
Has AI already rotted my brain?
Five years ago, I bought an e-bike. At the time, the motor-equipped two-wheelers were burdened with an iffy reputation. Was it way easier to get up a hill on one than on a bike without a battery? Absolutely. Did that mean people who rode them were lazy or even cheaters? Some cycling enthusiasts thought so.
But what if the boost provided by your e-bike motivated you to make longer trips and more of them—all powered, in part, by your own pedaling? Having logged almost 10,000 miles on my Gazelle, I'm certain it's been a guilt-free boon to my well-being. Data backs me up.
I thought about that recently while reading about a new study conducted at MIT's Media Lab. Researchers divided subjects ages 18 to 39 into three groups and had them write essays on topics drawn from the SAT questions answered by college applicants, such as 'Do works of art have the power to change people's lives?' One group relied entirely on unassisted brainpower to complete the essay. A second group could use a search engine. And the third could call on ChatGPT.
The study subjects wore EEG helmets that captured their brain activity as they worked. After analyzing that data, the researchers concluded that access to ChatGPT didn't just make composing an essay easier. It made it too easy, in ways that might negatively impact people's long-term ability to think for themselves. In some cases, the ChatGPT users merely cut and pasted text the chatbot had generated; not surprisingly, they exhibited little sense of ownership over the finished product compared to those who didn't have a computerized ghost on tap.
'Due to the instant availability of the response to almost any question, LLMs can possibly make a learning process feel effortless, and prevent users from attempting any independent problem solving,' the researchers wrote in their report. 'By simplifying the process of obtaining answers, LLMs could decrease student motivation to perform independent research and generate solutions. Lack of mental stimulation could lead to a decrease in cognitive development and negatively impact memory.'
The study reached those sobering conclusions in the context of young people growing up in an era of bountiful access to AI. But the alarms it set off also left me worried about the technology's impact on my own brain. I have long considered AI an e-bike for my mind—something that speeds it through certain tasks, thereby letting it go places previously out of reach. What if it's actually so detrimental to my mental acuity that I haven't even noticed my critical faculties withering away?
After pondering that worst-case scenario for a while, I calmed down. Yes, consistently opting for the most expedient way to accomplish work rather than the one that produces the best results is no way to live. Sure, being overly reliant on ChatGPT—or any form of generative AI—has its hazards. But I'm pretty confident it's possible to embrace AI without your reasoning skills atrophying.
No single task can represent all the ways people engage with AI, and the one the MIT researchers chose—essay writing—is particularly fraught. The best essays reflect the unique insight of a particular person: When students take the actual SAT for real, they aren't even allowed to bring a highlighter, let alone a bot. We don't need EGG helmets to tell us that people who paste ChatGPT's work into an essay they've nominally written have lost out on the learning opportunity presented by grappling with a topic, reaching conclusions, and expressing them for oneself.
However, ChatGPT and its LLM brethren also excel at plenty of jobs too mundane to feel guilty about outsourcing. Each week, for example, I ask Anthropic's Claude to clean up some of the HTML required to produce this newsletter. It handles this scut work faster and more accurately than I can. I'm not sure what my brain waves would reveal, but I'm happy to reinvest any time not spent on production drudgery into more rewarding aspects of my job.
Much of the time, AI is most useful not as a solution but a starting point. Almost never would I ask a chatbot about factual information, get an answer, and call it a day. They're still too error-prone for that. Yet their ease of use makes them an inviting way to get rolling on projects. I think of them as facilitating the research before the old-school research I usually end up doing.
And sometimes, AI is a portal into adventures I might otherwise never have taken. So far in 2025, my biggest rabbit hole has been vibe coding —coming up with ideas for apps and then having an LLM craft the necessary software using programming tools I don't even understand. Being exposed to technologies such as React and TypeScript has left me wanting to learn enough about them to do serious coding on my own. If I do, AI can take credit for sparking that ambition.
I'm only so Pollyanna-ish about all this. Over time, the people who see AI as an opportunity to do more thinking—not less of it—could be a lonely minority. If so, the MIT researchers can say 'We told you so.'
