For some time now, researchers have been warning that GEN AI is a seductive technology that threatens to suck us in and hollow us out – cognitively speaking. At the same time, it can be an enormously helpful tool for learning and work. It would be foolish to ignore its benefits.
David Brooks in this timely article draws on a wealth of research to tackle this conundrum head on. He warns that if we sit down and fold our arms, we could be looking at a future of extreme cognitive polarization and a further widening of economic inequality.
Some will work hard to resist AI atrophy and will find ways to use GEN AI intentionally to strengthen their mental capabilities. They are likely to get more and more productive, increase their agency and options, and become happier (and wealthier) as a result.
Those who dislike mental effort and frequently look to GEN AI solely for an easy life are likely to experience a decline in critical thinking skills, curiosity, agency, and economic options.
Research shows that this cognitive decline could happen very rapidly indeed.
Basic neuroplasticity really.
So how do we use GEN AI to enhance (and not erode) our mental capabilities?
David Brooks highlights the following evidence-based techniques:
- “Ask for hints, not answers: People who ask AI to directly answer their questions suffer severe declines in motivation and ability. But people who ask AI for background thinking or clarifications do not.”
- “Start with a blank page: Before you go to the bot, start with a blank piece of paper, and write up your own analysis and conclusions. Then ask AI to challenge your thinking, not produce it.”
- “Rotate tasks: Every time you do a task with AI, follow it with a task that does not involve AI. That will keep your creative effort muscles alive.”
- “Redesign the bots: General chatbot use undermines learning. But as the writer Alberto Romero notes, AI tutors actually improve learning and motivation. That’s because although chatbots mostly answer questions, tutors lead students on structured learning journeys. It should be possible to redesign the normal bots so that they function less like encyclopaedias and more like personal trainers whose jobs are designed to build mental muscles rather than replace them. “
- “Make a sharp distinction between rote work and creative work: Let AI write functional emails. Don’t let it write your essays or your memos. Shame people who do.”
- “Ask for thinkers not thinking: My favourite trick when using Claude is to never ask it to think through a problem for me. I ask it to summarize the thinkers who have already addressed a given problem. If I am trying to understand child development, I ask it to imagine a debate between Jean Piaget and Erik Erikson. What would these two great psychologists say to each other about the problem I am wrestling with? Then I ask it what books by these thinkers I should read if I want to understand their work. I get much better results from AI when I treat it as a brilliant librarian rather than as an oracle.”
A key takeaway from David Brooks’ article is that what really matters in an AI age is not “IQ” nor “brain power”. It’s the motivation to work hard and put knowledge to creative effect. The winners will want to struggle, to endure, to have an explorer’s heart and take on challenging tasks even though they involve discomfort, suffering, mistakes, and failure. Some would argue that this has always been the case.
The emerging cognitive polarisation is by no means inevitable. But parents and educators must understand that learning to fire up motivation to run the mental marathons that will produce high quality results is one of their most important tasks.
End. Penny Carballo-Smith 13 July 2026.