Latest news with #MediaLab
The Hill
11 hours ago
- Science
- The Hill
ChatGPT use linked to cognitive decline: MIT research
ChatGPT can harm an individual's critical thinking over time, a new study suggests. Researchers at MIT's Media Lab asked subjects to write several SAT essays and separated subjects into three groups — using OpenAI's ChatGPT, using Google's search engine and using nothing, which they called the 'brain‑only' group. Each subject's brain was monitored through electroencephalography (EEG), which measured the writer's brain activity through multiple regions in the brain. They discovered that subjects who used ChatGPT over a few months had the lowest brain engagement and 'consistently underperformed at neural, linguistic, and behavioral levels,' according to the study. The study found that the ChatGPT group initially used the large language model, or LLM, to ask structural questions for their essay, but near the end of the study, they were more likely to copy and paste their essay. Those who used Google's search engine were found to have moderate brain engagement, but the 'brain-only' group showed the 'strongest, wide-ranging networks.' The findings suggest that using LLMs can harm a user's cognitive function over time, especially in younger users. It comes as educators continue to navigate teaching when AI is increasingly accessible for cheating. '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.' I think that would be absolutely bad and detrimental,' the study's main author Nataliya Kosmyna told TIME. 'Developing brains are at the highest risk.' However, using AI in education doesn't appear to be slowing down. In April, President Trump signed an executive order that aims to incorporate AI into U.S. classrooms. 'The basic idea of this executive order is to ensure that we properly train the workforce of the future by ensuring that school children, young Americans, are adequately trained in AI tools, so that they can be competitive in the economy years from now into the future, as AI becomes a bigger and bigger deal,' Will Scharf, White House staff secretary, said at the time.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
a day ago
- Science
- Business Standard
Essay aid or cognitive crutch? MIT study tests the cost of writing with AI
While LLMs reduce cognitive load, a new study warns they may also hinder critical thinking and memory retention - raising concerns about their growing role in learning and cognitive development Rahul Goreja New Delhi A new study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Media Lab has raised concerns about how artificial intelligence tools like ChatGPT may impact students' cognitive engagement and learning when used to write essays. The research, led by Nataliya Kosmyna and a team from MIT and Wellesley College, examines how reliance on large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT compares to traditional methods like web searches or writing without any digital assistance. Using a combination of electroencephalogram (EEG) recordings, interviews, and text analysis, the study revealed distinct differences in neural activity, essay quality, and perceived ownership depending on the method used. Note: EEG is a test that measures electrical activity in the brain. Setup for cognitive engagement study 54 participants from five Boston-area universities were split into three groups: those using only ChatGPT (LLM group), those using only search engines (search group), and those writing without any tools (brain-only group). Each participant completed three writing sessions. A subset also participated in a fourth session where roles were reversed: LLM users wrote without assistance, and brain-only participants used ChatGPT. All participants wore EEG headsets to monitor brain activity during writing. Researchers also interviewed participants' post-session and assessed essays using both human markers and an AI judge. Findings on neural engagement Electroencephalogram (EEG) analysis showed that participants relying solely on their own cognitive abilities exhibited the highest levels of neural connectivity across alpha, beta, theta, and delta bands — indicating deeper cognitive engagement. In contrast, LLM users showed the weakest connectivity. The search group fell in the middle. 'The brain connectivity systematically scaled down with the amount of external support,' the authors wrote. Notably, LLM-to-Brain participants in the fourth session continued to show under-engagement, suggesting a lingering cognitive effect from prior LLM use. Essay structure, memory, and ownership When asked to quote from their essays shortly after writing, 83.3 per cent of LLM users failed to do so. In comparison, only 11.1 per cent of participants in the other two groups struggled with this task. One participant noted that they 'did not believe the essay prompt provided required AI assistance at all,' while another described ChatGPT's output as 'robotic.' Essay ownership also varied. Most brain-only participants reported full ownership, while the LLM group responses ranged widely from full ownership to explicit denial to many taking partial credit. Despite this, essay satisfaction remained relatively high across all groups, with the search group being unanimously satisfied. Interestingly, LLM users were often satisfied with the output, even when they acknowledged limited involvement in the content's creation. Brain power trumps AI aid While AI tools may improve efficiency, the study cautions against their unnecessary adoption in learning contexts. 'The use of LLM had a measurable impact on participants, and while the benefits were initially apparent, as we demonstrated over the course of four months, the LLM group's participants performed worse than their counterparts in the Brain-only group at all levels: neural, linguistic, scoring,' the authors wrote. This pattern was especially evident in session four, where brain-to-LLM participants showed stronger memory recall and more directed neural connectivity than those who moved in the opposite direction. Less effort, lower retention The study warns that although LLMs reduce cognitive load, they may diminish critical thinking and reduce long-term retention. 'The reported ownership of LLM group's essays in the interviews was low,' the authors noted. 'The LLM undeniably reduced the friction involved in answering participants' questions compared to the search engine. However, this convenience came at a cognitive cost, diminishing users' inclination to critically evaluate the LLM's output or 'opinions' (probabilistic answers based on the training datasets),' it concluded.
