In this tutorial, we’ll examine a recent study on the effects that AI use has on human brains.
Watch/Read
“MIT just proved how ChatGPT impacts our brains” video (6:30)
A piece on Time.com summarizing the MIT research discussed in the video above, but with an additional focus on the effects of AI use on the developing brains of young people (6-minute read or listen to audio for 7:38)
Discussion
In the comments below, share 2-3 sentences on whether you think the potential damaging cognitive impact from AI use should be a factor in a W&M policy on AI for students.
10 replies on “thing 14: AIs and Brain Damage?”
While I think it is important to share these findings, I think it is too early in this type of research to initiate change in W&M policies. In addition to professors informing their students of the limitations of AI use in the courses they teach, perhaps a statement should be issued to students regarding the preliminary findings on the research and to encourage intential use of GenAI. In addition, I think it is important to address to what degree does relying on AI affect a student’s view of their own abilities and what emotional/psychological effects result from the lack of a student’s own input.
As research continues to be published, I would argue that it’s important to keep a watchful eye on it but to not let it overwhelmingly influence policy. I think it is incredibly important to acknowledge the limitations of the MIT study. While I understand the urgency in sharing the results and while they logically make sense, I disagree that we can take it all as irrefutable fact in its current state. It would be unwise to make dramatic changes to policy simply because one article said so. I do think that educators can use this information as a jumping-off point for discussions with students about the use of AI, but I think we should be cautious as information around AI changes seemingly every day.
I don’t think it should be a factor for W&M AI policy for students. This study is very early, not peer reviewed, and could have been designed to get a clearer picture. The Brain-to-LLM group did better in the 4th round? What if they did it two more times? Would that have changed? Also, this is very specific to essays. I don’t think essay writing with AI will ever be allowed, so I don’t think this will even be an issue for our students.
I think W&M professors should be aware of the potential damaging cognitive impact from AI as they navigate these uncharted waters of AI in academia. Faculty know their students and should observe how AI may influence student learning outcomes. More data is needed, I think, before we can address policy.
I think W&M professors should be aware of the potential damaging cognitive impact from AI as they navigate these uncharted waters of AI in academia. Faculty know their students and should observe how AI may influence student learning outcomes. More data is needed, I think, before we can address policy.
I think it is too early to use these results to impact W&M policies — peer review and replicability are important. My concern is that these results may have confirmation bias, namely that there is an expectation that relying on AI will reduce “how well” we think, and that is what we are seeing. I think that research that illuminates how to use the tools effectively will be more useful and impactful long-term.
So, I’m not sure if framing the problem as “potential damaging cognitive impact from AI use” is the right approach. AI is here, it’s here to stay, and it’s only going to get more efficient (quantum computing). In less than 18 years, we’re going to have students who are native to AI. I think the real question is “What skills do we want our students to come out with?” If it’s critical thinking, what assignments do we normally assign, and how does AI potentially impact it? Same for writing and researching. From there, we can then craft an AI policy for students.
The study results are very limited and not peer-reviewed etc. yet. However, I do believe that the urgency in learning more about AI impacts on brain use and brain development is justifiable. AI is here to stay and is developing fast, becoming incorporated into more and more parts of our lives. It is imperative that we understand if and what we are giving up by accepting AI assistance. I do believe keeping an eye out for new research results and ensuring that students and faculty are aware of these is in W&M best interest. Eventually policy might have to be adapted to address AI.
I agree with those above that more research is needed before W&M develops an over-arching AI policy. I do think this study is useful to share with students and to check in with them– do they think using GenAI is impacting their critical thinking skills? Why or why not? Do they even care about such a thing?
Yes, I think the potential cognitive impact of AI use should be considered in a W&M policy for students. While AI can support learning, overreliance could discourage critical thinking and problem-solving. But it’s too early to make a concrete decision: we are only 1-2 years into this, and scientifically, it just is not long enough for scientists to conduct research to figure out exactly how horrible it is