AI and the Brain: Answering the Questions Everyone’s Asking

Posted on by Mikayla Hull

The uptake of AI has moved from a novelty to daily habit for hundreds of millions of people in the space of a few years. That speed has left the science trailing the adoption, but a wave of studies published over the past year are starting to give real answers to the questions people are actually asking. While the evidence in the neuroscience field is still in its infancy, there are some interesting themes emerging.  Below are some common questions I’ve encountered over the past year by concerned AI users from a variety of backgrounds and industries, with some associated early evidence.

Is AI making us worse thinkers?

Not exactly, but it does seem to be changing when and how hard we think. The clearest evidence comes from MIT Media Lab’s “Your Brain on ChatGPT” study, which had 54 participants write essays while wearing EEG headsets, either using ChatGPT, using a search engine, or working entirely unaided. The unaided group showed the strongest, most widespread neural connectivity during the task; the search-engine group was intermediate; the ChatGPT group showed the weakest overall neural coupling.  That doesn’t mean people using AI produced worse essays.  In fact, human and AI judges often scored the AI-assisted essays competitively. What changed was how much cognitive work went into producing them, and how well people retained what they’d made. In the first session, 83% of ChatGPT users couldn’t correctly quote a sentence from an essay they’d written minutes earlier, compared to about 11% in the other two groups.

If I stop using the AI, does my brain “snap back”?

Not immediately, according to the same study. A subset of participants was reassigned to the opposite condition in a fourth session — people who’d used ChatGPT for three sessions had to write unaided, and vice versa. The group moving from ChatGPT to unaided writing still showed weaker neural connectivity and reduced engagement, even with the tool taken away. The carryover suggests the effect isn’t purely situational — something about sustained AI reliance seems to persist for at least a little while after the tool is gone. The reverse was more encouraging: participants moving from unaided writing to ChatGPT showed a network-wide spike in connectivity and higher recall, suggesting the deficit isn’t necessarily permanent, just slow to reverse.

Do we actually trust AI too much as a society?

Most likely. A Wharton team ran three preregistered experiments with 1,372 participants, giving them reasoning problems where an AI assistant was sometimes deliberately programmed to produce wrong answers. When the AI was wrong, about 80% of participants followed it anyway, performing worse than if they’d had no AI assistance at all. Trust in the AI was the strongest predictor: people who trusted the tool more had roughly 3.5 times greater odds of following its faulty answers. Only around 20% of participants actively caught and overruled the AI’s mistakes. The researchers call this pattern “cognitive surrender”, which refers to a conscious decision to trust AI, but a quiet failure to scrutinize what it produces. A related survey of knowledge workers by Microsoft and Carnegie Mellon researchers found the same effect in real workplace use: higher confidence in generative AI tracked with less critical thinking, and a shift from active problem-solving toward passive review of AI output.

Does using AI to check facts make me better at spotting misinformation on my own?

Apparently not much. A follow-up MIT Media Lab study found that conversations with AI reduced people’s belief in misinformation in the short term but built no lasting ability to detect it independently. The researchers compare this to how GPS may have eroded our capacity to navigate without it….the tool solves the immediate problem without transferring the underlying skill.  So it may be that our brains are being wired to decrease the ability to objectively scrutinize the information around us.

Is AI making everyone think and write more alike?

There’s early evidence of this too. In the MIT essay study, ChatGPT-assisted essays converged on more similar language and content than essays from the unaided or search-engine groups.  In other words, participants using AI tended to reach for the same phrasing and the same named entities. A separate, broader paper in Trends in Cognitive Sciences looked at this at scale across large language model usage and found a similar homogenizing effect on human expression and thought. If AI systems are trained on similar data and tend toward similar “safe” outputs, it stands to reason that heavy reliance on them could narrow the range of how people express ideas, though this is an early and still-developing area of research.

Is this just a problem for students, or does it impact experts too?

Both, but in different ways. Most of the research above involves people still building skills, like students, general knowledge workers, developers. A separate study of computer program developers learning a new coding library with and without AI assistance and found that AI sped up task completion but measurably slowed how well developers actually learned the material. So, what we are seeing is an impact on the rate of skill formation.  The shortcut works, but the underlying competence doesn’t develop the same way.

