Raw LLM Responses

For context, my earlier comment laid out a fuller critique. This is just a shorter addendum to narrow in on where I agree with you — and where I think the framing goes a bit too far. I actually agree with you on several core points — especially the risk of illusory learning when effortful processing is bypassed. That concern is real, well-supported in cognitive psychology, and worth emphasizing. Where I part ways is mostly in the framing. The opening claim (“you’re probably dumber”) feels rhetorically aggressive rather than scientifically precise. The study you discuss tests a very specific behavior — fully outsourcing writing to an LLM — and the results seem to support a narrower conclusion: disengagement increases when cognition is offloaded wholesale. That’s quite different from claiming a general decline in intelligence. Similarly, EEG data speaks to cognitive state during a task, not long-term capacity. Lower activation can reflect disengagement, automation, or even efficiency, and without longitudinal follow-up it’s hard to justify claims about lasting cognitive harm. I also think this is less an AI-specific pathology than a familiar learning problem. Passive summaries, lectures, and shortcuts have always created false fluency. AI amplifies that risk when used uncritically — but used as a tutor, critic, or reflective tool, it can actually deepen understanding, especially for motivated learners. Interestingly, your conclusion lands in a place I largely agree with: AI should assist, not replace thinking, and struggle matters. My main disagreement is that the evidence supports that measured takeaway — not the more alarmist opening claim. A fairer framing, to me, is: when AI is used to bypass effortful cognition, learning suffers; when used intentionally, it can support deeper learning — but responsibility for thinking must stay with the learner.