AI’s Cognitive Consequence by Hasini Chiliveri

As I stared at the lifeless paper, a cloud of frustration hovered over me. The ideas that once flowed effortlessly became foreign as I longed for an easy, efficient solution: Artificial Intelligence. Inexplicably dependent on this emerging technology as the substitution for introspection, I began to recognize the gradual dissonance of my own thoughts. The page’s emptiness revealed more than my artistic hesitation; it exposed the subtle erosion of cognitive ownership in a society of generative thinking.

Our intellectual independence is reshaping through the promising efficiency of AI technology. As Artificial Intelligence gains increasing prevalence, the reformation of behaviors, creativity, and decisions is unavoidable. Safeguarding the principle of independent thought requires examining scientific, psychological, and philosophical perspectives that reshape human cognition and understanding.

Neuroscience reveals that AI technology can replace cognitive depth with external delegation through neural rewiring. Cognitive offloading is a term referring to the act of reducing mental processing through physical actions (Morrison and Richmond). A plausible analysis suggests “offloading relies on metamemory—our confidence in our future memory performance,” whether the offloading entails personal technology or even a simple checklist (Hu et al). The reliance on external factors indicates the level of cognitive offloading, suggesting that the metacognitive evaluation when using AI tools determines an increase in metamemory while decreasing cognitive processing. Similarly, the nature of neuroplasticity prompts constant rewiring—possibly accustomed to AI incorporation. Plasticity argues that the human brain rewires consistently, shaping functionality; through the addition of AI technology, the mind forms new neural pathways tailored to AI dependency. In a 2025 study by MIT’s Media Lab, EEG scans revealed that participants who used AI tools showed significantly lower neural engagement compared to those who didn’t receive aid (Kosmyna et al). Over time, this diminished neural activity correlated with lower memory retention and cognitive ownership—a term coined as cognitive debt. This suggests that AI usage alters cognitive behaviors, impacts an individual’s neuroplasticity, and contributes to cognitive debt, which results in creative loss.

Beyond rewiring the brain, AI tools immerse into core critical thinking replacing authentic perception with generative responses. Psychologically, the Dual Process Theory divides cognitive thinking into two clusters: Type 1 (fast and intuitive) and Type 2 (slow and reflective) (Bellini-Leite). Engaging in computational frameworks reinforces Type 1 thinking—ultimately reducing reflective thought. Through the convenience of mental outsourcing, individuals are able to delegate Type 2 thinking into AI machinery diminishing authenticity and analytical skills. In a peer-reviewed study published in Futurity Proceedings, the findings show that participants who used AI, although performing better on tasks, showed lower levels of metacognitive awareness and critical thinking skills (Mohan). This psychological dependency highlights user vulnerability in an emerging digital age. Expressed in Mohan’s study, the trade between efficiency and intellectual growth reinforces the broader patterns of mental outsourcing. With subtle generative changes to individuals’ thought, psychological boundaries of authenticity and intelligent software blur questioning users’ self-sufficiency.

Philosophically, the reliance on Artificial Intelligence reevaluates users’ cognitive abilities to think, learn, and trust their capacities. As AI systems increasingly construct the basis of knowledge, key concepts such as Technological Determinism emerge, advocating that technology itself shapes human behavior and thought beyond our conscious control (Adler). This theory suggests that intelligent technology is embedded amongst cognitive thinking; AI technology controls the course of thought, rather than support and aid authenticity. A 2021 paper by Mihály Héder explores Technological Determinism in a societal lens capturing the irreversible nature of AI and the indispensable effects it has (Héder). This perspective introduces how AI technology trains and reconfigures the conditions for thinking subconsciously. This may limit future generations’ authenticity and ability to perform without smart technology. Similarly, Nosta argues that “ AI doesn’t just augment intelligence; it introduces a new scale and a new speed—a cognitive velocity—that we are not culturally, ethically, or neurologically prepared for” (Nosta). The exponential threshold AI invites in this contemporary landscape challenges the innovational level society holds. This philosophical tension of cognitive acceleration emphasizes the urgency in preserving individuals’ creativity; AI being introduced so rapidly may leave humanity cognitively unprepared, bearing its irreversible effects.

In the age of intelligent machinery, will we remember introspection . . . or will convenience reshape the human consciousness? The reconstruction of cognition by AI calls for more than adaptation; it seeks resistance in a world of algorithms. The inevitable growth of AI systems will escalate to unreachable heights, but the preservation of individual thought should remain rooted—a stand for humanity. Perhaps AI’s greatest mark isn’t its revolutionary cognitive abilities, but its impact on diminishing the essence of human nature: the ability to think.

As I reach for the pencil, my sentence formation becomes my own act of resistance. The discomfort of writing without AI opens a realm of thoughts to question not just my process—but my very morals. In the silence of the blank page’s echoes, a rediscovery of authenticity emerges.

*This essay, brilliantly written by Hasini Chiliveri (12th grade), is a silver award winner in the prestigious 2025 Horizon Academic Essay Prize competition. Hasini’s writing is in response to the prompt: In an increasingly AI-driven world, how is our ability to think for ourselves changing?