggest Test Win Over Zimbabwe
'I was a royal gardener - here's how to look after your garden during a heatwave
