ChatGPT is making power users stupid and lonely

[Basman]

Quote

The study divided 54 subjects—18 to 39 year-olds from the Boston area—into three groups, and asked them to write several SAT essays using OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Google’s search engine, and nothing at all, respectively. Researchers used an EEG to record the writers’ brain activity across 32 regions, and found that of the three groups, ChatGPT users had the lowest brain engagement and “consistently underperformed at neural, linguistic, and behavioral levels.” Over the course of several months, ChatGPT users got lazier with each subsequent essay, often resorting to copy-and-paste by the end of the study.

The paper suggests that the usage of LLMs could actually harm learning, especially for younger users. The paper has not yet been peer reviewed, and its sample size is relatively small. But its paper’s main author Nataliya Kosmyna felt it was important to release the findings to elevate concerns that as society increasingly relies upon LLMs for immediate convenience, long-term brain development may be sacrificed in the process...

...The group that wrote essays using ChatGPT all delivered extremely similar essays that lacked original thought, relying on the same expressions and ideas. Two English teachers who assessed the essays called them largely “soulless.” The EEGs revealed low executive control and attentional engagement. And by their third essay, many of the writers simply gave the prompt to ChatGPT and had it do almost all of the work. “It was more like, ‘just give me the essay, refine this sentence, edit it, and I’m done,’” Kosmyna says. 

The brain-only group, conversely, showed the highest neural connectivity, especially in alpha, theta and delta bands, which are associated with creativity ideation, memory load, and semantic processing. Researchers found this group was more engaged and curious, and claimed ownership and expressed higher satisfaction with their essays. 

The third group, which used Google Search, also expressed high satisfaction and active brain function. The difference here is notable because many people now search for information within AI chatbots as opposed to Google Search...

https://time.com/7295195/ai-chatgpt-google-learning-school/

Quote

...MIT's study identified several ways talking to ChatGPT — whether through text or voice — can affect a person's emotional experience, beyond the general finding that higher use led to "heightened loneliness and reduced socialization." For example, participants who already trusted the chatbot and tended to get emotionally attached in human relationships felt lonelier and more emotionally dependent on ChatGPT during the study. Those effects were less severe with ChatGPT's voice mode, though, particularly if ChatGPT spoke in a neutral tone. Discussing personal topics also tended to lead to loneliness in the short-term, and interestingly, speaking to ChatGPT about more general topics was more likely to increase emotional dependence...

https://www.engadget.com/ai/joint-studies-from-openai-and-mit-found-links-between-loneliness-and-chatgpt-use-193537421.html

Certain things have value in being done by yourself, like thinking, contemplation, art, education and socialization. AI can be an addition to these but when they become a replacement you start seeing negative consequences for it.

No such thing as a free lunch. There is a cost to heavy reliance on AI for things that are worth doing yourself. It's especially concerning young people who grow up with this shit. In general, kids need to have restricted access to technology in my opinion because it can loop side their development in ways that hard to predict. 

[Hojo]

This just shows that doing research will make you fulfilled over not doing research. It shows that if you have no engagement with something you dont identify with it and therefore are not proud of it.

It said people who used nothing and people who used search engine got the same amount because they engaged or looked for something.

The should have the gpt users have an engaging part of the essay like a brain puzzle to beat without gpt and see if they feel more proud.          

It dosent say if the people failed the ssay if they would have a sense of pride either.

Edited Monday at 06:55 PM by Hojo

[Basman]

7 minutes ago, Hojo said:

This just shows that doing research will make you fulfilled over not doing research. It shows that if you have no engagement with something you dont identify with it and therefore are not proud of it.

It said people who used nothing and people who used search engine got the same amount because they engaged or looked for something.

The should have the gpt users have an engaging part of the essay like a brain puzzle to beat without gpt and see if they feel more proud.          

Of course if you use it as an additive you will avoid the pitfalls. But AI is largely used to replace certain tasks. If those tasks are worth doing then you will deprive yourself emotionally and intellectually. 

And it's a lot more limiting to use AI purely an additive as opposed to as a replacement for certain tasks in an unrestricted sort of way. Unrestricted use is going to trend towards replacement because in the case of the opposite you hardly need to use AI for all that much in my opinion. Your better off googling things yourself, developing your own opinions and talking to a real therapist. 

[Basman]

It's time we started talking about the real use case of AI, grounded in mundane practical rubber-meets-the-road reality. Not a cooked up hyper-reality of investment hype and technology worship. 

Actual practical use of AI is going to be quiet mundane after all I think, but there will also be significant downsides. AI has been a boon for scams, data theft and slop and we risk dehumanizing traditionally humanizing aspects, like art and human interaction. In my experience, the people most excited about AI tend to be talentless and lazy. Tell me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I am.

There are certain things worth doing even if you can replace them. That's all.

[Hojo]

Since its all regurgitating information the best way would be for AI to only talk to you 0 text and you can only talk to it. You have to force the person to pay attention and engage.

Edited Monday at 07:37 PM by Hojo

[Carl-Richard]

I've noticed I should try to force myself to learn certain things related to my work (using programs like MATLAB) rather than get GPT to do the work, as that would actually speed up my work, because sometimes GPT gets stuck and neither of us knows why. If I have just a little more knowledge of certain things, I can probably help it get unstuck a few times more where it really matters, and then the work grows exponentially.

[Reciprocality]

Yet they must learn to use these AI systems, some of the findings in this study will be be a necessary sacrifice, certainly on average.

We may also generalise any set of passively consumed information and mastery of that information as yielding similar result, less brain usage during relative passivity and much more brain usage during mastery. This study is like comparing the brain usage of a 13 year old on vacation to Bahamas with a 13 year old asked to recall and interpret what really happened on Bahamas and engaging in conversation about it, it is moreover completely predictable that those who have spent 100/300 hours engaged with AI will spend much less productive energy writing an essay by means of that AI than someone who has spent 1000/2000 hours writing without AI will when asked to write an essay without it.

What is the result of someone who has spent 1000 hours actively with AI? Will be no mystery when it turns out that their brain is properly used in that context.

Edited Tuesday at 12:23 PM by Reciprocality

[Basman]

On 6/30/2025 at 9:35 PM, Hojo said:

Since its all regurgitating information the best way would be for AI to only talk to you 0 text and you can only talk to it. You have to force the person to pay attention and engage.

What do you imagine exactly? 

[Hojo]

@Basman  I can't remeber what i was saying sorry.