A different and arguably more unsettling finding comes from a year-long study of practicing oncologists. AI assistance improved their diagnostic accuracy but appeared to affect their subjective confidence in their own clinical judgment. This isn’t a failure to learn, but something closer to “intuition rust” in people who already have the expertise. It suggests AI reliance can erode confidence, even in situations where it clearly makes people more accurate.

Does this mean I should stop using AI tools?

The research doesn’t point that way. One of the more useful findings comes from Michael Gerlich, a researcher whose earlier work is often cited as evidence that AI erodes critical thinking. In a follow-up study, he had 150 participants write essays under three conditions: no AI, unguided ChatGPT use, and ChatGPT use with structured prompting. His conclusion was that the offloading effect depends heavily on how people engage with AI, not simply whether they use it.  What it suggests is that deliberate, scaffolded use can support critical thinking rather than erode it. In simple terms, that means putting structure, guidance and human oversight around AI so that it improves people’s work without replacing their judgment. That distinction, passive offloading versus active, structured engagement is probably the single most actionable takeaway across this entire body of research.

How solid is all of this, really?

Considering how new all of this is, the data are reasonably solid in direction, but still early in certainty. The flagship MIT study is a preprint, not yet peer-reviewed, with a sample of 54 people (only 18 completed the crossover phase), testing one model (GPT-4o) on one task (short essay writing). The Wharton and Microsoft/CMU studies have larger samples and add real-world workplace data, but every study in this space shares the same limitation of being short-term. Sessions span weeks or months, not years.  That’s the biggest open question left in the field:  what happens over years of sustained AI use, rather than months, and how that plays out differently for adults with established cognitive habits versus younger users whose skills are still forming. Almost nothing exists yet on that timeline, and it’s the gap every author in this space points to next.

Across writing, reasoning, factchecking, coding, and medicine, a consistent pattern is emerging: AI tools that solve a problem for you tend to reduce the depth of engagement, memory formation, or confidence that comes from solving it yourself.  However, the size and duration of that effect look different depending on how deliberately the tool is used. None of the current research supports avoiding AI but rather suggests that you are likely doing your brain a disservice by putting total reliance and unconditional trust in its output.

 

References:

Gerlich, M. (2025). AI Tools in Society: Impacts on Cognitive Offloading and the Future of Critical Thinking. Societies, 15(1), 6. https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/15/1/6

Gerlich, M. (2025). From Offloading to Engagement: An Experimental Study on Structured Prompting and Critical Reasoning with Generative AI. Data, 10(11), 172. https://doi.org/10.3390/data10110172

Kosmyna, N., Hauptmann, E., Yuan, Y. T., Situ, J., Liao, X. H., Beresnitzky, A. V., Braunstein, I., & Maes, P. (2025). Your Brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of Cognitive Debt when Using an AI Assistant for Essay Writing Task. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.08872. https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.08872

Lee, H. P., Sarkar, A., Tankelevitch, L., Drosos, I., Rintel, S., Banks, R., & Wilson, N. (2025). The Impact of Generative AI on Critical Thinking: Self-Reported Reductions in Cognitive Effort and Confidence Effects From a Survey of Knowledge Workers. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25), Article 1121. https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713778

Rani, A., Danry, V., Liang, P. P., Lippman, A., & Maes, P. (2026). Dialogues with AI Reduce Beliefs in Misinformation but Build No Lasting Discernment Skills. In Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’26), Article 792. https://doi.org/10.1145/3772318.3790656

Shaw, S. D., & Nave, G. (2026). Thinking—Fast, Slow, and Artificial: How AI is Reshaping Human Reasoning and the Rise of Cognitive Surrender. Wharton School Research Paper / SSRN working paper. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=6097646 (preprint: https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/yk25n_v1)

Shen, J. H., & Tamkin, A. (2026). How AI Impacts Skill Formation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.20245. https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.20245

Sourati, Z., Ziabari, A. S., & Dehghani, M. (2026). The Homogenizing Effect of Large Language Models on Human Expression and Thought. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. https://www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sciences/abstract/S1364-6613(26)00003-3 (preprint: https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.01491)

Loneliness Is More Than a Feeling – It’s a Hidden Threat to Workplace Performance

Posted on by Mikayla Hull

For years, loneliness was viewed primarily as a social problem. If someone felt disconnected, the solution seemed obvious: encourage them to spend more time with other people. New research published in Nature Communications fundamentally changes that perspective.

