Brain activity much lower when using AI chatbots, MIT boffins find

https://www.theregister.com/2025/06/18/is_ai_changing_our_brains/

by dijksterhuis • 1 year ago

49 73 1 year ago

robviren• 1 year ago

I feel this depends entirely on how you use it. Using it as a rubber duck to talk through ideas? doubt my brain activity is lower because of that. Using it to stub out boiler plate code? I'm glad my brain activity is lower for that.

I won't use AI for emails or creative content, but I'll for sure use it as a sounding board and as a trivial task completer. I bet my brain activity is lower using a calculator.

Nuance does not make for a flashy article title.

bluefirebrand8• 1 year ago

I think the calculator example is apt, but flawed

Is it safe to say that people are generally much worse at mental math nowadays due to calculators being ready available on every smartphone? I think it is reasonable to assume that's true. Math is more accessible thanks to tools now, but people are worse at it in general?

If that's true, that we became worse at mental math thanks to readily available tools, then what does it suggest about a readily available tool that "thinks" for us?

The same way we used to caution devs not to just copy and paste from Stack Overflow, we now have to repeat with AI... Except AI is being pushed to literally take over that whole workflow!

At least with Stack Overflow you had to identify where in the code to paste it!

Edit:

A further thought in Math. I suppose there is a difference between "Math" and "Calculation". Likely due to modern education people do know (at least vaguely) more about Math than before. Maybe the skill of actually performing calculations is not that valuable as long as you have some baseline understanding of the underlying Math

Still the problem with AI tools is they promise to do the Calculation and also understand the Math for you. To calculate an angle you need to know enough Trig to figure out which sides you need to measure and which function you need to use on the Calculator. With AI, in theory, you just ask it what it needs to calculate that angle, it tells you, you measure, input the numbers, and it gives you the angle back. No Human understanding of anything required. A total loss imo

You can view it as freeing our cognitive abilities for other things

I view it as never developing cognitive abilities because we never had to actually use them

cgriswald5• 1 year ago

Why would that be reasonable to assume? Even ignoring that calculators were ubiquitous long before smart phones existed, a google search can give you actual facts. A quick search suggests otherwise but I’ll let you do your own.

People can still do math in their head (and on paper) despite the existence of calculators. They can still dig holes by hand despite the existence of shovels. And they can still write a for loop despite the existence of AI.

wwweston• 1 year ago

Calculation develops your intuition for some things. I wouldn’t want to always have to do arithmetic by hand, but I’m sure glad I’ve had the practice doing it.

Turns out AI could put us in a chinese room.

spwa4• 1 year ago

Is it safe to say that people are generally much worse at mental math nowadays due to calculators being ready available on every smartphone? I think it is reasonable to assume that's true. Math is more accessible thanks to tools now, but people are worse at it in general?

Nope. The answer is government and money.

As someone who had a father that taught students and now has kids (that I teach myself, and help them go to school) I know the direct answer: teachers. Also: mental math did not drop off a cliff when calculators appeared, nor when they were accepted. It slowly slid downward. More than that: it peaked. It's not like the people who fought in WW2 were good at mental math either. So between 1960 and 2000 something happened to greatly push mental math ... and now to destroy that ability.

A long-term perspective on the teacher profession also taught me why. In the 70s few people were educated. Why would you? And worse: we were all working in industry. That's where the money was ... but not if you were educated (which, let's be honest, tends to instill less willingness to do repetitive manual labor). The limiting factor of growing industry was: geometry, calculus and fast mental math. That's what you require to make good plans and good use of factories to turn metal into products.

A lot of smart, or at least educated, people were lured into government positions in the 70s by the previous economic crisis, and the new growth market of industry were pushing and pushing and pushing to teach math, from as young as possible. They taught themselves math because they started teaching careers and the money in these was hard to beat. Industry paid for advanced math courses for teachers. In the 70s teaching positions easily matched industry wages, except you mostly worked at a desk, and especially the pension plans were sweet. Teachers got free math course, paid for by industry, to teach themselves math because that got you better positions, making a bit more per month.

