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.
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS