Lance D Johnson – Natural News June 25, 2025
In an era where artificial intelligence promises to revolutionize education, a groundbreaking MIT study delivers a sobering reality check: reliance on AI tools like ChatGPT may be crippling the next generation’s ability to think independently. As schools rush to integrate large language models (LLMs) into classrooms, researchers warn that these systems are not just assisting students—they’re replacing the very cognitive processes essential for deep learning, problem-solving, and intellectual growth. The study, conducted by MIT’s Media Lab, reveals that students using ChatGPT for essay writing exhibited alarmingly low brain activity, weak memory retention, and diminished ownership of their work compared to those who relied on traditional research or their own knowledge.
Key points:
- MIT researchers found ChatGPT users showed the lowest neural engagement and produced the weakest essays in quality, coherence, and originality.
- Brain scans (EEG) confirmed widespread cognitive disengagement—AI users copied and pasted text with minimal critical analysis.
- Google searchers performed moderately, while the “brain-only” group demonstrated the highest cognitive activation and retention.
- Lead researcher Nataliya Kosmyna warns policymakers against “GPT kindergarten”, fearing irreversible damage to developing minds.
- AI’s convenience comes at a cost: passive consumption replaces active learning, eroding problem-solving skills and intellectual autonomy.
The cognitive cost of AI dependency
The study divided participants into three groups: one using ChatGPT, another using Google, and a third relying solely on their own knowledge to write SAT-style essays. EEG monitoring revealed stark differences in brain activity. ChatGPT users displayed scattered, shallow neural patterns, suggesting their minds were on autopilot—processing information superficially without deep synthesis. In contrast, the brain-only group showed intense, coordinated activation across regions tied to critical thinking, memory, and creativity.
“What really motivated me to put it out now before waiting for a full peer review is that I am afraid in 6-8 months, there will be some policymaker who decides, ‘let’s do GPT kindergarten,’” Kosmyna told TIME. “I think that would be absolutely bad and detrimental. Developing brains are at the highest risk.”
The findings align with growing concerns about “cognitive offloading”—the tendency to outsource mental labor to machines. Unlike traditional search engines, which require users to evaluate sources and synthesize information, ChatGPT delivers pre-packaged answers, discouraging independent analysis. Researchers noted that AI users struggled to recall their own essays days later, while brain-only participants retained detailed knowledge.
Education’s dangerous AI experiment
The MIT study exposes a troubling paradox: while AI promises to democratize learning, it may also stunt intellectual development. Younger users, whose brains are still forming critical neural pathways, are most vulnerable. The study’s X post reaction summarized the threat succinctly: AI isn’t boosting productivity—it’s fostering “cognitive bankruptcy.”
Historical context amplifies these concerns. Decades ago, educational psychologist Lev Vygotsky emphasized that struggle is essential for growth—forcing the mind to bridge gaps in understanding builds resilience and deeper comprehension. Modern pedagogy, however, increasingly prioritizes speed and convenience over cognitive rigor. The rise of LLMs risks accelerating this decline, creating a generation fluent in regurgitating AI outputs but incapable of original thought.
The path forward: Balancing tech with cognitive sovereignty
Not all technology undermines learning. The study’s Google group—while outperformed by brain-only peers—still engaged in active information retrieval and evaluation, exercising decision-making skills. The key difference? Search engines demand interaction; AI tools encourage passivity.
To mitigate harm, experts urge:
- Delaying AI integration in early education until brains mature.
- Structuring assignments to require analysis, not just output generation.
- Promoting “brain-first” learning—forcing students to grapple with ideas before seeking AI help.
- Developing learning methods that inspire students to seek information that is useful and to question official narratives.
- Using AI, not in a passive capacity, but in a way that encourages critical thinking and mastering one’s own learning experience.
- Utilizing AI to assist in mundane capacities that free up the mind to pursue more creative or stimulating learning endeavors that matter.
As AI reshapes education, society must choose: Will we raise thinkers—or just efficient mimics of machine logic? If students are provided AI tools and taught what to think, without question or reason, then kids will grow up looking to be spoon fed narratives and generalized information. If students are provided AI tools but are taught how to think, how to question, and how to master their learning experience, then kids will be better suited to navigate the propaganda and mindlessness that AI engines could impart.
Sources include:
It’s official, reading AI and bot comments on here, will reduce your IQ.
We all use tech to some degree, but you need to keep it to a minimum. It’s the same with all the fake news, fake alternative media. A critical skill is sifting out the crap, and then being very critical of what’s left.
I can’t imagine what people think “AI” is used for in “schools”. It’s like a calculator on steroids, and what happens if you ask anyone who was “educated” in the last 40 years to subtract 37 from 84? They’ll giggle and say they “never were any good at sums”.
“AI” is a set of computer programs designed to make you believe whatever the programmers have been paid to make you believe. It can’t “create” or “think” or “take over the world”. All it can do is, like all computers, process its inputs to produce its output. Its inputs in schools will be “if you’re white, you’re shit”, “sex with children is god’s way”, “there is no god but allah” and “you need to work all your life in a sweatshop”. Of course it will “degrade the ability to think”. What else would it do? The “children”, whilst waiting to screwed up the arse by the “teachers” and the local “politicians”, will type in “who blew up the twin towers on 9/11” and it’ll search its attached databases to spew out “terrorists blew up the twin towers on 9/11”, and so little johnny will spend his life saying “terrorists blew up the twin towers on 9/11” and “look, it’s easy to prove it by ‘asking’ the ‘AI'”.
