A recent study from MIT has revealed that using ChatGPT can significantly lower brain activity in users. This preliminary research involved 54 volunteers aged between 18 and 39 from various countries, including students and postdoctoral researchers from prestigious institutions like MIT, Harvard University, and Wellesley College.

Participants were equipped with headsets to monitor their brain activity while they wrote essays both with and without the assistance of ChatGPT. After four months, those who had relied on the AI tool showed a decline in their neural, linguistic, and behavioral skills when compared to those who did not use it.

The findings have sparked discussions within the field of artificial intelligence regarding the potential long-term effects of using such technology on cognitive functions. As ChatGPT's user base continues to grow—now reaching around 800 million weekly users—these results raise important questions about how reliance on AI tools may impact learning and memory over time.

Original article

This article doesn't give you anything you can actually *do* right now, so it’s not actionable. It talks about a study but doesn’t tell you what to do if you use ChatGPT, like whether you should stop or limit it. It also doesn’t teach you much in a deep way about how the brain works with AI or why the study found what it did—it just shares results without explaining the science behind them. For personal relevance, it might make you think about your own use of AI tools, but it doesn’t show how this study directly affects your daily life or decisions. It doesn’t serve a public service either, like giving you tools or resources to handle AI use better. There are no practical recommendations, so you’re left wondering what to do with this information. The long-term impact it hints at is important, but without more details or advice, it’s hard to act on it. Emotionally, it might make you worry about using AI, but it doesn’t leave you feeling empowered or informed enough to make changes. Finally, while it’s not full of ads or clicks, it feels more like a headline grabber than a helpful guide, leaving you with questions instead of answers. Overall, it’s interesting but doesn’t give you anything useful to take away.

The notion that using ChatGPT can significantly lower brain activity in users raises concerns about the potential long-term effects on cognitive functions, particularly among younger generations. This trend may undermine the natural duties of parents, educators, and community members to foster critical thinking, problem-solving, and linguistic skills in children.

As people become increasingly reliant on AI tools for learning and communication, there is a risk that family cohesion and community trust may be eroded. The decline in neural, linguistic, and behavioral skills observed in the study may lead to a lack of personal responsibility and accountability, as individuals may rely more heavily on technology rather than their own abilities. This could have far-reaching consequences for the survival and continuity of communities.

The fact that 800 million people use ChatGPT weekly suggests that this behavior is becoming normalized, which may lead to a shift away from traditional learning methods and social interactions. This could result in a loss of essential skills necessary for procreative families to thrive, such as effective communication, conflict resolution, and emotional intelligence.

Moreover, the potential long-term effects of reduced brain activity on learning and memory may compromise the ability of future generations to care for themselves, their families, and their communities. This could ultimately threaten the stewardship of the land and the protection of vulnerable members of society.

If this trend continues unchecked, we can expect to see a decline in community trust, social cohesion, and family responsibility. The consequences will be felt across generations, as children grow up without developing essential cognitive skills, leading to a lack of personal agency and accountability. Ultimately, this may compromise the very survival of our communities.

In conclusion, it is essential to recognize the potential risks associated with over-reliance on AI tools like ChatGPT and to encourage individuals to maintain a balance between technology use and traditional learning methods. By doing so, we can ensure that future generations develop the necessary skills to thrive and contribute to the well-being of their families and communities.

The text begins by citing a study from MIT, immediately leveraging the authority of a prestigious institution to establish credibility. This is an example of structural and institutional bias, as it relies on the reputation of MIT to validate the findings without critically examining the study’s methodology or limitations. By framing the research as coming from a respected source, the text subtly manipulates the reader into accepting the results as more reliable than they might otherwise be. The phrase “preliminary research” is used, which could imply that the findings are not conclusive, but this nuance is overshadowed by the emphasis on MIT’s involvement, potentially leading readers to overestimate the study’s significance.

