Using AI bots like ChatGPTcould be causing cognitive decline, new study shows
A new pre-print study from the US-based Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) found that using OpenAI's ChatGPT could lead to cognitive decline.
Researchers with the MIT Media lab broke participants into three groups and asked them to write essays only using ChatGPT, a search engine, or using no tools.
Brain scans were taken during the essay writing with an electroencephalogram (EEG) during the task. Then, the essays were evaluated by both humans and artificial intelligence (AI) tools.
The study showed that the ChatGPT-only group had the lowest neural activation in parts of the brain and had a hard time recalling or recognising their writing. The brain-only group that used no technology was the most engaged, showing both cognitive engagement and memory retention.
Related
Can ChatGPT be an alternative to psychotherapy and help with emotional growth?
The researchers then did a second session where the ChatGPT group were asked to do the task without assistance. In that session, those who used ChatGPT in the first group performed worse than their peers with writing that was 'biased and superficial'.
The study found that repeated GPT use can come with 'cognitive debt' that reduces long-term learning performance in independent thinking.
In the long run, people with cognitive debt could be more susceptible to 'diminished critical inquiry, increased vulnerability to manipulation and decreased creativity,' as well as a 'likely decrease' in learning skills.
'When participants reproduce suggestions without evaluating their accuracy or relevance, they not only forfeit ownership of the ideas but also risk internalising shallow or biased perspectives,' the study continued.
Related
'Our GPUs are melting': OpenAI puts restrictions on new ChatGPT image generation tool
The study also found higher rates of satisfaction and brain connectivity in the participants who wrote all essays with just their minds compared to the other groups.
Those from the other groups felt less connected to their writing and were not able to provide a quote from their essays when asked to by the researchers.
The authors recommend that more studies be done about how any AI tool impacts the brain 'before LLMs are recognised as something that is net positive for humans.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Experts Predict Whether Apple Stock Can Make You Rich by 2035
Just over a year ago, The Motley Fool asked whether Apple would be a trillion-dollar stock by 2035. Hitting the $1 trillion valuation mark is a rare and phenomenal achievement for any company, but for Apple, it would be a colossal failure, considering its market cap was $2.6 trillion at the time (and it's now at $2.9 trillion). Speculating on the future fortunes of Apple stock is a fun exercise. In fact, back in January, Insider Monkey wrote about 15 stocks that ChatGPT predicted could make investors wealthy in 10 years, and the chatbot ranked Apple No. 1, ahead of Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, Meta Platforms and Nvidia. Read Next: Learn More: For beginner and seasoned investors, a far more interesting question would be whether Apple stock can make you rich by 2035. To answer this, GOBankingRates asked real-life industry experts whether investing in Apple stock could make you wealthy by 2025. Also see three reasons to keep an eye on Apple stock. Regardless of the quantity of shares you own, an active, expensive stock may yield an overall higher percentage gain than lower-priced stocks, but you might need to spend a lot to make a little. Is investing Apple at close to $200 a share worth it? 'Apple remains a dominant company with strong fundamentals, recurring revenue and massive cash reserves,' Dan Buckley, chief analyst and contributor at the free online trading resource told GOBankingRates. 'But expecting to make a lot from it in 10 years is unrealistic unless you're investing substantial capital.' Julia Khandoshko, an expert in tech and capital markets and CEO of leading tech and financial engineering hub Mind Money, agreed. 'There is a false perception that large technology companies like Apple are still growing as startups, and many investors expect them to have the same breakthrough growth,' Khandoshko said. 'However, for some reason, the fact that they have turned into grown and stable businesses is ignored.' 'There is no doubt Apple has been very successful, but shares are currently trading on a forward P/E (forward price-to-earnings ratio based on estimates of future earnings for the coming 12 months) of 27, and that is too rich for me,' said Vince Stanzione, CEO and founder of First Information and author of The Millionaire Dropout. For comparison, the S&P is hovering around a forward P/E of almost 22 right now. 'Make no mistake, Apple is a cash cow and users are tied into the Apple brand and app store ecosystem, but Apple reminds me of an ageing rock band living off old hits and royalties,' Stanzione added. Check Out: There's also the question of the intense competition Apple faces now and in a tech-reliant, tech-investing future. 'The company faces increasing competition, regulatory pressures and the challenge of keeping pace with new innovations, which could lead to periods of slower growth compared to its past trajectory,' Buckley said. People trust brands probably more than they should. But if a company misses on a product or falls behind emerging tech, loyalty goes out the window. For Apple, 'services now carry a big piece of the load: High-margin, recurring revenue [are] tied to the iPhone,' said David Materazzi, CEO and founder of Galileo FX, the popular automated trading platform. However, that's the catch, he explained. 'The more Apple shifts to services, the more it still depends on hardware. Without new hit products, that becomes a treadmill. People assume the brand protects them. It doesn't. It attracts them, then it demands performance. It's priced for precision,' Materazzi said. 'So, if we're not expecting any major breakthroughs from Apple, we should view it as a company that thrives on its large, loyal customer base and generates steady income from it,' Khandoshko said. 