Atrophy versus Damage
ChatGPT is not causing "brain damage," but that does not mean we do not have to rise to the technological moment.
A recent MIT study about ChatGPT has generated quite the flurry of discourse, with people saying it’s proof that AI “makes you stupid” or “gives you brain damage” — despite the study’s author’s explicitly discouraging framing the results in those terms. Unfortunately, the media cannot resist a clickbait headline. We should not discount the results of this study, but we should not freak out either. What we are witnessing is atrophy, not damage, a critical difference. Atrophy can more readily be reversed or prevented by other means, and AI use is not the only place we see this.
Importantly, the study did not just compare ChatGPT to a control group — it included a third group, that was allowed to use search engines. All groups were tasked with writing essays. Those who used neither showed the most positive results, with search engines causing a more moderate version of the same effect witnessed with AI. Search engines have had decades to instill this effect in the public, and we have not witnessed a meltdown of public capability. People are worse at recalling specific bits of information, but there is less need for that — a process known as “cognitive offloading.”
But that supercomputer we all carry in our pocket or purse also comes with boons. While those who do not challenge themselves intellectually are unlikely to be better than they were without modern technology, so does that modern technology make it easier for those who do have the intellectual curiosity to learn and practice. It turns out that it is easier to get us to practice important skills when there’s dopamine-inducing flashing colors and gamification — even if many simply still do not put in the effort.
We have witnessed this sort of atrophying of particular skills due to technology so many times before. The advent of the written word reduced the need for memorization, calculators for manually performed math, and GPS for navigation. The average person used to be better at these skills that were replaced, not because technology damaged their brain but because it simply removed opportunities for them to practice it.
Imagine someone goes from being a varsity letterman in high school to watching sports on the couch. They have substituted the manual for the digital and, in the process, no longer get the physical practice to maintain endurance, agility, and strength. This transition has not damaged them, but they are no longer further developing or at least maintaining these skills. However, maybe they start going to the gym or even a virtual reality game comes out that lets them play the sport just like old times from the comfort of home. There are ways they can maintain these skills, and it’s possible for technology to facilitate that, whether that’s just a treadmill or something far more advanced.
No one can be great at everything, and, as long as aging remains an unsolved problem, over the long term, these skills will inevitably decline. However, by picking a good balance of ways to challenge yourself both mentally and physically, you can maintain the skills important to you. Maybe specific ones simply are not important in the world we now live in, but one can simply choose to fight the atrophy of their body and mind. The alternative is simply lower effort and easier.
Games — even ones not deliberately made to be educational — are shown to help keep the mind sharp and fight cognitive decline. And so it may prove that the way to keep people sharp is to make it fun and addictive. They are easy to dismiss as frivolous or a waste of time, but we can keep people sharp by keeping them engaged. We must rise to the baseline dopamine challenges of our time to fight people’s atrophy.
Many bemoan the death of education in the face of artificial intelligence, but we have the chance to rethink our approach to it. If we need to benchmark people’s abilities, we are going to have to rely on testing in controlled environments, but education should be so much more than metrics.
We can let history students virtually live the experiences they study, and we too busy are bemoaning the death of the at-home essay. Some skills previously valued might atrophy across the populace as we recalibrate, but we have more tools than ever to get people excited to learn and to stave off atrophy. Technology is not damaging them, but that does not mean we can sit idly by either.