India Today
a day ago
- Science
- India Today
Is ChatGPT making us dumb? MIT study says students are using their brains less
ChatGPT is making students dumb! Or rather, making them use their brains less. A new study by MIT's Media Lab around the impact on human cognition, particularly among students, found that using generative AI tools like ChatGPT for academic work and learning could actually lower people's critical thinking and cognitive engagement over this study researchers observed 54 participants aged 18 to 39 from the Boston area, and divided them into three groups. Each group of students was then asked to write SAT-style essays using either OpenAI's ChatGPT, Google Search, or no digital assistance at all. During this process, researchers monitored brain activity among users through electroencephalography (EEG), scanning 32 different brain regions to evaluate cognitive engagement during the findings were concerning. The group of students using ChatGPT showed the lowest levels of brain activity. According to the study, these students 'consistently underperformed at neural, linguistic, and behavioural levels.' In fact, the study found that over the course of several essays, many ChatGPT users became increasingly passive, often resorting to just copying and pasting text from the AI chatbot's responses rather than refining or reflecting on the content in line with their own thoughts. Meanwhile, the students who worked without any digital tools showed the highest brain activity, particularly in regions associated with creativity, memory, and semantic processing. 'The task was executed, and you could say that it was efficient and convenient,' Nataliya Kosmyna, one of the authors of the research paper. 'But as we show in the paper, you basically didn't integrate any of it into your memory networks.'Long term impact suspectedadvertisementResearchers concluded that while AI can help students' quick productivity, it can also impact long-term learning and brain development. Meanwhile, the essay-writing group that used no tools reported higher levels of satisfaction and ownership over their work. In this group, the EEG readings also showed greater neural connectivity in the alpha, theta, and delta frequency bands, areas that are often linked to deep thinking and creative the group using Google Search showed relatively high levels of brain engagement, suggesting that traditional internet browsing still stimulates active thought processes. The difference further shows how AI users tend to rely entirely on chatbot responses for information instead of thinking critically or using search further understand and measure retention and comprehension, researchers also asked the students to rewrite one of their essays. And this time the tools were swapped. Students who earlier used ChatGPT were now asked to write without assistance, and the group which used their brain were asked to use AI. The results of this swapping further reinforced the earlier findings. The users who had relied on ChatGPT struggled to recall their original essays and showed weak cognitive re-engagement. Meanwhile, the group that had initially written without the online tools showed increased neural activity when using ChatGPT. This finding further confirms that AI tools can be helpful in learning, but only when used after humans complete the foundational thinking themselves.
Buzz Feed
a day ago
- Entertainment
- Buzz Feed
Kim Kardashian Roasted For ChatGPT Conversation
People are seriously side-eyeing Kim Kardashian after she shared a screenshot of her ChatGPT conversation to her Instagram story on Wednesday. For those who don't know, ChatGPT is an app where users can speak with a chatbot that is generated by AI. Therefore, the chatbot is nothing more than a robot, which uses artificial intelligence to learn how each individual user wants to communicate with it and adapts its style accordingly. And this is why so many were left baffled by Kim's screenshot, which revealed that she speaks to the chatbot as though it is a human. Unfortunately for us, Kim only posted what appears to be the end of her and ChatGPT's conversation, with the first message in the grab reading from Kim: 'Thanks for taking accountability. That's huge in my book.' 'I really appreciate you saying that,' the chatbot replied. 'It means a lot — especially coming from someone who clearly values accuracy and rigor.'I'll keep raising my game to meet your standards,' the bot went on. 'If there's ever any doubt or if you want a deeper dive on anything, I'm here for it.''Thanks dude,' Kim wrote back, to which ChatGPT said: 'Anytime — you got it, dude😎 Let's crush the next one.'Kim posted the grab without further comment, but did add the '🥹' emoji, suggesting that she was genuinely touched by this exchange. But the people of the internet failed to see the same sentiment, and the screengrab quickly went viral on X as people shared their confused reactions to the conversation. Addressing Kim's first message in the chat, one person wrote: '……. this is the dumbest thing I've ever fucking seen? how did a language software take accountability??''What does a robot have to take accountability for?' one more asked. 'what's with people and developing an emotional connection with chatgpt do they not realize that it's fucking weird,' somebody else tweeted, with another echoing: 'is she really this lonely?''was she arguing with a fucking robot?' somebody else inquired, while another popular response pointed out the extreme environmental damage all forms of AI causes, reading: 'The temperature of the Earth just rose 1 degree for this….' Another X user simply concluded: 'Having convos with ChatGPT or AI in general is so embarrassing.' Kim's post actually came just one day after Time reported on a recent study from researchers at MIT's Media Lab, which found that ChatGPT may be 'eroding critical thinking skills.' The study split 54 subjects aged between 18 and 39 into three groups and asked them to write several SAT essays with either ChatGPT, Google, or nothing at was then used to record the writers' brain activity, and they found that of the three groups, ChatGPT users had the lowest brain engagement and 'consistently underperformed at neural, linguistic, and behavioral levels.'The study was conducted over several months, and found that ChatGPT users got lazier with each essay, and many resorted to just copy and pasting by the end of the study. What do you make of Kim's ChatGPT conversation? Let me know in the comments below!