Using one of the most rigorous scientific approaches ever applied to the question, researchers from the University of Bristol and collaborators demonstrated that loneliness is not simply a consequence of poor mental health—it is an independent driver of declining psychological wellbeing, reduced life satisfaction, and deteriorating overall health.

For organizational leaders, HR professionals, and anyone concerned with workplace culture, this finding carries profound implications.

The Hidden Difference Between Being Alone and Feeling Alone

One of the study’s most important contributions is distinguishing two concepts that are often mistakenly treated as the same. Social isolation refers to the number of relationships a person has. Loneliness reflects the quality of those relationships.

Someone may spend every day in meetings, collaborate with dozens of colleagues, attend conferences, and maintain a full calendar, yet still experience profound loneliness if they don’t feel genuinely understood, supported, or psychologically safe.

Conversely, someone with a relatively small social network can feel deeply connected and thrive. The research found that subjective loneliness (not simply being socially isolated) was the stronger predictor of poor mental health.

For professionals at every level, this distinction matters enormously. Many people have extensive professional networks but very few authentic relationships.

The Science Behind the Finding

Historically, researchers struggled with a fundamental question: Does loneliness make people unhealthy, or do unhealthy people simply become lonely? To answer this, the investigators combined three independent scientific approaches:

  • Large population studies
  • Comparisons between siblings (controlling for shared childhood experiences)
  • Mendelian randomization, a genetics-based method that helps establish causal relationships rather than simple correlations

All three methods pointed to the same conclusion: Loneliness itself contributes directly to poorer mental health and lower wellbeing. That consistency provides unusually strong evidence that loneliness is not merely associated with declining health, but helps drive it.

The Modern Workplace Paradox

Modern organizations are increasingly connected technologically while becoming more emotionally disconnected. Remote work, hybrid teams, and digital communication dominate. Ironically, many employees have never been more connected—or more lonely.

The result is often:

  • Chronic stress
  • Reduced resilience
  • Emotional exhaustion
  • Eventually, burnout

This new research suggests that those consequences may be driven not simply by workload but by the absence of meaningful human connection.

Why the Brain Responds So Strongly

Humans evolved as profoundly social organisms. Our brains continuously evaluate whether we belong. When we experience genuine connection, neural systems involved in reward, safety, and emotional regulation become more active.

When loneliness persists, the brain shifts into a more vigilant, defensive state. People become more likely to:

  • Interpret situations negatively
  • Perceive greater social threat
  • Ruminate
  • Experience anxiety
  • Become emotionally exhausted

Over time these patterns reduce wellbeing and increase vulnerability to depression. The new study reinforces that this is not simply a psychological experience—it produces measurable consequences for overall health.

Connection as a Performance Factor

Organizations often invest heavily in professional development by teaching communication skills, strategic thinking, technical competencies, and decision-making. While all of these matter, the fact remains that one of the strongest predictors of sustained workplace performance may be something far more basic: The ability to build authentic human connection.

Trust, psychological safety, belonging, and empathy are not “soft skills.” They represent biological conditions that allow the brain to perform at its highest level.

Teams that feel connected:

  • Think more creatively
  • Recover from setbacks more quickly
  • Collaborate more effectively
  • Demonstrate greater resilience under pressure

Questions Worth Asking

Whether you’re reflecting on your own experience or considering your team’s wellbeing, these questions matter:

  • Who truly knows you at work?
  • Where can you be completely authentic?
  • Which relationships consistently restore your energy?
  • When was the last time you felt deeply understood by a colleague?
  • Are you surrounded by people—or genuinely connected to them?

These reflections may ultimately influence wellbeing and performance just as much as discussions about productivity or career strategy.

A New Organizational Priority

Perhaps the most important conclusion from this work is that loneliness should no longer be viewed as a private emotional struggle. It is a measurable health risk. The researchers found consistent evidence that loneliness contributes to poorer mental health, reduced life satisfaction, and worse overall health. While they did not find definitive proof linking loneliness to individual diseases such as heart disease or diabetes, they observed an increased likelihood of poorer self-rated health and living with multiple chronic conditions simultaneously.

For organizations, this means employee wellbeing initiatives should evolve beyond perks and engagement surveys. Creating cultures where people genuinely feel seen, valued, and connected may be one of the most powerful investments a company can make—not only for wellbeing, but for innovation, resilience, and long-term performance.

