Physicist Wolfgang Pauli dismissed a muddled theory with this single, scathing line: "That is not only not right; it is not even wrong." It sounds pedantic, but Pauli's point is an important one. Some claims are wrong not because they contradict evidence, but because they can't be tested at all. And that distinction is just as relevant when debating on social media today as it was when applied in the field of 20th-century physics.
Our Greek forebears, as early as Hippocrates, coined the term "kρίσις" to describe a "turning point"; kρίσις, a word related to the Proto-Indo-European root krei-, is etymologically connected to practices like "sieving," "discriminating" and "judging." In fact, the most widely mentioned skill we humanists offer our students, critical thinking, originates from the same practice of deliberate "sieving." Thus, when we call ourselves critics and write critical theory, we admit that crisis might just be our natural habitat.
The fretting has swelled from a murmur to a clamor, all variations on the same foreboding theme: " Your Brain on ChatGPT." " AI Is Making You Dumber." " AI Is Killing Critical Thinking." Once, the fear was of a runaway intelligence that would wipe us out, maybe while turning the planet into a paper-clip factory. Now that chatbots are going the way of Google-moving from the miraculous to the taken-for-granted-the anxiety has shifted, too, from apocalypse to atrophy.
Prescribed burns reduce fuels, leading to less intense wildfires, along with other proven benefits, such as promoting the resilience of forest habitats. Carefully managed prescribed burns are a vital component in our efforts to combat the threat of wildfire, which increases with the intensification of climate change and the growing proximity of human populations to wildlands. This initiative helps not only property owners but also anyone who values public lands and the cleaner air that comes with a reduction in wildfire intensity.
We're told to "trust our gut," and to look for shifty eyes or nervous fidgeting. Detectives in movies and TV shows spot liars through micro-expressions. Yet across hundreds of experiments, the average rate of accurate lie-truth discrimination is 54% (Bond & DePaulo, 2006). In fact, computers often outperform judges on deciding who will skip bail, and seasoned police officers who are most confident in their "lie-detecting" abilities are often the least accurate (Gladwell, 2019).
AI models can tend to be "yes-men." They are sycophantic by design, meaning they agree with us, support our ideas, and want to help. Part of the reason I think so many AI projects fail is because the human factor is overlooked. The same biases that apply to us also apply to AI, so it's important to factor in psychological principles when building experiments, agents, and automation.
Agency is what keeps us from running on cognitive autopilot. Artificial intelligence now offers to do much of that work for us. With a single prompt, we can receive elegant summaries and polished solutions that are so smooth and immediate that they can (and often do) lull us into submission. If we aren't careful, we risk becoming passengers in our own intellectual journey, letting the machine set the course.
So, I understand why so many bloggers and organizations are integrating AI tools into their writing workflows. It's tempting because it's fast and actually "works". But, here's the thing: that 800-word op-ed or heartfelt LinkedIn post - all generated with AI? That's not actually thought-leadership. In fact, a new study from MIT suggests that the use of ChatGPT actually harms critical thinking abilities.
Forty percent of teens trust AI advice without question because AI is programmed to agree and validate. AI validation bypasses cognitive struggles needed for developing critical thinking during brain formation. Parents can counter AI dependency by offering alternative perspectives immediately after AI interactions.
Experiential learning is a student-centered approach that emphasizes learning through doing. Instead of passively receiving information, learners actively engage in realistic tasks, reflect on their actions, and adapt their strategies.
