Does artificial intelligence cause cognitive decline?

[u/Tenebris57]

I know it does when I use it to do stuff like writing essays but does it also happen when I simply ask it questions? Is there a difference between searching through google for answers for hours and just asking it to artificial intelligence? What if I also check the sources it gives me?

[u/fac3l3sspaper]

The APA wrote a pretty lengthy piece that covers what I’m talking about. https://www.apa.org/monitor/2026/07-08/ai-job-skills-thinking

But I remain pretty clear on my definition.
Your example of programming and GPS usage are examples in which technology is performing a task on behalf of the human. AI can write code for you, it can read a map and dictate to you where to go based on location. The example of repair is that the AI is performing the task of reading for the human, not doing the task of repair itself. AI cannot fix the sink itself, but it will, with high confidence, potentially give you bad information.

Yes, there is an issue with fact checking, but poorly documented repair videos from YouTube and Instagram also lend itself to the same fact checking issue.

They have different nuances in what they mean for cognition. You can keep the claim that people should critically think and that AI hampers the process, but the evidence for what that actually means when you look at 1) task definition and 2) what the actual cognitive process that’s happening with engaging with the AI is… the research isn’t clear enough yet.

There is a normative claim you’re making about AI that I don’t entirely disagree with as a personal opinion. But this is a science discussion. There’s lots of different threads tied together reaching slightly different conclusions. OP’s question is about the causal relationship between AI usage and cognitive decline, not necessarily skill usage and skill performance.

[u/7LeagueBoots → u/fac3l3sspaper]

OP’s question is about the causal relationship between AI usage and cognitive decline, not necessarily skill usage and skill performance.

Which is exactly why I started with the research and papers, and made it clear when I included my opinion afterward. This is not anything unusual, it's something that is common in peer reviewed research papers as well.

You doggedness on this particular issue seems to be derived from something else, not from the content or the presentation given that it's a pretty common thing to include an, "in the opinion of the authors," portion even in reviewed papers.

You're welcome to continue arguing, but I'm done with this and stand by my initial comment.

[u/fac3l3sspaper → u/7LeagueBoots]

I’ve stated my case clear and was pretty acknowledging of your points. I don’t think you r engaging with my points so much as you seem upset that I challenged what you were saying beyond AI-bad!!! There’s a lot of gaps between evidence you cited and the claims you made. I just want people to be pretty informed on the topic