If “AI” is a calculator on steroids, imagine what a “child” “educated” by “AI” will reply if you ask them to subtract the “bad guys” from “society”.
I’ve used ChatGPT quite a bit recently. There is the “thinking part” of it and the information it depends upon. This latter is usually Wikipedia, YouTube, and the mainstream media generally. I have, however, found that caveating my enquiries quite useful. I might for example say something like “On the basis that Israel contributed to 9/11 then what about “a”, “b”, and “c”.
Properly interrogated one can learn more from ChatGPT in a few hours than a month’s worth of reading. To give one example, I learnt a lot about the middle class / upper class division of English society of the nineteenth century that changed the nuance of “gentlemen” from rich man of leisure to moralistic middleclass man of virtue. I explored the literary and etymological origins of “gentleman” that derives from” gentry” and the notion of land ownership. This journey took me a shorter period than would have done by compiling notes from books over a month.
Former world chess champion Anatoly Karpov said in relation to chess computers now being better than humans, the invention of the motor car never stopped people from running or cycling. One needs to be careful with the likes of ChatGPT, but who here remembers in the early days of the internet the “warnings” of dysfunction of those spending “too long” on the internet.
Indeed, if a perusal of the comments from the various personalities here demonstrates anything, it is that access to a different sources of information has not allowed them to improve the quality of their thinking. Information without intelligent consideration or analysis is meaningless. ChatGPT for its part is an idiot savant that constantly needs to be overseen. It can produce some incredible mistakes and be very naïve. I asked it what superpower would be best for robbing a bank, but it wagged its finger at me and said superpowers shouldn’t be used for that sort of thing.
The problem I see occurring maybe that the thinking ChatGPT performs based on what I describe as my “caveated inquiries” may be programmed out in the future in order to steer the inquirer to mainstream held doctrines.
I asked it this:
“Since public education relies on public spending and private investment, based on the assumption that public spending is directed towards projects that favour the friends and relations of governments, and private investment naturally seeks out its own profit, could I conclude that academia exists to secure the profits as well the perception of how wealth should be distributed in their favour?”
It gave what I thought was a woke response, so I pushed it further:
“Do that analysis without any equivocation. Base it on my starting assumptions being true even if they may not be. Give an answer in two paragraphs.”
It replied:
“In the scenario where public spending is directed towards projects that favor the friends and relations of governments, and private investment seeks out its own profit, academia may indeed serve to secure the profits and influence the perception of how wealth should be distributed in favor of those with vested interests. Public spending, influenced by political connections, could prioritize projects that benefit specific individuals or groups, potentially leading to the allocation of resources in ways that reinforce existing power structures and inequalities. Meanwhile, private investment driven by profit motives may result in the funding of educational initiatives that serve the interests of corporate entities or wealthy individuals, shaping the priorities and direction of academic research and programming.
In this context, academia may function not only as a site of knowledge production and dissemination but also as a mechanism for perpetuating and legitimizing existing systems of wealth distribution and power. Research agendas, educational programs, and institutional practices may reflect the preferences and priorities of those with influence and resources, potentially reinforcing societal divisions and disparities. Despite academia’s stated mission of pursuing truth and advancing knowledge for the public good, its alignment with the interests of political and economic elites could compromise its ability to serve as an impartial agent of social change and equity.”
***
One does of course wonder why there should be something “free” to use. And maybe is about continuing to build up a profile of the user’s interests in order to tailor good and services to the user. But by merely using the internet – let alone ChatGPT – the same thing could be said.
LOL
It’s unlikely the common imbecile has ever thought independently..if you look back to the past at any given point independent thought was never cultivated..
Back then of course, one had to simply do as God commanded ..which generally meant whatever empowered the clergy and nobility…
Media tek being the same sort of religious doggerel to empower ugly nerds..but repurposed for hyper sexualised and hyper normalised nihilists is more of the same, but instead of wondering at how many angels can fit on a pin head or whether masturbation will end up with you burning in Hell ( in reality a Norse Goddess) for eternity…the modern imbecile wonders at celebrity surgeries and nasty graphics with six fingers… and masturbates frantically.. whenever it can…
Now seriously, who else would ‘think’ that an AI model made for mass consumption could be anything other than a propaganda tool to keep the sheep fenced in and happy with their environs ? Duh!!!
Whats the old saying for muscle workouts, use it or lose it……indeed. I’ve witnessed this process for the past 50 years of my professional career, people have gotten dumber and dumber and more reliant on their brainwashing.
In an era where artificial intelligence promises to revolutionize education, a groundbreaking MIT study delivers a sobering reality check: reliance on AI tools like ChatGPT could decimate the national army of classroom supervisors, called teachers.they will be begging for a bowl of rice.
As @Chesterton observes, the masses never did think for themselves. ‘Raising the people’ is a pipedream. ‘Der tag’ will never come. What it really is, is a struggle between elites for control of the moronic multitude.
If you are possessed by God, other people will not be determining your thoughts
there is no difference to old school learning .
old school did not train critical thinking since
they always needed dump indoctrinated sheeple
as functioning workers + soldiers for the state .
russian word for work = robot says it all .
rabbi sneerson seems right to see the slaves as such .
Since when did the plebs engage in critical thinking. That weapon has been missing from their arsenal for a long time.
“cognitive bankruptcy” comes in handy
when denying moral bankruptcy.
This process of dumbing down was already well underway before “ai” arrived.
The internet itself primed society to embrace their own dumbness, 25 years ago.
This is simply the evolution of your stupidity.