Of course, the government lied. Here's the HUGE caveat in a government contract: A government can simply vote in a law or even regulation that "overrides the contract", an therefore cannot be counted on to keep long-term promises even when there is a signature on a paper. And while unions help slow the destruction, they cannot stop the slide. So starting after the crisis at the end of the 1980s governments lowered teacher pay, even for existing people (which is where government power comes in: private sector firms are not allowed to do this). Which then also meant they accepted a much lower quality of people into the teaching profession, as they couldn't compete anymore, the government simply did not care, and existing teachers got discouraged. Now, mind you, "quality" refers to their academic ability, as certainly a part of teacher pay was (and is) that you work all day in a position where you socially dominate everyone around you, which of course led to abuses of that position as well. And since it's not like lower academic quality people are not abusing their positions as teachers, that part has stayed (just look up developmental psychology papers: almost all child abuse happens in schools, and what has the government done about that? Well: CPS was legally forbidden from investigating schools, or teachers. Only parents get investigated and even blamed for school problems (that's in theory, in practice of course it's mostly the least powerful that CPS really attacks: the kids themselves))

coffeefirst• 1 year ago

Right. And this may be the problem. The tool-makers really try to sell this as a service to use as a crutch rather than a tool. There's a huge mental gap between "use the LM to research some stuff I'm writing an email about, and cite sources" and "write the email for me."

SirFatty2• 1 year ago

I knew that was a Register headline...

fxtentacle• 1 year ago

... because nobody else uses "boffins" as a positive word anymore.

SirFatty2• 1 year ago

Because no one else uses "boffins" in tech headline.

e.g. "UK gov asks university boffins to pinpoint cyber growth areas where it should splash cash"

OJFord• 1 year ago

Where are you from? In the UK I'd say it's uncommon but positive. The abbreviation 'boff' is mildly perjorative, but I haven't heard that since school (i.e. 'grade school'), I suppose since at some point around puberty it stops being insulting to say someone's clever.

tempodox• 1 year ago

You may have had unsuccessful support for your thesis here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44318264

gnabgib• 1 year ago

Discussion (342 points, 3 days ago, 385 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44286277

JdeBP2• 1 year ago

With more comments on duplicates at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44307057 , https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44252489 , and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44296711 .

dijksterhuis• 1 year ago

ah balls. on me.

at least more people get to see the word boffin today /s

AlecSchueler• 1 year ago

No worries, we all forgot the previous discussion because our brains are AI mush.

strangescript• 1 year ago

I am sure my brain activity is lower when I use a calculator instead of doing math by hand as well.

-- Nothing like a 100% accurate statement getting downvotes because people hate AI

incomingpain4• 1 year ago

"Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, weak men create hard times."

This happens via brain connections and brain activity. The good times means less tribulations and the weak men simply havent formed the brain pathways.

AI makes for 'good times' and the easy 'low brain engagement' is the identified problem.

These scanned folks likely are using AI wrong.

Never ask AI "summarize this book" for me. You're missing out on reading the book. What if you read the book and then ask "What did this book miss?" or "give me ideas on what i can do to expand on the ideas in this book"

The way i look at it, dont 'reduce' only 'expand'

The way I found this, back in the day video games were awesome and then an EXPANSION was added that expanded the game. So when working on my open source projects, I was always asking 'whats the next expansion?"

Something that i love asking ai. "Here's my project and what it does. What are the next big ideas that can be added."

rcxdude2• 1 year ago

"Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, weak men create hard times."

This is an aphorism that mostly doesn't bear out historically. Good times tended to make people wealthy, and wealthy people tended to be stronger, not weaker.

hombre_fatal2• 1 year ago

It's definitely a trite aphorism, but presumably it's talking about endurance in the face of adversity, not physical strength.

I've thought of that aphorism from time to time when I encounter people on vacation here in Mexico, let's say, who seem to become a wreck when some small thing doesn't go as they'd liked.

Like the kitchen is outside next to the pool, so there's no A/C and how dreadful is that. And the boy at the cenote charged them 60 pesos ($3) while a sign says that resident Mexicans only pay 30 pesos and that's unfair for someone who has 10x the wage of the resident Mexicans. And someone had a chicken on the bus going to Guadalajara. And now they're going to grumble with their spouse for six hours over it. And there was an iguana in their shower this morning so now they're getting management involved.

