{"id":151334,"date":"2025-06-21T12:30:41","date_gmt":"2025-06-21T12:30:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/teknomers.com\/en\/is-chatgpt-harmful-to-the-brain-the-surprising-findings-of-an-mit-study-on-cognitive-debt\/"},"modified":"2025-06-21T12:30:41","modified_gmt":"2025-06-21T12:30:41","slug":"is-chatgpt-harmful-to-the-brain-the-surprising-findings-of-an-mit-study-on-cognitive-debt","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/teknomers.com\/en\/is-chatgpt-harmful-to-the-brain-the-surprising-findings-of-an-mit-study-on-cognitive-debt\/","title":{"rendered":"Is ChatGPT harmful to the brain? The surprising findings of an MIT study on “cognitive debt.”"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

Federico Fubini (Corriere della Sera)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Actualizado <\/span>

\n

In today’s digital landscape, the question of whether \u00a0artificial intelligence\u00a0 (AI) is making us \u00a0less intelligent\u00a0 arises frequently. A new preliminary study from the \u00a0Media Lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology\u00a0 (MIT) plays a significant role in this discussion. The study, titled “Your Brain and ChatGPT: Cognitive Debt Accumulation When Using an AI Writing Assistant,” indicates troubling findings regarding our cognitive capabilities when relying on AI for tasks.<\/p>\n

Led by Natalia Kosmyna, a doctoral researcher specializing in computer science and human-computer interaction, the research involved testing 54 volunteers divided into three groups. Each group was assigned to write three short texts on predefined topics during consecutive sessions. The first group had no access to \u00a0technology\u00a0 whatsoever, relying solely on their mental resources. The second group utilized Google, while the third group leveraged AI, specifically \u00a0ChatGPT\u00a0. Participants were monitored through \u00a0electroencephalography\u00a0 (EEG), allowing researchers to analyze brain activity during the writing tasks.<\/p>\n

Diverging Brain Activations<\/h2>\n

The results of this study revealed shocking variances in brain activation among the groups. Participants who wrote without any digital assistance exhibited a significantly different level of cognitive engagement compared to those relying on technology. The group using Google showed brain connectivity reduced by 34% to 48%, while those using ChatGPT experienced a staggering 55% reduction. In essence, the more reliable the assistance, the \u00a0lower\u00a0 the level of \u00a0cognitive engagement\u00a0.<\/p>\n

One of the most illuminating insights from the study is the impact of writing medium on the \u00a0quality\u00a0 of the produced work. The group without technology activated brain areas associated with \u00a0creative ideation\u00a0 and \u00a0self-control\u00a0, indicating a deeper engagement with their content. In contrast, the participants using Google mainly activated visual processing areas, focusing on quickly assimilating information. Those employing ChatGPT primarily tapped into regions associated with \u00a0automatic functions\u00a0, illustrating a dependency on external scaffolding. The creative output differed markedly: the text from the group relying solely on mental resources was diverse and heterogeneous, while the AI-supported group produced texts that were remarkably similar and homogeneous.<\/p>\n

Cognitive Ownership and Textual Understanding<\/h2>\n

Perhaps the most concerning finding was that 83% of participants using ChatGPT struggled to recall phrases from their own texts just moments after completion. This suggests that they had not developed a \u00a0sense of ownership\u00a0 over their work. In stark contrast, nearly all members of the group working independently were able to recall almost verbatim accounts of what they had written. This discrepancy emphasizes that reliance on AI can lead to diminished attention towards both the content and meaning of one\u2019s work.<\/p>\n

The evaluation of the produced texts yielded further insights. AI evaluators gave higher scores to texts written with AI as opposed to those produced by human effort. However, human evaluators\u2014teachers\u2014immediately recognized the AI-generated texts and rated them lower, reaffirming the lack of depth in the AI-produced material. This disparity raises questions about the \u00a0validity\u00a0 of relying on AI for generating quality content.<\/p>\n

Implications for Learning and Society<\/h2>\n

The implication from this study is profound. When the AI-using group was tasked to create a text without missing digital support, their performance was notably hindered. Conversely, those accustomed to independent writing thrived when utilizing ChatGPT, revealing that the adaptability of thought is compromised when routines rely too heavily on AI.<\/p>\n

The researchers concluded that individuals reproducing AI-suggested content without assessing its accuracy forgo claiming the ideas expressed. This not only risks internalizing shallow insights but also raises concerns about \u00a0manipulability\u00a0 in larger societal contexts, especially within political realms and inferential thinking.<\/p>\n

As society increasingly leans on AI tools, the consequences stretch far beyond individual cognition. For democracy, education, and independent intellectual growth, the challenge becomes clear: While \u00a0artificial intelligence\u00a0 can undoubtedly aid in various tasks, training our natural intelligence remains paramount. It is a delicate balance where the responsibility rests on individuals and educational institutions to foster judgment and creativity independent of digital shortcuts.<\/p>\n


\n
General News – 2<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Federico Fubini (Corriere della Sera) Actualizado S\u00e1bado, 21 junio 2025 – 13:40 In today’s digital landscape, the question of whether \u00a0artificial intelligence\u00a0 (AI) is making us \u00a0less intelligent\u00a0 arises frequently. A new preliminary study from the \u00a0Media Lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology\u00a0 (MIT) plays a significant role in this discussion. The study, titled […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[36400],"tags":[36716],"class_list":["post-151334","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-health","tag-ciencia-y-salud-ciencia"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/teknomers.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/151334","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/teknomers.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/teknomers.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/teknomers.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/teknomers.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=151334"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/teknomers.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/151334\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/teknomers.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=151334"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/teknomers.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=151334"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/teknomers.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=151334"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}