Tag Archives: ChatGPT

Cognitive Surrender

1 Reply

Human beings have always used technology to boost their life chances. Initially, we used technology to support our physical needs, through tools and later farming. About 5,500 years ago we started writing, which was built on language and may have been one of the first technologies to support our cognitive capabilities. In more recent times we have given arithmetic to the calculator, navigation to GPS, and retrieval of information to the search engine. Each time, something was lost and something was gained, and mostly we haven’t mourned the loss. I don’t miss doing long division by hand.

AI think therefore AI am

AI is different. It reaches further into the layer of reasoning itself. It can generate the hypothesis, build the argument, critique its own plan, weigh the evidence, and decide what question to ask next. Calculators did arithmetic. AI does some of the thinking.

This can happen in several ways, and the distinction between them is meaningful:

  • Cognitive assistance. “Help me solve this problem.” The thinking is still mine; I’ve brought in a tool to sharpen it.
  • Cognitive delegation. “Work this out for me and give me the answer.” I’ve handed over the task, but I chose to, and I could take it back.
  • Cognitive dependence. “I don’t really want to think this through myself; I’ll ask AI.” The choosing has started to erode. It’s becoming the default, not the decision.
  • Cognitive surrender. “AI is better at this than I am, so I’ll defer to it.” A judgement, however implicit, that the machine’s answer is simply more trustworthy than my own thinking would be.
  • Cognitive substitution. “I can no longer do this, so will get AI to do it.” This isn’t really a choice anymore. The capacity itself has begun to disappear.

One of the stories we tell ourselves about AI is that it will make people less intelligent. The more likely story is that people gradually stop exercising certain cognitive muscles because they no longer experience any need to. Yet their output keeps rising.

Cognitive Wealth

Should that trouble us? Adam Smith might have recognised the argument. In The Wealth of Nations, he showed how specialisation and the right tools could dramatically increase productivity. A worker doing one narrow task, with the right machinery, could produce far more than a generalist.

If the AI produces a better answer, why mourn the fact that we didn’t work it out ourselves?

But Smith didn’t think rising output settled the matter. In the same book, he warned that a worker confined to a few operations had little occasion to exercise his understanding and could become “as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become.” Smith saw both things as true. Specialisation made us more productive, and it could also make us less capable.

There is an important difference with AI, though. Smith’s worker became narrow in one part of his working life. His broader capacity for judgement remained intact. With AI, what we’re potentially outsourcing isn’t one particular task. It’s the act of reasoning itself. Losing long division doesn’t cost me my ability to think through a difficult decision. Losing the habit of thinking difficult things through might.

Use It, Or Lose It

This is no longer only a philosophical worry. Early evidence points in this direction. A 2025 survey of 666 participants found heavier AI use correlated with lower critical thinking scores (Gerlich, 2025). An MIT Media Lab study using EEG compared essay-writers working unaided, with a search engine, or with an AI assistant, and found the AI-assisted group had the weakest neural connectivity and the lowest sense of ownership over their own work (Kosmyna et al., 2025). Both build on an older, well-established finding: that offloading mental effort onto external tools shapes what a mind stays practised at (Risko & Gilbert, 2016).

Yet, this does not mean decline is inevitable. The flaw in the historical parallel is that Smith’s factory workers were cogs in a physical system they did not control. AI is not a conveyor belt; it is a collaborative partner. The erosion of our critical thinking isn’t an inevitable consequence of the technology. It depends, at least in part, on how we choose to deploy it.

Imagine two people working the same hard problem with AI. The first treats the system as a cognitive replacement: they ask a question, accept the first 30-second response without friction, and paste the output. They have chosen cognitive substitution.

The second treats the system as a cognitive sparring partner. They use the AI to generate counterarguments to their own hypotheses, to stress-test their logic, and to explore blind spots they couldn’t see alone. They might solve the problem in a fraction of the time, but their brain has been actively engaged in an intellectual heavy-lifting session. They have chosen cognitive expansion.

