For decades, educators worried that television, calculators, video games, and social media might weaken the intellectual habits of young people. But the rise of generative artificial intelligence (AI) presents something far more serious: the outsourcing of thinking itself.
We are now facing a cognitive impairment crisis among students due to the misuse of generative AI for academic work. This crisis is not hypothetical. It is already visible in classrooms, consultations, examinations, and oral defenses across universities. Many students are increasingly unable to comprehend readings, formulate coherent arguments, critically analyze evidence, or answer complex questions in real time without the assistance of AI systems.
What is happening is deeply concerning. Students are increasingly using generative AI systems to produce essays, reports, presentations, reflections, and research outputs without first acquiring sufficient mastery of their subject matter, foundational concepts, and intellectual skills. The machine produces the answer while the student bypasses the difficult but necessary work of learning.
This phenomenon is better understood not simply as “AI misuse” but as cognitive surrender. Recent research proposes that human cognition is increasingly becoming triadic: System 1, intuition; System 2, deliberative reasoning; and, System 3, artificial cognition. Under conditions of cognitive surrender, individuals bypass reflection and adopt AI-generated outputs as their own with minimal scrutiny. Rather than merely using AI as a tool, they surrender cognitive agency to it.
This is fundamentally different from using calculators or search engines. Researchers found that when people consulted generative AI systems, they frequently adopted AI outputs even when those outputs were incorrect. Users became more confident simply because AI was present — even when the AI produced wrong answers. Participants with greater trust in AI and lower motivation for effortful thinking were more vulnerable to surrendering their judgment. Cognitive surrender persisted even when participants were rewarded for accuracy and given feedback.
Cognitive surrender is rampant among students. This directly undermines the intellectual competencies that the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) expects colleges and universities to cultivate among Filipino graduates. CHED expects higher education institutions to produce graduates capable of critical and analytical thinking, creative thinking, effective communication, and lifelong learning.
Critical and analytical thinking requires students to evaluate evidence, identify fallacies, challenge assumptions, and construct logical arguments. Cognitive surrender weakens precisely these abilities because students increasingly accept externally generated reasoning without engaging in deliberation.
Creative thinking also suffers. Creativity emerges through struggle, synthesis, experimentation, and reflection. Students who outsource ideation and composition increasingly lose opportunities to build these capacities.
Effective communication deteriorates when students submit fluent AI-generated reports that they themselves cannot defend orally. Even lifelong learning becomes threatened because lifelong learners must possess the capacity for independent study, disciplined inquiry, and continuous adaptation. Students habituated to immediate AI answers may gradually lose these habits.
Perhaps the more uncomfortable question is why this continues despite growing evidence of harm. There is enormous money to be made from AI. Companies compete aggressively for users, subscriptions, market share, and investment. Consultants, vendors, and investors all benefit from widespread adoption. Society hears continuously that AI is revolutionary and inevitable.
This resembles earlier eras when harmful products were aggressively promoted before society fully recognized their consequences.
What should be done?
First, we must acknowledge openly that cognitive impairment associated with generative AI abuse is a serious and growing problem.
Second, schools must ensure supervised periods of reading, writing, discussion, and assessment without generative AI access so students can strengthen foundational intellectual skills. In particular, rigorous training on critical thinking must be conducted for all students.
Third, AI use among young people should be more carefully regulated within educational settings and more carefully governed in society.
Finally, generative AI systems should display clear warnings for students: these systems are not designed primarily to develop student learning, subject mastery, or academically sound work. Use for academic purposes should occur only under qualified supervision.
This issue is urgent because the graduates entering the workforce this year — the graduating batch of 2026 — are the first cohort to have spent nearly all their university years exposed to generative AI. The risk is not merely that these graduates know less. The risk is that they have increasingly surrendered the cognitive processes necessary for knowing anything deeply at all.
It is not too late. But we must first stop pretending there is no crisis. Then we must act decisively before cognitive surrender destroys the entire educational system and the future of our young people along with it.
Dr. Benito Teehankee is a Full Professor of the Department of Management and Organization of De La Salle University. He chairs the Responsible AI Council of the Analytics and AI Association of the Philippines. He also chairs the Shared Prosperity Committee of the Managements Association of the Philippines.
Dealing with the AI cognitive damage crisis among students
Philippines Pandemic
إرسال تعليق