
Multiple Studies Now Suggest That AI Will Make Us Morons
For the second time in two weeks, a study has been published that suggests that people who use AI may display less cognitive ability than those who don't rely on it. The studies have bolstered critics' accusations that AI makes you stupid.
The most recent study was conducted by the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School and looked at a sample size of over 4,500 participants. The study, which looked at the cognitive differences between people who used LLMs like ChatGPT to do research and those who used Google Search, found that the people who used chatbots tended 'to develop shallower knowledge' of the subjects they were researching. Both groups were asked to research how to start a vegetable garden, with some participants randomly selected to use AI, while others were asked to use a search engine. According to the study's findings, those who used ChatGPT gave much worse advice about how to plant a vegetable garden than those who used the search engine. Researchers write:
The shallower knowledge accrues from an inherent feature of LLMs—the presentation of results as syntheses of information rather than individual search links—which makes learning more passive than in standard web search, where users actively discover and synthesize information sources themselves. In turn, when subsequently forming advice on the topic based on what they learned, those who learned from LLM syntheses (vs. standard search results) feel less invested in forming their advice and, more importantly, create advice that is sparser, less original—and ultimately less likely to be adopted by recipients.
The study concludes that this occurred ironically because of ChatGPT's advertised benefit—'sparing users the need to browse through results and synthesize information themselves.' Because researchers did not have to hunt for information themselves, their 'depth of knowledge' was markedly lower than those who did. 'In this sense, one might view learning through LLMs rather than web search as analogous to being shown the solution to a math problem rather than trying to solve it oneself,' the research concludes.
The UPenn study follows on the heels of research produced by MIT, published earlier this month, that showed a similarly problematic cognitive impact produced by AI. That study, which observed the neural activity of college students who were using ChatGPT to study, found that increased AI use resulted in reduced brain activity, or what the researchers termed 'cognitive debt.' The study used an EEG machine to measure the neural activity of three different groups of students—one that used ChatGPT to study, one that used Google Search, and one that used neither. The study showed that ChatGPT users displayed markedly less cognitive activity than even those who were using Google Search to find information.
The methodology of the MIT article has since been called into question by AI enthusiasts. Critics have noted that the study in question was not peer reviewed and that a small sample size of participants makes it hardly exhaustive. Similarly, critics have argued that while the EEG measurements show certain decreases in specific forms of brain activity, that doesn't necessarily mean that participants are 'dumber' as a result. Indeed, less mental exertion (and, thus, less activity) can be a sign that a person is actually more competent at a task and doesn't have to expend as much energy as a result. From a certain perspective, these recent assessments of AI's cerebral impact reek of a moral panic about a new and not altogether well-understood phenomenon.
On the other hand, the conclusion that using an app to complete a homework assignment makes you less capable of thinking for yourself would appear to be self-evident. Outsourcing mental duties to a software program means you're not performing those duties yourself, and, as is pretty well established, doing something yourself is often the best way to learn. Of course, the internet has been curtailing human mental activity since it first went online. When was the last time you had to remember how to get somewhere? It really seems like Google Maps collectively robbed us of that ability over a decade ago.
Other evidence for AI's stupidification effect is even more obvious: the maelstrom of cheating that's been happening in America's educational system means that students are making their way through high school and college with limited to no understanding of the subjects they're studying. While there is still much to learn about how AI impacts us, we shouldn't forego common sense when it comes to interpreting what we're seeing with our eyes. If a student can't write an essay without ChatGPT, it may be a sign that they don't have a particularly bright academic future ahead of them.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Astrophysicist explains if the meteorite that landed in Georgia could be connected to the current meteor shower
"The thing is that time ranges when those meteors could occur," Moffett said. "It could be associated with that meteor shower, or it could just be a completely random instance."


Geek Girl Authority
31 minutes ago
- Geek Girl Authority
Ethereum vs. Bitcoin Online Games: What Are the Key Differences?
