The Impact of Generative AI on Critical Thinking: Self-Reported Reductions in Cognitive Effort and Confidence Effects From a Survey of Knowledge Workers

Paper · Source
Workplace ApplicationsSocial Theory and SocietyCo-Writing and Collaboration

As Bainbridge [7] noted, a key irony of automation is that by mechanising routine tasks and leaving exception-handling to the human user, you deprive the user of the routine opportunities to practice their judgement and strengthen their cognitive musculature, leaving them atrophied and unprepared when the exceptions do arise.

In response, research has begun looking closely at how different activities are impacted by GenAI and the extent to which cognitive offloading [8] occurs, and whether this may be an undesirable thing. Some work has focused, for instance, on studying the effects of GenAI use on memory (e.g., [1, 106]) and on creativity (e.g., [28, 100]). Moreover, design research has also been developing interventions that improve the ability of people to think in certain ways (e.g., [24]). We review these lines of work in Section 2.

Lines of inquiry this paper opens 24

Research framings built by reading the notes related to this paper — the questions it feeds into.

How does offloading cognition to AI assistance affect learning retention? What causes hallucination and how can it be addressed? Does AI assistance enhance or undermine professional skill development? Why do human-AI teams underperform compared to their individual components? What shapes user trust in chatbot recommendations for news and politics? What conversation mechanics enable genuine human-AI communicative participation? Does generative AI replace coordination with individual productivity? Can we reliably measure and demonstrate AI's actual productivity impact? Does polished AI output mislead users about actual accuracy and expertise?