I'm thinking this is a weak, pathetic man crippled by a life too comfortable.

incomingpain4• 1 year ago

This is an aphorism that mostly doesn't bear out historically. Good times tended to make people wealthy, and wealthy people tended to be stronger, not weaker.

I wholly agree with the aphorism and it's a defeatable law; but perhaps it's not exactly clear who they mean. It's not about father-son type situation. It's completely unclear what 'strong' they even mean. Not to mention the other law that's counter to this in that who is defining weak vs strong?

My argument against the aphorism is the cycles can be happening out of sync. It's not like 100% of men are weak in any era. It's not that you cant intentionally break the cycle.

Rockefellers, Buffet, Bill Gates, Elon Musk, and andrew Carnegie are all perfect examples of breaking out of the cycle.

Perhaps we need to rewrite the saying:

Difficult times forge resilient people, resilient people build prosperous societies, prosperity breeds complacency and dependence, complacency and dependence usher in difficult times.

probably_wrong2• 1 year ago

These scanned folks likely are using AI wrong.

This feels like victim blaming.

If the tool can be so easily misused that the participants in this study "used it wrong" by default, then were are the safeguards? How are these companies nudging the users in the "right" direction?

The way I see it, if there's nothing in the system telling you that you're using it "wrong" then you're using it exactly as intended.

incomingpain4• 1 year ago

A hammer can be so easily misused in that you can try to knock in nails using the claw side.

How come nobody is telling them to use the other side? If the hammer doesnt have instructions on the side to say to use the hammer side, then it's being used exactly as intended.

joegibbs• 1 year ago

Isn't that the whole point? It wouldn't be any use for anyone if a new technology did the same thing as before but made it harder rather than easier.

Barrin92• 1 year ago

It would be of great use if it did that. Technology can roughly be grouped in two categories. One that enhances, amplifies and develops innate human capacity, and tools that diminish it.

Using a bow engages more faculties, both physical and mental than clobbering someone on the head but it's also a more effective tool. Using a debugger is both a difficult skill but also useful. You grow, and have to increase your aptitude , with the tool use. An exercise bike and meditation practice are harder than a sleeping pill and ozempic.

Chatbots are more in the category of the 400 pound guy driving through wallmart on his electric scooter. Whatever use it has, it almost certainly diminishes if not totally atrophies their ability to move. Given that the modern framing of technology has changed to "what does it do for me" rather than "what does it do to me", it's not surprising that people are largely not capable to understand the difference.

JKCalhoun2• 1 year ago

I use the analogy of chatting with a Smart Friend™ about programming. Something I have done my entire career. ;-)

bluefirebrand8• 1 year ago

My Smart Friends throughout my career have never kissed my ass the way chatbots do. It's probably part of the reason I kept improving over time

JKCalhoun2• 1 year ago

You raise a good point. (My Smart Friends in fact seemed annoyed whenever they saw me strolling over to their cubicle — might have made me do it less?)

bargainbin• 1 year ago

Tool that gains popularity for reducing cognitive load is found to reduce cognitive load. Shocker.

I expect better from El Reg.

amelius2• 1 year ago

Why? Cognitive load could go elsewhere. Like going from low-level programming to better architecture decisions.

panxyh• 1 year ago

Because people are lazy.

mensetmanusman• 1 year ago

Where it will go is discovering more ways to eat sugar.

bluefirebrand8• 1 year ago

Why would it go to better architecture decisions when you can just ask the AI to make those too?

The Human problem with "the everything machine" is that it does "everything" and by and large Humans really do need to do something while we're alive

koakuma-chan• 1 year ago

Cognitive load could go elsewhere.

EVE ponytail length

add-sub-mul-div2• 1 year ago

Yes it's obvious but you're supposed to go one step deeper and consider the implications of this.