'From this perspective, Apple is a solid long-term investment with predictable cash flows — but it's not the kind of stock for speculation or chasing exponential returns.' You can't argue with Apple's performance; it continues to drive the tech industry and its market cap continues to increase. However, in the next 10 years, a downturn isn't out of the question. Stanzione summed up what all the experts we asked felt. 'I don't believe Apple will disappear in the next decade, but unless some amazing new product comes out soon it's turning into a utility type stock that will give you a decent return and a small dividend but not make you fantastically rich in my opinion,' he said. More From GOBankingRates Mark Cuban Tells Americans To Stock Up on Consumables as Trump's Tariffs Hit -- Here's What To Buy This article originally appeared on Experts Predict Whether Apple Stock Can Make You Rich by 2035 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
Business Insider
an hour ago
- Business Insider
Farming vs. podcast bros: Sam Altman predicts jobs will continue to evolve to look 'sillier and sillier'
Subsistence farmers were just trying to survive. They weren't trying to make content. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman predicts that just as silly as a podcast bro would appear to our long-ago ancestors, current jobs will seem equally foreign after artificial intelligence upends the workforce. "Like, podcast bro was not a real job not that long ago, and you figured out how to monetize it and you're doing great and we're all happy for you," Altman told his brother Jack, teasing him during an interview on Jack Altman's "Uncapped" podcast. "But would like the subsistence farmer look at this this a job or is like you playing a game to entertain yourself?" "I think they would subscribe to this podcast," Jack said in response. Jack Altman, who runs his own VC firm, Alt Capital, quizzed his older brother about a wide range of topics, including the OpenAI CEO's thoughts on Meta's competition in the AI space (he doesn't think the tech giant is "good at innovation), what life will be like will robots roam the streets, and the gua sha lymphatic massage Jack received right before the interview. Data already shows that AI is taking jobs. Shopify and Duolingo's executives have asked their managers to justify why AI couldn't fill new roles. One economist found that the share of AI-doable tasks in online job postings has decreased by 19%. During their discussion, Jack Altman said that customer service-related jobs are already being replaced. Sam Altman says he's not afraid of this looming upheaval, because society has shown a limitless potential to adapt, even if "a lot of jobs go away" and their replacements appear "sillier and sillier looking from our current perspective." "We have always been really good at figuring out new things to do, and ways to occupy ourselves, and status games or ways to be useful to each other," Altman said, "And I'm like not a believer that that ever runs out." The changes, Altman said, will also be less dramatic for the next generation, which will grow up not knowing what life was like before. "It's not going to ever seem to weird to him," Altman said of his son. "He's just going to grow up in a world where, of course, computers are smarter than him. He'll just figure out how to use them incredibly fluently and do amazing stuff."
The Verge
an hour ago
- The Verge
Inside the courthouse reshaping the future of the internet
The future of the internet will be determined in one building in Washington, DC — and for six weeks, I watched it unfold. For much of this spring, the E. Barrett Prettyman Courthouse in downtown Washington, DC, was buzzing with lawyers, reporters, and interested onlookers jostling between dimly lit courtrooms that hosted everyone from the richest men in Silicon Valley to fired federal workers and the DOGE-aligned officials who terminated them. The sprawling courthouse, with an airy atrium in the middle and long, dark halls that spring from it, is where cases involving government agencies often land, and that meant it was hosting two of the most consequential tech cases in the country, all while fielding a flurry of unprecedented lawsuits against President Donald Trump's administration. Between mid-April and late May, Judges James Boasberg and Amit Mehta respectively oversaw FTC v. Meta and US v. Google, a pair of long-running antitrust lawsuits that seek to split up two titans of Silicon Valley. Over the same period, several DC judges — including Boasberg — had a full docket of cases related to Trump's first 100 days in office, covering the administration's attempt to mass-deport immigrants, strip security clearance from law firms, and fire thousands of federal workers. On the first day of the Google trial, a sign with a comically contorted arrow directed visitors toward their chosen antitrust case. It was soon joined by directions to the high-profile hearing over Trump's order against law firm Jenner & Block. While the FTC's lawyers were calling witnesses against Meta in one courtroom, a nearby room was hosting arguments about whether Trump could fire two of the agency's own commissioners. My colleagues gathered around the feed waiting for a Google witness, only to see a prison-jumpsuited defendant step into the box For reporters, the weeks were an exercise in constant case-juggling. During the overlap of Google and Meta, I'd arrive to long security lines that would sometimes jut into the small park that adjoins the courthouse, waiting to hunt down a media room that streamed video for reporters and avoid the electronics-free courtrooms. I'd occasionally show up to find out no such room existed, and in a small stampede of reporters, I'd rush up a few flights of spiral stairs to the courtroom, scribbling handwritten notes from the back rows. One day, my colleagues gathered around the feed waiting for a Google witness, only to see a prison-jumpsuited defendant step into the box — in the brief moment before