Death of critical thinking: How GenAI could inhibit human brain development

The reliance on generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools poses a risk to the quality of human thought, with researchers warning that it could result in the deterioration of human cognitive faculties.

In a new study published by American tech giant Microsoft, the researchers argue that while GenAI tools such as Copilot and ChatGPT could be instrumental in boosting workplace productivity, becoming overly reliant on these tools could potentially impair users’ long-term skill development through bypassing of critical thinking processes.

The report further brings to the fore the possible effects on GenAI on human memory, asserting that outsourcing work to machines could harm the human ability to learn and remember, giving rise to what is often referred to as “digital amnesia”.

“Quantitatively, when considering both task- and user-specific factors, a user’s task-specific self-confidence and confidence in GenAI are predictive of whether critical thinking is enacted and the effort of doing so in GenAI-assisted tasks,” reads the report.

“Specifically, higher confidence in GenAI is associated with less critical thinking, while higher self-confidence is associated with more critical thinking.”

In qualitative terms, the researchers note that GenAI shifts the nature of critical thinking towards information verification, response integration and task stewardship.

Read: GenAI: Leveraging tech for business transformation

According to the study, knowledge workers engage in critical thinking when using GenAI tools primarily to ensure the quality of their work, and they define critical thinking as setting clear goals, refining prompts and assessing AI-generated content to meet specific criteria and standards.

Their reflective approach, the report says, involves verifying outputs against external sources and their own expertise, especially in tasks that require higher accuracy.

Several barriers however, the report adds, inhibit this reflective process, including lack of awareness, limited motivation due to time pressure or job scope, as well as difficulty in improving AI responses in unfamiliar domains.

“Surprisingly, while AI can improve efficiency, it may also reduce critical engagement, particularly in routine or lower-stakes tasks in which users simply rely on AI, raising concerns about long-term reliance and diminished independent problem-solving,” states the survey.

“GenAI tools appear to reduce the perceived effort required for critical thinking tasks among knowledge workers, especially when they have higher confidence in AI capabilities…Data shows a shift in cognitive effort as knowledge workers increasingly move from task execution to oversight when using GenAI.”

Overreliance manifest in the form of users accepting incorrect recommendations and thus making errors of commission, and this has been closely linked to the repression of critical thinking.

Respondents submitted that cognitive forcing functions such as requiring the user to wait before receiving AI output, or making interactive updates to AI output, could significantly reduce overreliance as opposed to offering simpler AI explanations.

“A lack of critical thinking may also manifest through accepting a solution that merely meets a baseline aspirational threshold - in such cases, the AI solution is correct (albeit potentially of poor quality) and therefore not overreliance, strictly speaking,” wrote Microsoft.

With regard to writing, the report’s recommended mitigation for overreliance is for users to adopt GenAI for individualised, content-focused feedback which it says could help novice writers develop writing skills while improving productivity.

“Although human feedback has traditionally been necessary for effective self-improvement, the integration of AI into tools like Microsoft Word could democratise access to writing skill development by providing consistent, low-cost feedback.”

Microsoft says the survey involved assessment of 319 knowledge workers using GenAI tools at least once per week, who shared 936 first-hand examples of using the technology tools in work tasks.

In the survey, participants were asked to share three real examples of their GenAI tool use at work and to increase the variety of examples collected, participants were asked to split the examples to each task type, including creation, information and advice.

“We recruited participants through the Prolific platform who self-reported using GenAI tools at work at least once per week. This criterion ensured the study focused on knowledge workers with direct, ongoing experience integrating GenAI tools into their day-to-day work tasks,” said Microsoft.

→ [email protected]