Online Reporter
Dr Evans Sagomba
Everything AI
ARTIFICIAL Intelligence has arrived in our lives with dazzling speed.
Tools like ChatGPT have become the invisible assistants of our daily routines, drafting emails, polishing essays, generating reports, and even scripting speeches.
For many, it feels like magic: a machine that can write with fluency, mimic human tone, and deliver answers in seconds, yet beneath this convenience lies a quieter, more troubling story.
Recent research from MIT has sounded the alarm: heavy reliance on AI writing assistants is not simply changing how we work; it is changing how our brains work.
The study revealed that frequent use of Large Language Models (LLMs) for writing tasks leads to what researchers call “cognitive debt.”
In plain terms, our brains are engaging less. Neural activity in regions responsible for memory and critical thinking diminishes when we lean too heavily on AI.
Participants who depended on ChatGPT struggled to recall their own words, with over 80 percent unable to accurately quote text from essays they had produced with AI assistance. What does this tell us? The more we outsource our thinking, the less we actually own it.
This is not a trivial concern. Memory and critical reasoning are the bedrock of human intelligence. They are the faculties that allow us to learn, to argue, to persuade, to innovate. If these are dulled by over-reliance on machines, we risk becoming passive consumers of ideas rather than active creators. The danger is not that AI will outthink us, but that we will stop thinking altogether.
Let me be honest: writing is hard. It demands focus, patience, and the willingness to wrestle with ideas until they take shape. AI offers a seductive shortcut. Why struggle with phrasing when a machine can produce polished sentences in seconds? Why labour over structure when an algorithm can generate a neat outline? But here lies the trap. The difficulty of writing is what makes it valuable. Wrestling with words forces us to clarify our thoughts. Drafting and redrafting sharpen our arguments.
Memory is strengthened when we recall facts to support our claims. Critical thinking is honed when we weigh evidence and anticipate counterpoints. Remove the struggle, and you remove the growth.
AI-assisted writing risks turning us into spectators of our own work. We watch as the machine produces text, nod approvingly, and move on. Yet the words are not truly ours. They lack the imprint of our cognitive labour. And when asked to recall or defend them, we falter.
This is not a call to abandon AI. Far from it. The MIT study itself offers a hopeful remedy: AI should augment, not replace, critical thinking. Those who began with their own writing before turning to AI exhibited stronger cognitive involvement and greater ownership of their work. In other words, the danger lies not in using AI, but in using it too soon, too often, and too uncritically. We must therefore have a dialogue, not just with machines, but with ourselves. What do we want AI to be? A crutch that weakens our intellectual muscles, or a tool that strengthens them?
The answer depends on how we choose to engage.
Imagine two learners preparing essays. One begins by asking ChatGPT to draft the entire piece. The other sketches her own ideas, writes a rough draft, then uses AI to refine phrasing and check grammar. The first learner may submit a polished essay, but she will struggle to recall its arguments. The second will submit an equally polished piece, but she will remember her reasoning, defend her claims, and grow from the process. The difference is not in the tool, but in the order of engagement.
Another danger of over-reliance on AI is the creeping homogenisation of thought. LLMs are trained on vast datasets of existing text. Their outputs, however, fluent, are essentially recombination’s of what has already been written. When millions of people use the same tool to generate ideas, the risk is that our discourse becomes flattened, predictable, and derivative.
If learners use AI to generate essays, classrooms may echo with uniform arguments. The richness of human creativity lies in its diversity, its unpredictability, and its willingness to break patterns. AI, by design, reproduces patterns. This is not to say AI cannot inspire creativity. It can spark ideas, suggest angles, and provide references. But the danger is when we allow it to dictate rather than inspire. The more we outsource originality, the more we risk losing it.
The MIT study highlighted that many participants struggled to recall their own AI-assisted essays. This is more than a cognitive lapse; it is an existential one. If we cannot remember our own words, can we truly call them ours?
The erosion of ownership risks eroding accountability. How do we defend ideas we did not fully create? How do we stand by arguments we did not fully think through? In public discourse, this erosion is dangerous. Human beings rely on the integrity of their words. If those words are increasingly machine-generated, the line between authentic conviction and algorithmic convenience blurs.
Trust in discourse depends on the belief that speakers mean what they say. Over-reliance on AI threatens that trust.
So, what can we do? The answer lies in deliberate practice. AI should be used as a partner, not a replacement. Begin with your own ideas. Draft your own words. Wrestle with the difficulty. Only then invite AI to refine, polish, or expand. In this way, the machine becomes a collaborator rather than a substitute. Think of it as an intellectual exercise. Just as physical health requires active movement, cognitive health requires active thinking. AI can be the trainer who corrects your form, but you must still lift the weights. Without the effort, the muscles atrophy.
Educators have a crucial role here. Instead of banning AI, they should teach students how to use it responsibly. The broader lesson is balance. AI is a powerful tool, but it must be balanced with human effort. Convenience must not eclipse cognition. Speed must not replace depth. Assistance must not erode ownership. The path of over-reliance leads to cognitive debt, diminished memory, and homogenised thought. The path of balanced engagement leads to augmented intelligence, stronger reasoning, and preserved creativity. The choice is ours.
About the Author: Dr Evans Sagomba is a Doctor of Philosophy and Chartered Marketer (CMktr, FCIM) with an MPhil and PhD in Philosophy. He specialises in AI, Ethics, and Policy Research, and is an AI Governance and Policy Consultant. His expertise extends to the Ethics of War and Peace, Philosophy of Development, and Political Philosophy. [email protected]. ORCID: 0009-0007-0681-0329.
Social media handles; LinkedIn; @ Dr. Evans Sagomba (MSc Marketing)(FCIM )(MPhil) (PhD), X: @esagomba
