AI invites ‘mental laziness’

Friedrich Nietzsche’s well-known essay “On the Uses and Disadvantages of History for Life,” was first published exactly 150 years ago (1874). One of the main insights that emerges from this essay is that an either/or type of thinking is misguided and that it is better to adopt a both/and approach when analyzing anything from history to instructional technology. Indeed, it is rare to find research methods or educational practices that have just benefits and no limitations or vice-versa. Such is the case with the hottest topic in education — the integration of generative AI in instruction.

To be sure, many of the dangers for students and teachers using AI tools such as ChatGPT in the classroom have already been identified and discussed in some depth. These dangers include the problem that the use of AI to complete assignments makes it easier to cheat and plagiarize and that these technologies enable teachers and students to unwittingly rely on inaccurate information. In addition, the rapid development of AI together with the lack of social norms regarding appropriate use, has led to a situation in which many educators feel unsettled and confused about what they should be doing with respect to these new technological tools.

However, much less attention has been given to the issue that the misuse of AI tools by students can lead to a significant increase in what we call “mental laziness.” Mental laziness refers to an unwillingness to think for oneself, the tendency to quit trying prematurely when faced with obstacles, and, most alarmingly, the immediate urge to ask the technology at one’s disposal or the teacher for help. This understanding of mental laziness implies that it is an attitude or habit that undermines some of the most important qualities that teachers wish their students to acquire, namely, perseverance, critical thinking, and creativity.

Can the integration of AI in instruction be done in a way that avoids the danger of making it easier for students to become mentally lazy? We believe so, but much will depend on how teachers and students leverage the new technologies and what type of restrictions schools will place on their usage. The risk is that when students find themselves paralyzed, facing a blank screen at the start of a writing project or a lab report, they will turn to ChatGPT or other tools to complete the project for them.

On the other hand, AI can be used to generate ideas, develop robust outlines, and produce opening paragraphs. Such scaffolding practices can open doors for students’ own thinking, thereby expanding their understanding of an assignment or topic and inviting in different perspectives they may not have thought of on their own. Vygotsky has demonstrated that learning is enhanced when it occurs in connection and through communication with others, even if those others, we would argue, are digital entities.

Novices to AI can be easily enticed by its ability to deliver finished products in seconds, a feat that can take most humans hours or days to replicate. The anonymity of AIgenerated text and visuals is likely to tempt even more students to cut corners and appropriate the products that they need without verifying their accuracy, editing, or reflecting on the information they found. In contrast, students who have been trained in the appropriate use of AI for writing understand the need to rephrase the output of generative AI into their own words. Such process entails reviewing the AI-generated text to grasp its full meaning, followed by focused work to put the writing into their own words while omitting phrases that they don’t know or that do not sound natural. In this way, students learn to refine the work they collaboratively created with AI and, in the process, cultivate their own authentic writing voice and style.

What we don’t want to lose is the slow, tedious work of writing, editing, and rewriting drafts of papers or solving complex math and science questions, which has been shown to produce deep learning. When college professors challenge their students to attend to the process and the quality of their papers, they are not just facilitating the development of their writing skills; they are also helping them become better thinkers. Likewise, when high school algebra or geometry teachers require students to demonstrate how they were able to resolve a tricky problem, they are promoting the advancement of various cognitive competencies. In both cases, students are learning essential skills that will serve them throughout their lives, like the ability to construct a sound argument or analyze a complex problem from multiple perspectives.

Although banning generative artificial intelligence from the classroom may seem like the best way to promote deeper thinking, as these technologies become more pervasive it is incumbent on educators at all levels to learn how to best leverage them to stimulate their students’ mental growth. The challenge for teachers will be how to use generative AI as a collaborative partner and cognitive stimulator, rather than as a replacement for their own thinking.

Illustration by Donna Grethen