Latest news with #MediaLab
Hans India
a day ago
- Science
- Hans India
MIT study warns how ChatGPT weakens critical thinking
A new study from MIT's Media Lab is raising red flags about the impact of generative AI tools like ChatGPT on human cognition—particularly among students. The study suggests that using ChatGPT for academic work may reduce brain activity, diminish creativity, and impair memory formation. The experiment involved 54 participants aged 18 to 39, who were divided into three groups: one using ChatGPT, another using Google Search, and a control group using neither. Each group was asked to write multiple SAT-style essays while wearing EEG devices to measure brain activity across 32 regions. Results showed ChatGPT users exhibited the lowest neural engagement, underperforming across behavioral, linguistic, and cognitive measures. Their essays were also deemed formulaic and lacking originality by English teachers. Alarmingly, as the study progressed over several months, many in the ChatGPT group abandoned active writing altogether, opting instead to copy-paste AI-generated responses with minimal editing. Lead author Nataliya Kosmyna explained her urgency to publish the findings ahead of peer review, saying, 'I'm afraid in 6-8 months some policymaker will propose 'GPT for kindergarten.' That would be absolutely detrimental to developing brains.' In contrast, the group that relied solely on their own brainpower showed stronger neural connectivity in alpha, theta, and delta bands—regions linked with creativity, memory, and semantic processing. These participants felt more ownership over their work and reported higher satisfaction. The Google Search group also demonstrated high engagement and satisfaction, suggesting traditional web research supports more active learning than LLM use. In a follow-up test, participants had to rewrite a previous essay—this time without their original tool. ChatGPT users struggled, barely recalling their previous responses, and showed weaker brain wave activity. In contrast, the brain-only group, now using ChatGPT for the first time, exhibited increased cognitive activity, suggesting that AI can support learning—but only when foundational thinking is already in place. Kosmyna warns that heavy AI use during critical learning phases could impair long-term brain development, particularly in children. Psychiatrist Dr. Zishan Khan echoed this concern: 'Overreliance on LLMs may erode essential neural pathways related to memory, resilience, and deep thinking.' Ironically, the paper itself became a case study in AI misuse. Some users summarized it using ChatGPT, prompting hallucinated facts—like falsely stating the version of ChatGPT used was GPT-4o. Kosmyna had anticipated this and included 'AI traps' in the document to test such behavior. MIT researchers are now expanding their work into programming and software engineering, and early results are even more troubling—suggesting broader implications for industries seeking to automate entry-level tasks. While previous studies have highlighted AI's potential to boost productivity, this research underscores the urgent need for responsible AI use in education, backed by policies that balance efficiency with brain development. OpenAI did not respond to a request for comment. Meanwhile, the debate on the role of AI in learning continues—with growing calls for regulation, transparency, and digital literacy.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Science
- Yahoo
Researchers Scanned the Brains of ChatGPT Users and Found Something Deeply Alarming
Scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have found some startling results in the brain scans of ChatGPT users, adding to the growing body of evidence suggesting that AI is having a serious — and barely-understood — impact on its users' cognition even as it explodes in popularity worldwide. In a new paper currently awaiting peer review, researchers from the school's storied Media Lab documented the vast differences between the brain activity of people who using ChatGPT to write versus those who did not. The research team recruited 54 adults between the ages of 18 and 39 and divided them into three groups: one that used ChatGPT to help them write essays, one that used Google search as their main writing aid, and one that didn't use AI tech. The study took place over four months, with each group tasked with writing one essay per month for the first three, while a smaller subset of the cohort either switched from not using ChatGPT to using it — or vice versa — in the fourth month. As they completed the essay tasks, the participants were hooked up to electroencephalogram (EEG) machines that recorded their brain activity. Here's where things get wild: the ChatGPT group not only "consistently underperformed at neural, linguistic, and behavioral levels," but also got lazier with each essay they wrote; the EEGs found "weaker neural connectivity and under-engagement of alpha and beta networks." The Google-assisted group, meanwhile, had "moderate" neural engagement, while the "brain-only" group exhibited the strongest cognitive metrics throughout. These findings about brain activity, while novel, aren't entirely surprising after prior studies and anecdotes about the many ways that AI chatbot use seems to be affecting people's brains and minds. Previous MIT research, for instance, found that ChatGPT "power users" were becoming dependent on the chatbot and experiencing "indicators of addiction" and "withdrawal symptoms" when they were cut off. And earlier this year Carnegie Mellon and Microsoft — which has invested billions to bankroll OpenAI, the maker of ChatGPT — found in a joint study that heavy chatbot use appears to almost atrophy critical thinking skills. A few months later, The Guardian found in an analysis of studies like that one that researchers are growing increasingly concerned that tech like ChatGPT is making us stupider, and a Wall Street Journal reporter even owned up to his cognitive skill loss from over-using chatbots. Beyond the neurological impacts, there are also lots of reasons to be concerned about how ChatGPT and other chatbots like it affects our mental health. As Futurism found in a recent investigation, many users are becoming obsessed with ChatGPT and developing paranoid delusions into which the chatbot is pushing them deeper. Some have even stopped taking their psychiatric medication because the chatbot told them to. "We know people use ChatGPT in a wide range of contexts, including deeply personal moments, and we take that responsibility seriously," OpenAI told us in response to that reporting. "We've built in safeguards to reduce the chance it reinforces harmful ideas, and continue working to better recognize and respond to sensitive situations." Add it all up, and the evidence is growing that AI is having profound and alarming effects on many users — but so far, we're seeing no evidence that corporations are slowing down in their attempts to injecting the tech into every part of of society. More on ChatGPT brain: Nation Cringes as Man Goes on TV to Declare That He's in Love With ChatGPT
The Hill
2 days 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
3 days 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
3 days 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.
