Is AI making us stupid? Big claims, limited evidence

AI can be a shortcut around thinking or a tool for thinking harder. The difference depends on how we engage with it

The prevailing narrative today paints a picture of a civilisation on the brink of cognitive collapse, warning that artificial intelligence is quietly eroding our capacity for critical thinking.

Research often highlights that relying heavily on AI tools can lead to "cognitive offloading", where users bypass independent analysis and let machines do the heavy lifting. The fear is that as AI takes over routine tasks, our intellectual muscles will atrophy, leaving us vulnerable to manipulation and unable to navigate complex decisions.

But this handwringing misses a fundamental truth about human nature. We have always been cognitive misers, and the vast majority of our lives do not run on deep, deliberate analysis. We wake up, brew the coffee, navigate the commute, and respond to predictable emails, not through rigorous logical deduction, but through deeply ingrained behavioural scripts.

Everyday life is, for the most part, highly predictable, and our responses are inherently automatic. If we were forced to apply true critical thinking to every mundane choice, the sheer decision fatigue would paralyse us before noon. The reality is that AI isn't robbing us of our critical thinking in these moments; it is simply automating the automation we have already built into our daily routines.

The evidence is less certain than the panic

The panic surrounding AI's impact on our intellect assumes that before generative algorithms arrived, humanity was perpetually engaged in Socratic dialogues at the grocery store -- we weren't.

We were relying on heuristics, trusting familiar interfaces, and seeking the path of least cognitive resistance. While some argue that frequent AI use reduces opportunities for reflective thought, this overlooks the fact that everyday living isn't about critical thinking in its purest sense -- it is about efficiency and survival in a stable environment.

Interestingly, a September 2026 review published in the International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction examined 80 empirical studies on AI and critical thinking and found a much more complicated picture than the panic ridden headlines suggest.

The studies reported contradictory findings, while also revealing major gaps in how critical thinking itself is defined and measured.

The researchers found that only 23 of the 80 studies explicitly defined what they meant by "critical thinking".

A majority relied on self-reporting rather than observing whether people actually demonstrated critical thinking, and only 10 studies provided clear and reproducible criteria for identifying an actual effect.

The findings themselves were hardly a verdict on AI. Fifty studies reported a positive influence of AI on critical thinking, 10 reported a negative influence, 19 found mixed effects and one found no influence.

The researchers, however, were careful to point out that these numbers represented the studies' reported findings, not proof that AI improves or damages critical thinking. They had not assessed the quality of each study.

Much of this research involves students rather than working professionals. 64 per cent of the studies involved students, while only four focused, specifically on professionals.

Most interventions were also short, with 62 per cent lasting less than four hours, and only one study included a follow-up measurement.

In other words, we may be getting ahead of the evidence. The research certainly raises legitimate concerns about overreliance on AI, but it does not yet justify the simple sweeping conclusion that AI is systematically destroying human critical thinking. In fact, the researchers themselves point to the difficulty of knowing what exactly is being measured when researchers talk about "critical thinking".

A new Stanford HAI study published in October 2026 adds another dimension to the debate.

Researchers analysed roughly a quarter of a million anonymised chatbot conversations and found that many users were actively engaging with AI rather than simply accepting its answers.

They asked it to explain its reasoning, introduced friction into the exchange, and used the responses to refine their own thinking.

As Stanford's researchers suggest, people can use AI to challenge their assumptions and improve their work, rather than treating it as a free pass to avoid thinking.

This does not prove that AI improves critical thinking over time. But it does challenge the assumption that using AI necessarily means surrendering intellectual effort.

Asking a machine to produce an answer and using it to test an idea are not the same activity. The difference lies in how we engage with the tool.

We were never thinking deeply all the time

Critical thinking is undeniably vital, but it is often contextual. It is the friction required when a predictable pattern breaks, or when a high-stakes decision demands our full, undivided attention.

It is a tool to be pulled from the cognitive toolbox, when necessary, not a continuous hum in the background of a standard Tuesday.

For the average professional, these tools aren't replacing deep philosophical inquiry; they are simply managing the predictable, so we don't have to.

We need to stop romanticising the cognitive demands of the mundane. Our reliance on automaticity is an evolutionary feature, not a bug. By allowing algorithms to handle the highly predictable aspects of our days, we might actually be reserving our limited bandwidth for the rare moments that truly demand genuine discernment.

Ultimately, if humans were naturally predisposed to critical thinking in their day-to-day lives, the irony of current maladies in society and the world stands as a stark antithesis.

Critical thinking would have ensured a far better world and a better quality of life than what currently exists for most people.

The persistence of widespread systemic failures, irrational conflicts, and knee-jerk behaviours is proof enough that automaticity, not deliberate analysis, has always governed human existence -- with or without AI.

(Sreejith Sreedharan is a technology analyst and author of Future of Work - AI Augmented Autonomous Decentralised. He works on organizational AI readiness and created the AI Instinct Index®, a psychometric diagnostic designed to assess behavioural readiness for AI adoption and adaptive capacity in constraint-heavy environments. Views expressed are personal and do not necessarily reflect those of Firstpost.)