Case in point: At the same time the MIT study was in the news, word broke that VC titan Andreessen Horowitz had invested $15 million in Cluely, a truly dystopian startup whose manifesto boasts its aim of helping people use AI to 'cheat at everything' based on the theory that 'the future won't reward effort.' Its origin story involves cofounder and CEO Roy Lee being suspended from Columbia University after developing an app for cheating on technical employment interviews. Which makes me wonder how Lee would feel about his own candidates misleading their way into job offers.
With any luck, the future will turn out to punish Cluely's cynicism. But the company's existence—and investors' willingness to shower it with money—says worse things about humankind than about AI.
You've been reading Plugged In, Fast Company 's weekly tech newsletter from me, global technology editor Harry McCracken. If a friend or colleague forwarded this edition to you—or if you're reading it on FastCompany.com—you can check out previous issues and sign up to get it yourself every Friday morning. I love hearing from you: Ping me at hmccracken@fastcompany.com with your feedback and ideas for future newsletters. I'm also on Bluesky, Mastodon, and Threads, and you can follow Plugged In on Flipboard.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Miami Herald
an hour ago
- Miami Herald
Amazon takes a big hit in the AI talent wars
Another day and another spicy development in the AI talent wars! Meta Platform's (META) Scale AI deal kicked the AI talent war into overdrive, and other tech giants are following suit. Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter It's an AI hiring spree, and some of the finest tech talent could rake in record-breaking AI research salaries. Lately, if a tech giant misses the boat, that's essentially letting Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook fortune write checks to poach their best generative AI talent. Needless to say, the scramble is only getting more ruthless. Bloomberg/Getty Images Over the past few months, we've seen the hunt for the top AI researchers and engineers has turned into a full-blown AI talent war. Related: Gemini, ChatGPT may lose the AI war to deep-pocketed rival Big tech has been itching for what seems like a small pool of people who can push generative models, large language systems, and next-gen AI forward. Breakthrough AI, including lifelike chatbots like ChatGPT, Gemini, and Grok, has made it crucial to lock down top talent fast. Meta, in particular, has been especially aggressive in chasing top AI talent. Just this month, it snagged three senior researchers from OpenAI's Zurich lab, including Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, and Xiaohua Zhai. This comes just weeks after CEO Sam Altman blasted Meta for offering nine-figure offers to poach his team. Meanwhile, Meta locked in a massive deal with Scale AI, dropping $14.8 billion for a 49% nonvoting stake. More importantly, that deal gives Meta direct access to Scale's 28-year-old CEO, Alexandr Wang, to help turn its artificial general intelligence dream into a reality. The massive Scale AI acquisition underscored the importance of valuable, top-notch, human-labeled data. Meta's big bet highlights that owning the data pipeline matters; it could potentially gain a decisive edge in building those flashy generative AI models. Meta's moves have already shaken up the whole tech space. Google's looking to cut ties with Scale to keep Meta out of its training secrets, and Microsoft's bringing in its data labeling in-house. More Tech Stock News: Circle's stock price surges after stunning CEO commentVeteran analyst drops bold new call on Nvidia stockAnalyst reboots AMD stock price target on chip update Even startups like Anthropic and xAI are looking to scoop up the best talent in competing against the big guys. According to a Reuters report, Vasi Philomin, a vice president of generative AI at Amazon (AMZN) , has left the company. Philomin told Reuters he's headed to another company without any specifics. Related: Veteran Tesla bull drops surprising 3-word verdict on robotaxi ride Philomin was one of the major forces behind Amazon Titan and Bedrock, spending eight years shaping strategy. These pillars have become critical in Amazon Web Services' push to make AI plug-and-play for any customer. Moreover, he also helped the tech giant launch Nova for multimodal tasks and Sonic for lifelike speech, keeping pace with ChatGPT, Gemini, and Grok. He also helped plug Anthropic's Claude (from Amazon's $8 billion Anthropic investment) into Alexa, showing off Amazon's powerful playbook. Philomin's exit