Herring2• 1 year ago

Why? This website is for 2-liners, not in-depth discussions. More and more I find myself discussing important ideas with Gemini, not other people :/

0x416c6578• 1 year ago

In my completely uneducated-in-this-field view, "brain activity" can be broken down into two distinct types - the first type involves the raw procedural work required to solve a problem like 3012 x 42 in one's head, and the second involves higher level conceptual, critical and creative thinking required to say write a book or design a complex algorithm.

In the past, computers, calculators etc. have reduced the need for type 1 thinking, but I believe LLMs are increasingly replacing (or emulating / mimicking) type 2 thinking which - again entirely in my view - is more harmful to individuals and society as a whole.

m3kw92• 1 year ago

Any data on vs TV and reading TikTok?

anonu• 1 year ago

TIL: boffin

mediumsmart• 1 year ago

What about using the AI chatbot while riding an electric bike in traffic?

ssgodderidge• 1 year ago

Link to original MIT project overview referenced in OP link: https://www.media.mit.edu/projects/your-brain-on-chatgpt/ove...

eth0up• 1 year ago

I think this entirely depends on the application, if that's not self evident.

I do not have many options for discussions anymore. This is for various reasons.

Some of the dialogue I've experienced through various LLM systems has been far more intriguing and thought provoking than 90 percent of my human conversations. I distinctly recall thinking how great it was to have something to substitute the former roles of bygone friends, some of who were both highly educated and intelligent.

Some of my more enjoyable discussions have been in the realm of guerilla physics. So one could easily enough argue that my mind was wasting away while being cheaply entertained by bullshit. But other subjects have been equally satisfying and quite rewarding. Some credit may be due to very meticulous prompt construction. Or perhaps the simple earnestness of my inquiries. If my time spent in these sessions has reduced my cognitive activity, it is miraculous that I can function so well in a coma around most actual people, who do verily inspire one -- a coma, that is.

A deep one.

m3kw92• 1 year ago

If I’m talking to a chatbot vs humans, I don’t really have to worry about social aspects of talking and that’s a lot of load

maxehmookau• 1 year ago

"Using AI chatbots actually reduces activity in the brain"

I love the use of the word "actually" there, as if anybody were under the illusion that using LLMs makes individual humans smarter.

whatamidoingyo3• 1 year ago

I recently went to the theater with my wife to see the new Karate Kid movie. We discussed it a bit after, and I said it felt a bit rushed. Like, the character goes from being in a Chinese kung fu temple, to being in the US, with a girlfriend - and an enemy - in the first 10 minutes of the movie.

She made a really good point: we're in the TikTok era.

After she said this, it made much more sense. The whole movie felt like "reels" stitched together, with no scene lasting longer than 5 minutes.

It makes me wonder if people today (especially younger people) would be able to watch a movie like the Godfather? I have doubts.

Honestly, I'm terrified of where we are heading as a species.

PretzelPirate• 1 year ago

The whole movie felt like "reels" stitched together, with no scene lasting longer than 5 minutes.

I felt the same way about the first hour of the new mission impossible movie. It was so annoying to me that I left after that, so maybe it got better in hour two.

whatamidoingyo3• 1 year ago

We considered Mission Impossible as well. Glad we didn't. I will probably never watch another movie again if this is what movies are.

Bombthecat• 1 year ago

I just watched the new smurfs trailer.

This comment is spot on. It felt like a mix between a short, and ad for... Generation tiktok

kamaal• 1 year ago

>It makes me wonder if people today (especially younger people) would be able to watch a movie like the Godfather? I have doubts.

Last time I watched the movie 'The Irishman' with family, they all seem pretty tuned out by 15 mins.

It does feel like like addiction to reels/tiktok does have its toll. For that matter, due to Twitter exposure, I do have problems reading books.

When I probed ChatGPT a little, it tells me writing with a real pen and paper is now a super power as it lets you move slowly, pause, think etc.

whatamidoingyo3• 1 year ago

>It does feel like like addiction to reels/tiktok does have its toll.

Yes, exactly. So we offload mental tasks to AI, and avoid things that force us to concentrate for longer than 5 minutes. Cognitive decline is almost guaranteed.

Brain activity much lower when using AI chatbots, MIT boffins find

Related Stories