Artificial intelligence is becoming part of how people study, write and solve problems. But a basic question remains unsettled: what happens when technology does more of the thinking for us?
Devi Sridhar, chair of global public health at the University of Edinburgh, has compared the possible effects of relying on AI with the health effects associated with the rise of streaming. The comparison is not proof that AI harms the brain. Rather, it is a way of asking whether convenience can also bring unintended consequences.
Convenience can change behaviour
When Sridhar was a postgraduate student at the University of Oxford in the early 2000s, she was asked during an interview about the future of streaming. Her answer focused on the possible effects of new technology on human interaction, health and society.
Streaming has since become a major part of everyday life. Netflix’s global revenue is stated to have reached $12.6bn (£9.5bn) in 2026. At the same time, the source connects excessive screen time—particularly among children—with poorer health and wellbeing.
Contemporary media use has also been linked with social isolation, anxiety, depression and poorer sleep. One concern is that people may stay up late watching content, changing routines that support rest and physical activity.
More broadly, the source describes a long-term association between rising GDP per capita in low- and middle-income countries and declining physical activity. Sedentary behaviour is associated with higher rates of chronic diseases, including cancers and type 2 diabetes, as well as more chronic back and neck pain and a lower quality of life.
AI is already embedded in student work
AI use and average daily screen time are increasing. Sridhar has estimated that almost all students at her university use some form of generative AI to produce their work, although she presents this as a guess rather than a measured finding.
A 2026 Higher Education Policy Institute survey reported that 95% of undergraduates had used AI in at least one way, while 94% had used it in assessed work. Those figures describe use, not whether the technology improved learning or caused harm.
The source also cites a recent OECD report that found student performance across its member countries continued to decline, with the lowest average recorded for maths and reading. The report is described as linking poorer scores with longer screen time, increased classroom digitalisation and less reading for enjoyment among children.
These trends may overlap, but they do not establish that AI alone caused the decline. Many changes in education, technology and daily life are occurring at the same time.
Early research raises questions about learning
A study titled Your Brain on ChatGPT used electroencephalography sensors to measure electrical brain activity. It is described as finding that students who used generative AI to write essays had weaker and less distributed brain connectivity than students who wrote entirely on their own.
The evidence is preliminary. It does not yet show what regular AI use will mean for people over years or decades, nor does it establish that using AI inevitably damages cognitive ability.
That uncertainty matters. The source notes that reliable causal evidence about the long-term effects of regular AI reliance on the mind may take decades to emerge.
Why mental effort may matter
Thinking, reading, writing, concentrating and solving problems all require active engagement. If these activities are routinely outsourced, Sridhar raises the possibility that people could practise them less often. The potential consequences are framed as questions about cognitive function, social interaction, mental health, quality of life and healthy ageing—not as established outcomes.
One study of more than 19,000 adults over age 50 found that greater participation in cognitively stimulating leisure activities was linked with lower dementia risk and better cognitive functioning later in life. The finding supports the importance of regular mental engagement, but it does not directly test AI use.
A practical way to think about AI use
For now, the most responsible conclusion is neither that AI is harmless nor that it is necessarily damaging. The evidence supports a more careful question: is AI helping someone think, or replacing the thinking they would otherwise do?
- Notice what is being delegated: generating ideas, drafting text and checking information may involve different kinds of mental effort.
- Keep active work in the process: reading, writing, concentrating and problem-solving are among the abilities raised in the discussion about AI reliance.
- Separate use from outcome: high rates of AI use show how common the technology has become, but they do not by themselves show whether learning or wellbeing has improved.
- Leave room for uncertainty: long-term effects on the brain and mind are not yet established.
As with streaming, the central issue may not be the existence of the technology but the habits that form around it. AI’s effects on thinking, learning and healthy ageing remain open questions—and answering them will require stronger evidence than is currently available.
AI tools were used to assist with the preparation of this article.
Leave a Reply