comes at a time when the top AI talent turns into tech's priciest prize. The top tech leaders are reportedly using sports-style scouting to find hidden talent and dropping $100 million signing bonuses to attract talent. For Amazon, losing one of its key AI architects is a big wake-up call. Despite pouring billions into big-name deals and research efforts, Amazon is at risk of its rivals snapping up its generative AI talent. Though Rajesh Sheth (formerly of Elastic Block Store) is already handling the bulk of Philomin's work, the need for a deep bench of AI leaders ready to shape models, products, and strategy is as imperative as ever. Big picture? Philomin's move is just another sign that the top minds in the AI space hold all the cards right now. Related: Veteran analyst drops bold new call on Nvidia stock The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Nasdaq hits record high, on track for a new bull market
(Reuters) -The Nasdaq hit a record high on Friday, as investors piled into technology companies on optimism around artificial intelligence and the prospect for looser monetary policy, putting the index on track to confirm a bull market. The tech-heavy index was last up 0.4% at 20,243 points, surpassing its record high of 20,204 on December 16. It had tumbled 26.8% from its previous peak, marking a bear market days after Trump's "Liberation Day" reciprocal tariffs on April 2. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Why the terrible year for Google stock may be overblown
Alphabet's (GOOG, GOOGL) rough run in 2025 may be nearing the end. In a new Jefferies report, its analysts argue that fears around Google's competitiveness in the AI era are overblown and that the stock's current valuation offers an "attractive entry point" for long-term investors. The firm maintained its Buy rating on Alphabet shares, keeping its price target at $210, representing more than 20% upside. The stock has been down 9% year to date, underperforming the Nasdaq and lagging far behind high-flying "Magnificent Seven" peers like Nvidia (NVDA), which hit a record high earlier this week. Jefferies' analysts, led by Brent Thill, identified five key reasons why Alphabet is one of the best-positioned AI consumer stocks. To start off, Google Search has remained resilient against competition from chatbots like OpenAI's ChatGPT or Perplexity. Google has maintained a 90% stranglehold on the search market, and there are signs its AI features are gaining traction. For example, its AI Overviews are used by 1.5 billion monthly active users. Meanwhile, YouTube is still undervalued, despite driving around 30% more revenue than Netflix, which trades at a higher multiple. Thill identified YouTube as a "catalyst" in a video-first world. Alphabet's flagship large language model, Gemini, hasn't gotten as much attention as OpenAI's ChatGPT, but it now processes 480 trillion tokens monthly, a 50x annual increase, per Jefferies. Its integration across Google products helps generate more intelligent results. This performance edge and data scale are reasons to stay bullish on the company's AI future, Thill said. Google Cloud Platform (GCP) has long trailed Amazon (AMZN) Web Services (AWS) and Microsoft (MSFT) Azure, but there is room for growth. Thill said there's upside from Google's leadership in AI and machine learning infrastructure tools and continued federal contracts. Investors may be underestimating the cloud unit's long-term potential. Even as Google invests heavily in AI, its margins are quietly recovering. Operating margin hit a record 40% in Q1 2025. Thill expects that trend to continue, thanks in part to past cost-cutting efforts, such as layoffs and buyouts and AI-driven efficiencies. In 2024, Alphabet's EBITDA margin expanded by 300 basis points. With $84 billion in net cash, the company has the flexibility to keep buying back shares and funding innovation. Perhaps the biggest part of Jefferies' bull case is the stock's valuation. Alphabet trades at just 11x forward-12-month EV/EBITDA, below its 10-year average of 12.4x and well off its recent high near 15x. That's despite a solid balance sheet; improving margins; growth opportunities in AI, cloud, and video; and moonshots like Waymo. "We see an attractive risk/reward in the longterm," Thill wrote. Alphabet's underperformance this year may have more to do with market rotation and AI hype fatigue than any real fundamental weakness. The company is set to report second quarter earnings in late July after the bell, which could be the company's next chance to reset the narrative. Francisco Velasquez is an associate reporter at Yahoo Finance. Sign in to access your portfolio