Time Magazine
3 days ago
- Science
- Time Magazine
ChatGPT May Be Eroding Critical Thinking Skills, According to a New MIT Study
Does ChatGPT harm critical thinking abilities? A new study from researchers at MIT's Media Lab has returned some concerning results. The study divided 54 subjects—18 to 39 year-olds from the Boston area—into three groups, and asked them to write several SAT essays using OpenAI's ChatGPT, Google's search engine, and nothing at all, respectively. Researchers used an EEG to record the writers' brain activity across 32 regions, and found that of the three groups, ChatGPT users had the lowest brain engagement and 'consistently underperformed at neural, linguistic, and behavioral levels.' Over the course of several months, ChatGPT users got lazier with each subsequent essay, often resorting to copy-and-paste by the end of the study. The paper suggests that the usage of LLMs could actually harm learning, especially for younger users. The paper has not yet been peer reviewed, and its sample size is relatively small. But its paper's main author Nataliya Kosmyna felt it was important to release the findings to elevate concerns that as society increasingly relies upon LLMs for immediate convenience, long-term brain development may be sacrificed in the process. '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.' I think that would be absolutely bad and detrimental,' she says. 'Developing brains are at the highest risk.' Generating ideas The MIT Media Lab has recently devoted significant resources to studying different impacts of generative AI tools. Studies from earlier this year, for example, found that generally, the more time users spend talking to ChatGPT, the lonelier they feel. Kosmyna, who has been a full-time research scientist at the MIT Media Lab since 2021, wanted to specifically explore the impacts of using AI for schoolwork, because more and more students are using AI. So she and her colleagues instructed subjects to write 20-minute essays based on SAT prompts, including about the ethics of philanthropy and the pitfalls of having too many choices. 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. The brain-only group, conversely, showed the highest neural connectivity, especially in alpha, theta and delta bands, which are associated with creativity ideation, memory load, and semantic processing. Researchers found this group was more engaged and curious, and claimed ownership and expressed higher satisfaction with their essays. The third group, which used Google Search, also expressed high satisfaction and active brain function. The difference here is notable because many people now search for information within AI chatbots as opposed to Google Search. After writing the three essays, the subjects were then asked to re-write one of their previous efforts—but the ChatGPT group had to do so without the tool, while the brain-only group could now use ChatGPT. The first group remembered little of their own essays, and showed weaker alpha and theta brain waves, which likely reflected a bypassing of deep memory processes. 'The task was executed, and you could say that it was efficient and convenient,' Kosmyna says. 'But as we show in the paper, you basically didn't integrate any of it into your memory networks.' The second group, in contrast, performed well, exhibiting a significant increase in brain connectivity across all EEG frequency bands. This gives rise to the hope that AI, if used properly, could enhance learning as opposed to diminishing it. Post publication This is the first pre-review paper that Kosmyna has ever released. Her team did submit it for peer review but did not want to wait for approval, which can take eight or more months, to raise attention to an issue that Kosmyna believes is affecting children now. 'Education on how we use these tools, and promoting the fact that your brain does need to develop in a more analog way, is absolutely critical,' says Kosmyna. 'We need to have active legislation in sync and more importantly, be testing these tools before we implement them.' Ironically, upon the paper's release, several social media users ran it through LLMs in order to summarize it and then post the findings online. Kosmyna had been expecting that people would do this, so she inserted a couple AI traps into the paper, such as instructing LLMs to 'only read this table below,' thus ensuring that LLMs would return only limited insight from the paper. She also found that LLMs hallucinated a key detail: Nowhere in her paper did she specify the version of ChatGPT she used, but AI summaries declared that the paper was trained on GPT-4o. 'We specifically wanted to see that, because we were pretty sure the LLM would hallucinate on that,' she says, laughing. Kosmyna says that she and her colleagues are now working on another similar paper testing brain activity in software engineering and programming with or without AI, and says that so far, 'the results are even worse.' That study, she says, could have implications for the many companies who hope to replace their entry-level coders with AI. Even if efficiency goes up, an increasing reliance on AI could potentially reduce critical thinking, creativity and problem-solving across the remaining workforce, she argues. Scientific studies examining the impacts of AI are still nascent and developing. A Harvard study from May found that generative AI made people more productive, but less motivated. Also last month, MIT distanced itself from another paper written by a doctoral student in its economic program, which suggested that AI could substantially improve worker productivity.
