Microsoft Corp plans to spend US$80 billion on artificial intelligence (AI) this year, reinforcing its position as a leading vendor. So why has it published a research paper showing an erosion of critical-thinking skills among workers using generative AI tools such as ChatGPT? If we were being generous, we could say it was a genuine scientific enquiry. More likely, it wants to keep ahead of the curve as AI disrupts certain jobs and ensure that its tools remain useful to businesses. At a time when big tech firms are racing to make AI models bigger, that is a refreshingly thoughtful approach to the industry’s business model and its social outcomes.
The study, carried out in conjunction with researchers at Carnegie Mellon University, surveyed 319 knowledge workers about how they used AI, including a teacher generating images for a presentation about handwashing to her students using DALL-E 2 and a commodities trader generating strategies using ChatGPT.
The researchers found a striking pattern: The more participants trusted AI for certain tasks, the less they practiced those skills themselves, such as writing, analysis and critical evaluations. As a result, they self-reported an atrophying of skills in those areas. Several respondents said they started to doubt their abilities to perform tasks such as verifying grammar in text or composing legal letters, which led them to automatically accept whatever generative AI gave them.
They were even less likely to practice their skills when there was time pressure.
“In sales, I must reach a certain quota daily or risk losing my job,” one anonymized study participant said. “Ergo, I use AI to save time and don’t have much room to ponder over the result.”
A similar recent study by AI company Anthropic, which looked at how people were using its model Claude, found that the top skill exhibited by the chatbot in conversations was “critical thinking.”
This paints the picture of a future where professional workers ultimately become managers of AI’s output, rather than the originators of new ideas and content, particularly as AI models get better. OpenAI’s latest “Deep Research” model, which costs US$200 a month, can conduct research across the Internet, scouring images, PDFs and text, to produce detailed reports with citations.
One result is that cognitive work is going to transform — and quickly, Deutsche Bank AG said in a note to investors on Wednesday last week.
“Humans will be rewarded for asking their AI agent the right questions, in the right way, and then using their judgment to assess and iterate on the answers,” research analyst Adrian Cox wrote. “Much of the rest of the cognitive process will be offloaded.”
As frightening as that sounds, consider that Socrates once worried that writing would lead to the erosion of memory, that calculators were once expected to kill our mathematical skills, and that GPS navigation would leave us hopelessly lost without our phones. That last one might be somewhat true, but by and large humans have managed to other uses for their brains when they outsource their thinking, even if our math and navigating skills become lazier.
What is different with AI is that it encroaches on a much broader part of our everyday cognition. We are put in positions to think critically far more often than we are to calculate sums or chart routes — whether crafting a sensitive e-mail or deciding what to flag to our boss in a report. That could leave us less able to do core professional work, or more vulnerable to propaganda. It leads back to the question of why Microsoft — which makes money from sales of OpenAI’s GPT models — published these findings.
There is a clue in the report itself, in which the authors said that they risk creating products “that do not address workers’ real needs,” if they do not know how knowledge workers use AI, and how their brains work when they do.
If a sales manager thinks skills go downhill when they use Microsoft’s AI products, the quality of their work might decline, too.
A fascinating finding in Microsoft’s study was that the more people were confident in the abilities of their AI tool, the less likely they were to double-check its output. Given that AI still tends to hallucinate, that raises the risk of poor-quality work. What happens when employers start noticing a decline in performance? They might blame it on the worker — but they might also blame it on the AI, which would be bad for Microsoft.
Tech companies have loudly marketed AI as a tool that would “augment” our intelligence, not replace it, as this study seems to suggest. So, the lesson for Microsoft is in how it aims future products, not in making them more powerful, but in somehow designing them to enhance rather than erode human capabilities. Perhaps, for instance, ChatGPT and its ilk can prod its users to come up with their own original thoughts once in a while. If they do not, businesses could end up with workforces that can do more with less, but also cannot spot when their newfound efficiency is sending them in the wrong directions.
Parmy Olson is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering technology. A former reporter for the Wall Street Journal and Forbes, she is author of Supremacy: AI, ChatGPT and the Race That Will Change the World. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
More than 30 years ago when I immigrated to the US, applied for citizenship and took the 100-question civics test, the one part of the naturalization process that left the deepest impression on me was one question on the N-400 form, which asked: “Have you ever been a member of, involved in or in any way associated with any communist or totalitarian party anywhere in the world?” Answering “yes” could lead to the rejection of your application. Some people might try their luck and lie, but if exposed, the consequences could be much worse — a person could be fined,
Xiaomi Corp founder Lei Jun (雷軍) on May 22 made a high-profile announcement, giving online viewers a sneak peek at the company’s first 3-nanometer mobile processor — the Xring O1 chip — and saying it is a breakthrough in China’s chip design history. Although Xiaomi might be capable of designing chips, it lacks the ability to manufacture them. No matter how beautifully planned the blueprints are, if they cannot be mass-produced, they are nothing more than drawings on paper. The truth is that China’s chipmaking efforts are still heavily reliant on the free world — particularly on Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing
Keelung Mayor George Hsieh (謝國樑) of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) on Tuesday last week apologized over allegations that the former director of the city’s Civil Affairs Department had illegally accessed citizens’ data to assist the KMT in its campaign to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) councilors. Given the public discontent with opposition lawmakers’ disruptive behavior in the legislature, passage of unconstitutional legislation and slashing of the central government’s budget, civic groups have launched a massive campaign to recall KMT lawmakers. The KMT has tried to fight back by initiating campaigns to recall DPP lawmakers, but the petition documents they
RSS