AI has the profound potential to strip away the mechanical, administrative cognitive load we currently carry. By automating the grunt work, it can free up mental space for higher-order judgement, curiosity, creativity, and the fundamental human task of deciding what is actually worth doing in the first place.

The real dividing line of the AI era is not between the technology and us. It is the boundary between using AI to extend cognition versus using it instead of cognition. If we treat AI as an escape from the challenge of thinking, substitution is likely. But if we use it to push our reasoning further than we could go alone, the technology could become a powerful amplifier of human agency.

If AI makes me more capable in practice, while making me less capable without it, have I actually become more capable? The answer depends entirely on which of us is steering the machine.

Notes

  • Gerlich, M. (2025). AI tools in society: Impacts on cognitive offloading and the future of critical thinking. Societies, 15(1), 6.
  • Kosmyna, N., Hauptmann, E., Yuan, Y. T., et al. (2025). Your brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of cognitive debt when using an AI assistant for essay writing task. arXiv preprint 2506.08872.
  • Risko, E. F., & Gilbert, S. J. (2016). Cognitive offloading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(9), 676–688.

How will AI impact teachers?

Leave a reply

Super-charger

ChatGPT has recently triggered tremendous excitement about AI and its potential impact on education. Much interest has focused on the learner experience, including the ability to personalise learning. There have of course also been concerns around cheating and plagiarism.

However, AI also has the potential to super-charge teachers.

According to McKinsey, 20-40% of current teacher time comprises tasks that could be automated. They estimate that teachers could re-direct approximately 13 hours per week towards activities that raise student outcomes and increase teacher satisfaction.  The tasks of preparing lessons, administration, evaluation and feedback are flagged as high potential for AI.

Love’s Labour’s Lost

These results echo those of Sanoma’s Learning Impact Survey, in which teachers indicate a desire to go digital in those areas which were most labour intensive, flagging essentially the same areas.  This suggests both that the opportunity is in these tasks and that the profession is looking for solutions.

present_vs_ideal

Teaching profession under pressure

The teacher is arguably the most positive intervention in education.  However the teaching profession faces significant challenges.  UNESCO estimates an additional 69m teachers need to enter the profession by 2030 to fulfil global demand.  In some parts of the world, teacher turnover is high, for example in parts of the USA annual teacher turnover exceeds 15%.  In the UK more than 80% of teachers are considering leaving the profession due to dis-satisfaction.

Higher impact & happier teachers needed!

Furthermore, on average teachers spend only half of their time actually teaching.  This represents not only lost productivity from the core task but is also demotivating for many teachers whose passion is to teach rather than the ancillary tasks around it.  Enabling teacher workflow could therefore not only increase productivity but also make the profession more attractive.

SVGZ-AI-boon-Ex1.svgz

$400bn impact & opportunity

The opportunity to solve this productivity gap is huge.  Measured in terms of financials, assuming global spending on education to be some $6trn, of which 45% is on K-12 education,  and of which 75% is spent on staff salaries, this implies a global spend on teaching/staff salaries of some $2trn per year.  A 20-40% uplift in productivity through AI could arguably be worth some $400-800bn per year in terms of paid and unpaid output!  Which is not to say that this is a saving governments could make or a revenue that education companies could earn, because a significant slice of that value should rightfully return to teachers through higher salaries and quality of life, and another part would rightfully get re-directed to teacher-student interaction to increase outcomes and professional satisfaction.

20%

Help the teacher to focus on teaching!

It’s my belief that the teacher will continue to be the killer app in education, and that the biggest opportunity to make not only a positive impact on learning and teaching in K-12 but also to build a successful business, is to enable the workflow of the teacher.  Probably by combining it with the other side of the same coin: the learn-flow (learning experience) of the student.  

Looking forward >>

It will be exciting to see how we deploy AI in the coming years for a positive impact on learning. Looking forward >>.