![\"TOPSHOT-CORRECTION](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/1787191694_395_0x0.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
TOPSHOT – CORRECTION \/ A man works on the electronics of Jules, a humanoid robot from Hanson Robotics that uses artificial intelligence, at a stand during the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) AI for Good Global Summit in Geneva on July 8, 2025. (Photo by Valentin FLAURAUD \/ AFP) \/ “The erroneous mention[s] appearing in the metadata of this photo by FABRICE COFFRINI has been modified in AFP systems in the following manner: [Valentin Flauraud] instead of [Fabrice Coffrini]. Please immediately remove the erroneous mention[s] from all your online services and delete it (them) from your servers. If you have been authorized by AFP to distribute it (them) to third parties, please ensure that the same actions are carried out by them. Failure to promptly comply with these instructions will entail liability on your part for any continued or post notification usage. Therefore we thank you very much for all your attention and prompt action. We are sorry for the inconvenience this notification may cause and remain at your disposal for any further information you may require.” (Photo by VALENTIN FLAURAUD\/AFP via Getty Images)<\/p>\n
AFP via Getty Images<\/p>\n
The history of technology in education shows that there is really no quick fix<\/a>. It is true that when calculators first appeared many worried about using it as a substitute for thinking. More recently is the concern over the use of smartphones. And yet, in the cycle of history, when each new technology arrives, it really doesn\u2019t seem to improve education, but neither does it seem to harm it. In fact, technology may more realistically serve as an amplifier<\/a> of already existing individual differences among students.<\/p>\n Earlier this year, Rose Horowitch published a widely read Atlantic piece titled \u201cThe end of reading is here<\/a>,\u201d and recently some UC students seem to have large gaps in their math preparation<\/a>, even though they have been admitted to a top college. If people have reduced their reading, this isn\u2019t a good sign, as I would argue<\/a> that reading great works is important for improved writing, and writing is often a reflection of thinking<\/a>.<\/p>\n So where does this leave us with the rise of AI use in education? James Flynn\u2014who is known for the supposed rise in IQ due to what he argued was the complexification of society and our environment\u2014often noted that humans were getting smarter because we trained our brains<\/a> in the mental gym of our lives, which is getting increasingly more complex. But will AI help us train our brains, or will it make us lazier? Ted Chiang, in the article titled \u201cWhy A.I. isn\u2019t going to make art<\/a>,\u201d noted that \u201cUsing ChatGPT to complete assignments is like bringing a forklift into the weight room; you will never improve your cognitive fitness that way.\u201d<\/p>\n And at least two recent research studies seem to confirm Chiang\u2019s point.<\/p>\n The first study\u2014published in a peer reviewed journal\u2014is titled \u201cChatGPT as a cognitive crutch<\/a>.\u201d The author Andre Barcaui conducted a randomized controlled trial of ChatGPT\u2019s impact on knowledge retention among undergraduate students. Participants were randomly assigned to an AI assisted study group and a traditional study group and knowledge retention was assessed by a surprise test 45 days after learning. From the abstract: \u201cStudents who used ChatGPT scored significantly lower on the retention test (57.5 % correct) compared to those who studied traditionally (68.5 % correct), t (83) = \u22123.19, p = .002, Cohen’s d = 0.68. This suggests that unrestricted ChatGPT use impaired long-term retention, likely by reducing the cognitive effort that supports durable memory.\u201d<\/p>\n The second study\u2014currently a working paper\u2014is titled \u201cThe generative AI learning penalty<\/a>.\u201d The authors David Stromberg, Victor Lei, and Yanhui Wu write in their abstract: \u201cUsing 30 months of panel data on 26,811 Chinese students in grades 7-12, we study how generative AI affects homework productivity and learning. The data combine monthly closed-book exams, high-school and college entrance exams, and homework scores and completion time across nine subjects. We exploit staggered AI adoption in a difference-in-differences design. AI adoption raises homework scores by 18% and reduces completion time by 30%, but lowers monthly exam scores by 20% within six months. High-stakes entrance-exam scores fall by 18 and 24%, with the full penalty emerging only after about two years. The losses are largest in social science subjects, followed by STEM and languages, and are especially large for junior students, high-achieving students, and boys.\u201d<\/p>\n Even though the history of technology suggests that each new technology may not necessarily make us stupid<\/a>, as Nicholas Carr argued about Google awhile back, past technologies have not been Artificial General Intelligence<\/a>\u2014which is meant to be a general problem solver or thinker. We can still choose to use the technology in ways that can augment our own human intelligence, such as speeding up coding or other monotonous tasks in our lives. But we also can choose to use the technology to direct how we think or even largely replace our thinking.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"TOPSHOT – CORRECTION \/ A man works on the electronics of Jules, a humanoid robot from Hanson Robotics…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":145635,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[1691,6744,3013],"class_list":["post-145634","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-agi","tag-a-i","tag-agi","tag-artificial-general-intelligence"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/145634","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=145634"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/145634\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/145635"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=145634"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=145634"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=145634"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}