The evidence is clear: Connection isn’t a luxury. It’s a necessity.

Reference:

Hilliard DD, Wootton RE, Sallis HM, et al. Investigating relationships between loneliness, social isolation and health. Nature Communications. 2026;17. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-026-74758-7

Why Great Leaders Don’t Always Try to Make People Feel Better

Posted on by Mikayla Hull

A new perspective on emotional intelligence in the workplace

When a colleague is discouraged after a failed presentation, a team member is frustrated by a missed promotion, or someone on your team is struggling through a difficult transition, most leaders instinctively try to make things better. They offer reassurance, encourage optimism, and help reframe the situation in a more positive light. For decades, this has been considered the hallmark of emotional intelligence.

But what if that instinct isn’t universal?

A landmark international study involving more than 6,900 participants across 17 countries suggests that one of our most fundamental assumptions about empathy may actually be shaped more by culture than by human nature. The research found that while people around the world generally want to improve their own emotional state, they differ dramatically in how they believe they should respond to the emotions of others. In other words, culture has a far greater influence on how we support someone else’s emotions than on how we manage our own.

For leaders, this finding challenges a deeply ingrained habit: the belief that the most compassionate response is always to reduce another person’s distress.

In many Western, individualistic cultures, this approach feels natural. Leaders are taught to validate emotions, encourage positive thinking, and help people move beyond disappointment as quickly as possible. Success is often associated with personal happiness, resilience, and emotional well-being, making the reduction of distress seem like an obvious expression of care.

The study found, however, that this perspective is far from universal. In many collectivistic cultures—including countries such as Japan, South Korea, China, and India—negative emotions are not necessarily viewed as problems that need to be solved. Instead, they are often seen as valuable experiences that encourage self-reflection, strengthen relationships, build humility, and create meaning through adversity. Attempting to immediately remove someone’s discomfort may actually interfere with an important process of personal growth.

Perhaps the most surprising discovery was not that these cultural differences exist, but where they exist. Across virtually every country studied, people shared a remarkably similar desire to regulate their own emotions toward greater happiness and well-being. The major differences emerged only when participants considered someone else’s emotional experience. Culture, it appears, shapes our beliefs about what other people should feel and what it means to truly support them.

This insight has important implications for today’s leaders. Organizations are increasingly global, with teams spanning multiple countries, cultures, and value systems. A leadership behavior that communicates empathy in one culture may unintentionally signal dismissal or misunderstanding in another. A manager who immediately encourages an employee to “look on the bright side” may believe they are being supportive, while the employee may have preferred the opportunity to process disappointment before moving toward solutions.

The lesson is not that one approach is superior to another. Rather, it reminds us that emotional intelligence is more nuanced than we often assume. True empathy requires more than recognizing another person’s emotions—it requires understanding how they interpret those emotions and what kind of support they actually need.

This opens the door to more thoughtful leadership conversations. Instead of immediately trying to solve emotional discomfort, leaders might ask themselves: What does this emotion mean to this individual? Are they looking for encouragement, or do they simply need someone willing to sit with them in the difficulty? Am I trying to remove their discomfort because it serves them—or because it relieves my own discomfort as a leader? These questions often lead to deeper understanding than quick reassurance ever could.

This research also invites us to reconsider the meaning of psychological safety. Many organizations mistakenly equate psychological safety with making people feel comfortable. In reality, growth, innovation, and resilience often emerge from periods of uncertainty, frustration, and constructive discomfort. Psychological safety is not the elimination of difficult emotions; it is creating an environment where those emotions can be expressed, explored, and learned from without fear of judgment or punishment.

One of the greatest responsibilities of leadership is learning to distinguish between reducing discomfort and facilitating growth. Sometimes people genuinely need reassurance. Sometimes they need perspective. But there are also moments when the most supportive response is simply to remain present while another person works through a difficult experience on their own terms.

Rather than asking, “How can I make this person feel better?” exceptional leaders may begin asking a far more powerful question:

“What kind of support will help this person grow?”

Reference: Ginosar Yaari, S., Tamir, M., et al. (2026). People in more individualist cultures are more motivated to make others feel better. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 123(26), e2533994123. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2533994123

Return to top