The Impact of Generative AI on Critical Thinking: Self-Reported Reductions in Cognitive Effort and Confidence Effects From a Survey of Knowledge Workers

Paper · Source
Workplace ApplicationsSocial Theory and SocietyCo-Writing and Collaboration

As Bainbridge [7] noted, a key irony of automation is that by mechanising routine tasks and leaving exception-handling to the human user, you deprive the user of the routine opportunities to practice their judgement and strengthen their cognitive musculature, leaving them atrophied and unprepared when the exceptions do arise.

In response, research has begun looking closely at how different activities are impacted by GenAI and the extent to which cognitive offloading [8] occurs, and whether this may be an undesirable thing. Some work has focused, for instance, on studying the effects of GenAI use on memory (e.g., [1, 106]) and on creativity (e.g., [28, 100]). Moreover, design research has also been developing interventions that improve the ability of people to think in certain ways (e.g., [24]). We review these lines of work in Section 2.

Lines of inquiry this paper opens 24

Research framings built by reading the notes related to this paper — the questions it feeds into.

What structural properties of attention create systematic model biases? When should work require human-AI partnership versus full automation? How does AI adoption across firms reshape employment and inequality? Does AI assistance promote real skill development or substitute for independent learning? How can humans maintain meaningful oversight as AI systems become increasingly autonomous and complex? What determines appropriate intervention timing and manner for AI agents? Do reasoning benchmarks predict model performance in long-horizon workflows? What prevents conversational agents from taking initiative in dialogue?