The selection of participants—54 volunteers aged 18 to 39 from institutions like MIT, Harvard, and Wellesley—introduces selection and omission bias. The sample is limited to a specific demographic: young, highly educated individuals from elite institutions. This narrow focus excludes diverse perspectives, such as those from different age groups, educational backgrounds, or socioeconomic statuses. By omitting these groups, the text implicitly suggests that the findings apply broadly, which may not be the case. The phrase “from various countries” is mentioned, but no details are provided about the distribution or representation of these countries, leaving the reader to assume a level of diversity that may not exist.

The text states that participants showed a decline in “neural, linguistic, and behavioral skills” after using ChatGPT, but it does not provide specific metrics or definitions for these terms. This lack of clarity is an example of linguistic and semantic bias, as it uses vague, emotionally charged language to imply a negative impact without substantiating the claim. The word “decline” carries a negative connotation, framing the findings in a way that predisposes the reader to view the use of ChatGPT as harmful. Additionally, the text does not explore potential counterarguments or alternative interpretations of the data, such as whether the decline is temporary or context-dependent.

The mention of ChatGPT’s 800 million weekly users serves to amplify the perceived urgency of the issue, an example of framing and narrative bias. By highlighting this large user base, the text creates a sense of widespread concern, even though the study itself involved only 54 participants. This juxtaposition of a small-scale study with a massive user base distorts the proportionality of the issue, making it seem more alarming than it might be. The phrase “these results raise important questions” further manipulates the reader by implying that the findings are definitive enough to warrant broad concern, despite the study’s preliminary nature.

The text does not mention any potential benefits of using ChatGPT, such as its role in enhancing productivity or accessibility, which is an example of confirmation bias. By focusing exclusively on the negative findings, it reinforces a one-sided narrative that aligns with the idea that AI tools are inherently detrimental. This omission skews the reader’s understanding by presenting only one perspective on a complex issue. The lack of balance in the discussion suggests an ideological stance against AI reliance, rather than a neutral examination of its effects.

Finally, the text’s structure and language subtly favor a cultural and ideological bias rooted in Western academic and technological discourse. The focus on elite institutions and the assumption that cognitive decline is a universal negative outcome reflect Western priorities and values, such as individual achievement and academic rigor. There is no consideration of how AI tools might be perceived or used in non-Western contexts, where different cultural or educational frameworks may apply. This bias is embedded in the text’s unquestioned acceptance of the study’s framework as universally relevant, without acknowledging its cultural specificity.

The text primarily conveys concern and caution, which are subtly woven throughout the description of the MIT study. These emotions emerge from phrases like “significantly lower brain activity,” “decline in their neural, linguistic, and behavioral skills,” and “potential long-term effects.” The concern is moderate in strength, as the language remains factual but highlights negative outcomes tied to using ChatGPT. This emotion serves to alert readers to a possible problem, encouraging them to take the findings seriously. By framing the results as a warning, the text guides readers to feel a sense of worry about the impact of AI tools on cognitive abilities. This emotional tone is further reinforced by the mention of a large and growing user base, which amplifies the urgency of the issue.

The writer uses comparisons to heighten emotional impact, such as contrasting users who relied on ChatGPT with those who did not, emphasizing the decline in skills. The repetition of phrases like “neural, linguistic, and behavioral skills” reinforces the seriousness of the issue. Additionally, the inclusion of prestigious institutions like MIT and Harvard adds credibility, building trust in the study’s findings. These tools make the message more persuasive by grounding the emotions in authority and evidence, steering readers to view the issue as credible and important.

The emotional structure of the text shapes opinions by framing AI reliance as a risk to cognitive health, potentially limiting clear thinking by focusing on negative outcomes without exploring possible benefits or nuances. Recognizing the use of concern and caution helps readers distinguish between factual findings and the emotional tone meant to influence their reaction. This awareness allows readers to evaluate the message objectively, understanding that while the study presents data, the emotional framing is designed to guide their interpretation toward caution and concern.