reporters realized Mehta was taking a quick break for a criminal hearing, they wondered which high-profile tech executive it was. The executives, for their part, were plentiful. On one day a witness box saw Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg praising Instagram's success; a week later, former colleague and Instagram co-founder Kevin Systrom sat there describing him as a jealous boss. Google CEO Sundar Pichai would soon testify a couple floors up, followed by executives at some of Google's biggest rivals, including Microsoft and OpenAI. For all of them, the stakes were high. Judge Boasberg is tasked with determining whether Meta built an illegal monopoly by gobbling up Instagram and WhatsApp, while Judge Mehta will decide whether Google must spin off its Chrome browser or syndicate its search data. For the judges, the gauntlet seemed nothing short of exhausting. Boasberg, chief judge of the US District Court in DC, had been assigned to the Meta case long before Trump took office, but after the inauguration, he became one of the busiest judges in America — overseeing a challenge of the administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport migrants, and a lawsuit over Trump's cabinet's use of encrypted messaging app Signal to communicate about attack plans. As I concluded a day of the Meta trial at 5PM, a fresh crop of reporters arrived to cover Boasberg's consideration of the Alien Enemies Act, which Trump was using to deport Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador. Outside the courtroom, Boasberg fielded attacks from Trump — who labeled him a 'Radical Left Lunatic' and a 'troublemaker and agitator' and called for his impeachment. At the Meta trial, Boasberg appeared even-keeled — sometimes to the point of boredom. He rarely mentioned the rest of his docket beyond subtle references to his overflowing schedule; his interventions were astute, signaling a deep understanding of the case. But he'd often sit with his head in his hand, only occasionally gently encouraging attorneys to move on from a particularly tedious line of questioning. He used a lunch break in the Meta trial to file one of the most scathing legal rulings of the early Trump administration, accusing the administration of 'willful disregard' for his temporary restraining order on deportation flights to El Salvador, with 'probable cause' to find it in criminal contempt. By the Meta trial's end in late May, Boasberg sounded relieved as the final day wrapped. 'I will take a welcome respite from thinking about this between now and when the first brief is due,' he told the attorneys. In 1998, the E. Barrett Prettyman courthouse played host to another tech giant fighting for its life: Microsoft. US v. Microsoft was a landmark monopoly case that determined the company had illegally wielded its dominance over Intel-compatible PC operating systems to tamp down threats to its monopoly, including up-and-coming web browsers like Netscape. But in the wake of that case and subsequent settlement, regulators took a hands-off approach to the next generation of tech companies. It would take two decades for the government to return to the battleground — until 2020, when the cases against Meta and Google were filed. The search and social networking landscape has changed dramatically in the last five years, with the rise of TikTok and generative AI. But so too has the zeitgeist around tech. As Silicon Valley remains politically embattled, the goal of more aggressive antitrust enforcement has won bipartisan support. At the same time, there's a growing fear of foreign competition, particularly from TikTok, which appeared in the very same courthouse last year to argue against a (since-delayed) nationwide ban. The company found itself back there as a witness during Meta's trial, where lawyers confronted a TikTok executive with statements made during its failed 2024 fight. Those weeks of courthouse testimony helped illuminate countless decisions that made the tech world as we know it Inside the courthouse, it was easy to forget about everything else going on in Washington — until it wasn't. I was removed from the day-to-day antics of Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) hacking away at the federal workforce, but the cases about its handiwork — including gutting the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) — kept winding through court. During a break on the fourth day of Meta's trial and days before the start of Google's, I got a New York Times push notification walking back from the bathroom, telling me Virginia Judge Leonie Brinkema had ruled against Google in the DOJ's separate ad-tech antitrust case. I hustled back to the media room and found several of my colleagues from other outlets already in the hallway writing up their stories. Of course, we commiserated, a decision we expected months ago would drop right now. Rulings in this spring's Google and Meta trials will likely take months to arrive, and their fallout probably won't be seen for years. But those weeks of courthouse testimony helped illuminate countless decisions that made the tech world as we know it. During the early 2010s, Facebook executives expressed fears that Google might buy WhatsApp and bundle it with Android, giving itself a stranglehold over mobile messaging. With the context of the Google trial, that fear looks prescient — the company cemented its search dominance by making Android phone makers preinstall its search engine in the same way. It's also possible to see the shape of giants yet to rise. Should Judge Mehta order Google to sell Chrome, several witnesses said they'd be more than happy to buy it, including Yahoo, Perplexity, and OpenAI. The Justice Department's landmark antitrust trial against Microsoft is widely credited with opening up the tech industry for innovative players like Google, and a quarter-century later, there's hope something similar could happen for new companies today. Yet it seems equally possible that in another decade or two, we'll be back in this same courthouse, hearing the government argue they've nailed the doors shut once again.