Last month, I made what I thought was a simple decision – switching from Bitcoin to Ethereum for my online casino sessions. Boy, was I wrong about it being simple. Three weeks and several confusing transactions later, I finally understand why this choice matters more than most players realize. Let me save you the headache I went through. The Transaction Speed Reality Check Here's something nobody tells you upfront: Bitcoin transactions can take forever. I'm talking 10-45 minutes on busy days. Last Tuesday, I waited 38 minutes for a withdrawal to process while watching my friends already celebrating their wins. Ethereum? Different story entirely. Most transactions clear in 2-5 minutes. Sometimes faster. But here's the catch – and there's always a catch. Ethereum's gas fees can spike randomly. I once paid $47 in fees for a $200 withdrawal. Bitcoin's fees are usually more predictable, even if the wait time isn't. Smart Contracts vs. Traditional Transactions This is where things get interesting. Ethereum casinos can use smart contracts for automatic payouts. Sounds fancy, right? It is, actually. I discovered this during a poker tournament last month. The Bitcoin Casino Bonus Codes website explained how traditional Bitcoin casinos require manual processing for complex bets. With Ethereum, the smart contract handled everything automatically. No waiting for human verification. No 'processing delays.' Just instant, automated payouts based on predetermined rules. The Fee Structure Nightmare Let's talk money – specifically, how much you'll lose to fees. Bitcoin fees are straightforward but can be expensive during network congestion. I've paid anywhere from $3 to $25 per transaction, depending on how busy the network was. Ethereum fees are… complicated. Gas prices fluctuate based on network demand. Early morning transactions might cost $2. Evening transactions during NFT drops? I've seen $80 fees for simple transfers. Pro tip I learned the hard way: Check gas prices before making any Ethereum casino transactions. There are websites that track this stuff in real-time. Game Variety and Platform Options Here's something interesting I noticed: Bitcoin casinos have been around longer, so they often have more established game libraries. Slots, poker, blackjack – the classics are well-developed. Ethereum casinos, being newer, tend to experiment more. I've found unique games that don't exist on Bitcoin platforms. Decentralized poker rooms, prediction markets, even some weird hybrid games I can't fully explain. The downside? Ethereum platforms sometimes feel less polished. I encountered three different bugs last week that required customer support intervention. Security Considerations Nobody Mentions Both networks are secure, but they handle security differently. Bitcoin's security comes from its massive mining network and decade-plus track record. It's the 'boring but reliable' option. I've never worried about the Bitcoin network itself being compromised. Ethereum's security is more complex because of smart contracts. The network itself is solid, but individual smart contracts can have bugs. I've read about casino smart contracts getting exploited, though I haven't experienced this personally. The Bonus Code Situation This might surprise you: bonus structures differ significantly between Bitcoin and Ethereum casinos. Bitcoin casinos often offer traditional percentage bonuses. Deposit 1 BTC, get 0.5 BTC bonus. Simple math. Ethereum casinos get creative with their bonuses because smart contracts allow for complex conditions. I've seen bonuses that unlock gradually based on play time, or bonuses that change based on game performance. Some new bitcoin casino platforms are starting to offer hybrid approaches, accepting both currencies with different bonus structures for each. Which Should You Choose? After three months of testing both extensively, here's my honest take: Choose Bitcoin if you value stability and don't mind waiting. The ecosystem is mature, fees are predictable (if sometimes high), and you're less likely to encounter technical issues. Choose Ethereum if you want faster transactions and don't mind complexity. The games are often more innovative, smart contracts enable unique features, but you'll need to understand gas fees and accept some platform instability. My Personal Recommendation I ended up using both, actually. Bitcoin for large deposits and withdrawals where I can plan ahead. Ethereum for quick sessions where I want immediate access to funds. It's not the simple answer I wanted when I started this journey, but it's the practical one I've landed on. The crypto casino landscape is evolving rapidly. What works today might change next month. But understanding these fundamental differences will help you make better decisions regardless of how the technology develops. Just remember to always gamble responsibly, regardless of which cryptocurrency you choose. The End Is Here in Explosive First Trailer for THE SANDMAN Season 2 RELATED: Everything Coming to Netflix in July 2025
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Kalshi Joins Polymarket in Unicorn Club With Latest Fundraise: Report
Prediction market Kalshi, a federally regulated competitor to Polymarket, has raised $185 million at a valuation of $2 billion, according to a press release. This round brings the company's total funding to date to $415 million, the release says. Kalshi said it plans to use the funding to scale the engineering team, launch new market structures, and collaborate with new partners. This comes less than a day after reports emerged that Polymarket was raising $200 million at a valuation of $1 billion, led by Peter Thiel's Founders Fund. Publicly available data from Kalshi's API curated by Polymarket Analytics (not affiliated with Polymarket) shows that Kalshi has around $113 million in current active trading volume across all open markets, while Polymarket has just under $600 million. Kalshi now hosts more active markets than Polymarket, but remains behind in open interest, a key metric that reflects liquidity and trader conviction in prediction markets. A Dune dashboard shows that Polymarket has around 186,000 active traders. Paradigm led Kalshi's latest round. The crypto-focused VC recently led the Series A round for GTE, a decentralized exchange (DEX) that looks to rival HyperLiquid in speed. In January, Donald Trump Jr. announced he was joining Kalshi as a senior advisor. UPDATE (June 25, 2025, 20:00 UTC): Updates with figures based on a release sent by Kalshi versus Bloomberg reporting. Sign in to access your portfolio